Cows

Last night we lit a fire in our outdoor firepit and cooked "hobo packs" for dinner.  (If you don't know, hobo packs are simple foil packets filled with veggies and some meat, then cooked by putting them into a fire.  This time we had--as we usually have--potatoes, carrots, onions and ground beef.)


While we were eating Peyton said something about having a bite of pork.  Tracie and I told her that it was beef, not pork, because it came from a cow.


It also just happens that we were using some beef that came from the family farm.  So we mentioned to her that the beef came from "the cows on Grandad's farm."  And then she was saying "I'm eating cow." and stuff like that.

Then Liam said "I want to eat some cow.  Mama, will you cut my cow?"


It's kind of weird, but it was also really hilarious.  I'm glad that they didn't freak out and stop eating when they thought about it as a cow instead of as "beef."

This does not do justice to how funny it was.

Artificial Trees

I was listening to BBC news on my NPR station as I drove home from class tonight. They had a story about artificial trees to remove carbon dioxide from the air. Apparently they cost about $20,000 to build.

Of course, my initial reaction was "what's wrong with real trees? Twenty grand will plant quite a few trees."

So I looked up some stuff. Apparently this idea has been around and in development since 2003 (maybe earlier) and is just now getting to the point where it may work. A couple of different places said that the artificial trees can remove CO2 about one-thousand times faster than real trees.

1000 times faster. That's pretty great!

Isn't it?

Well???

Hmmmm.... I suppose that carbon removal isn't all there is to it.

A real tree can help to moderate temperature in an immediate way--not just by contributing a little bit to long-term climate stabilization.
A real tree is almost certainly going to be more aesthetically pleasing.
A real tree provides habitat for wildlife.
A real tree doesn't usually require much upkeep or maintenance after getting established--I don't know exactly how much the artificial trees need to be worked with, but a couple sources indicate that they will get full in some way and need to be emptied--and have the carbon stored. Real trees just store the carbon without human intervention.
A real tree can help prevent erosion, benefiting a watershed as well as the atmosphere.
A real tree can be cut down (GASP!) and used as a commodity/building material/fuel source. (Yes, burning wood does, re-release the carbon, but I read somewhere that burning wood in a high efficiency wood stove releases less carbon than if the same wood were allowed to decompose naturally. [sorry I don't have the exact reference--but I do remember it was on a website selling/advocating for wood-burning stoves, so it was probably a little biased.])

For $20K one could certainly plant 1000 trees. They may be small at planting time, but the neat thing about living stuff is that it can grow!

I vote for real trees.

Let me make a concession though. I would say that there may be a perfectly good use for the artificial trees in highly urbanized areas. Since the point of these trees is to help sequester non-point-source pollution (like automobile exhaust) there may be a good way to deploy them in cities where it would be difficult or impossible tofind a place to put any new real trees.

Links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2784227.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30251856/
http://www.oilgae.com/energy/nn/b/2009/07/artificial-trees-capturing-co2-thousand.html
http://www.otakuden.com/fashion-main/tech/615-artificial-tree-co2-beware.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/artificial-trees-are-they-better-than-real.php