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