Not a strange kind of algae, all kinds of algae.

But I call BS on that one, the CO2 output of any power plant is huge, the pressures in any "room" or other finite container would be so huge that they would be fatal to algae and/or plant life inside. And then they'd explode.

Also, plants and algae produce Carbon Dioxide when they respire, like we do. It is sequestering in long-term biomass that we need to do, which is why forest growth is important. Ready-grown forests don't sequester very much Carbon at all.

Plants produce oxygen with photosynthesis. One of the cause of increase of dioxide is deforestation. Amazon Forest covers just 7% of its ancient environment. And without trees oxygen can't be prouced. Now, we need trees too.

Abe is now! I think that's kind of what BM was getting at, but at a higher level of understanding

Trees produce as much Carbon Dioxide they do Oxygen. The only time they take in more Carbon Dioxide, therefore sequestering it, is when they're growing. That carbon ends up as plant matter.

OK. But don't you think that with more trees than now the problem could be resolved in a better way? I haven't ever heard trees produce dioxide anyway. Perhaps I am ignorant (:fuzemb:), but with more trees, there would be more oxygen.

Animals respire, right? They take oxygen from the air, glucose from their food and gain the chemical energy from it to make Adenosine Triphosphate, and Carbon Dioxide and water are produced as waste products. The simplified equation is:

Oxygen + Glucose --> Carbon Dioxide + water + energy

6O2 + C6H12O6 --> 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy

And animals get Glucose ultimate from plants, who produce it using the energy from the sun by photosynthesis. The simplified equation is:

Carbon Dioxide + water -->Sunlight--> Oxygen + Glucose

6CO2 + 6H2O -->Sunlight--> 6O2 + C6H12O6

It's respiration in reverse, isn't it? Plants use this glucose in many ways, for example, the cellulose that makes up their cell walls are massively long chains of alpha-Glucose. With Nitrates they can make amino acids with them, which they use for proteins. All animals get their proteins from eating plants, we are very much parasites of them.

But carbon is only sequestered into cellulose and amino acids and other products when there is actual plant growth, otherwise there is always an equilibrium. The other important use they have for their glucose is the same as us: respiration.

6O2 + C6H12O6 --> 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy

So yes, damn, plants use oxygen and produce Carbon Dioxide.

BM, your words are lost on him. Seriously.

Plants may use Oxygen and produce Carbon Dioxide as well, but they obviously produce more Oxygen the Carbon Dioxide in the long run. Otherwise, the planet would never have managed to get into it's current atmospheric state. So plants remain highly important to the planet's state of wellbeing...

Now I just realised that if we carry on destroying too many plants and forests, we may end up virtually suffocating as the atmosphere changes, though it seems doubtful we'd manage to do that kind of level of damage (given that a large portion of important plant life is plankton in the sea). Just a thought, though.

As Hobo just stated, I wonder if AIN will manage to grasp the concept of the chemical formulae there.

Plants create more CO2 when there is no sunlight

edit: Less oxygen isn't the main reason why destroying the rain forests is bad either, it causes mass erosion of the soil so the land litrally wastes away in the oceans.. (and many more problems too of course)

Actually, oxygen was in the atmosphere long before plants evolved. Anaerobic prokaryotes produce oxygen as a waste product. Since oxygen is a deadly poison, especially to anaerobes, the atmosphere they created killed them of in all but a few remote locations.

So, let's cut all the trees in this fucking world! Because they produce a lot of dioxide! Now, I am joking. But cutting trees is a problem for landslides, flood and avalanche too. Where the humans passed, everything has been ruined. Air, noise and environmental pollution, can't continue...
For example: I saw Alps (I love them, I can't see them sick) with a little snow. And it snowed about three weeks ago! My granda told me that when he was young, it snowed at the end of December and then the snow stayed until March. Now, it snow and two hours later it rain and the snow disappear. This is happening on the mountains too. Glacers, with rain and sunlight, are going to disappear in Italy and in the world. This because of global warming.

The loss of trees is very quickly followed by the loss of soil in many areas, and without soil there is no plant growth, which means no Carbon sequestering in plants. And that's not even mentioning the habitat loss, which should be enough in itself a case against careless deforestation.

But if we cut all the tees how are we gonna play golf anymore :'(

Hmm, well this is away from trees...We could make houses that are in hills. :D No tree cutting required, though the worms would eat through the wall easy enough. Some poeple completely pimp out their houses, with all that solar panels and stuff. I watched something about it one time. This one couple had replaced their roof tiles with solar panels, they had one of those big wind fans (Damnit, my memory is fried) by the back of their house, and they had also made this small dam in their river. They rarely had to use electricity that wasn't produced from their own house and property. So, they had next to none power bills. Thats what I call saving. So if we all do that, we will have no electricity bills...

If only.

Real estate bills, maybe.

Except the trees on the hills

:tard:

I hate houses on the hills. I think hills are beautiful and so they must be respected. I'd reject building everythink on muontains and on hills. But I know it can't be realised. It's just a dream.

He said houses INSIDE the hills, not houses ON the hills, AIN.

Oh, forgive me. I did not read that post well. So, I must say that building houses inside inside a hill, would be worse than building houses on a hill. Why? Inside a hill there aquifers and minerals. Aquifers are the source of brooks and of small torrents. They give their water to big rivers. Near brooks and near little waterway there are a lot of ecosystems and, destroying aquifers, they would be compromised. That's what I think.

But the atmosphere only gained the oxygen for land life forms to appear after the first plants began colonising it and oxygenating the air. I'm not saying oxygen wasn't present, just not nearly as much until this point.

http://www.tenchford.com/_images/Hobbitvisit.jpg

AIN are you just getting this all from Wikipedia?

No, I'm not. I am truly a simple environmentalist. I know what I told you because I watched many documentaries, I read a lot of informations in Internet and in some books. But I think I am too joung to understand what BM wants to tell me, because I haven't study it at school. Next years, when I'll study chemistry, I can interact with BM in a better way.

Do you mean to tell me that the only coherent post you've ever made is an explanation of the affects of building houses in hills? I don't buy it. But I'll be damned if I won't rent it.

No I don't. I mean that I tell you what I know.

Ok here is a think how to help to stop cutting trees, global warming...
1. If you don't want to cut trees we:
- Should make fire with electric.
- Shouldn't make paper with wood, but we should just write with computers. No paper using.
2. There is a lot of posion gas in the world. Where is it coming from? From cars, ships, boats, motor bikes... How to stop that?
Cars, ships, boats and all that must be used with electric and not with oil and this.
People are actually allready working on this.
3. Also the posion gas that is allready on our planet should be destroyed somehow... Someone has an idea?
4. If nothing works... Someone had a strange idea... He said we should:
- Every year make a giant frozen cube (You know - frozen water)
- With very strong helicopter pick up the cube
- And throw it into the ocean. He thinks that would help but who knows...

Thank you, AlienMagi

This is exhausting. Anyone else want to take this one?

Oh and by the way...
I would kill hippies destroyng our world with god damn nasty filty foggy smelly smoke from joints!

Electric doesn't burn. Actually I dont believe electric is a noun.
This is both impossible and extremely inefficient to the effect of saving the planet as we'd use so much electricity
As stated before 'Electric is not some magical force, it magically appears because we burn oil, coil and gas.
Call poppa Electric and his magical wand.
I do and it wont. it's a fairytale idea as the amount of water on earth is constant and throwing an ice cube into the ocean would melt the cube long before it has any effect on the ocean. Your person is a 5 yr old lacking the basic understanding of physics.
Yes thank you very much I did have some steam to let off.
And why is burning cannabis more damaging to the environment than burning tobacco?

Done BM :).

Cheers, mate. When it lets me rep you again...

Gender Bender, I think not.

So, we should also ban smoking, as it contributes to global warming...Peace dude...No wonder those guys talk like that. But, some people now say that breathing the air is bad, because it is filled with so many toxins or whatever. wonderful.