Or we could just grow hemp which takes in 4x the amount of CO2 as trees and in a cycle of 120 days you can harvest, replant, etc. Hemp cause be used for all sorts of things instead most of which could replace ever cutting a tree down again.

Thank you for sharing this with us 🙋🏼‍♀️💞

The important thing about this technology is it doesn't require much power at all, it collects the CO2 out of the air blown by the wind and every hour or so dips the "leaves" in water to extract the CO2 which goes into canisters. This makes the "trees" much cheaper to make and operate than Climeworks or Carbon Engineering which use fans to suck in air before a huge amount of processing to extract the CO2. So it could be a really viable solution. The issue is what happens to the CO2 afterwards. Carbon Engineering sells its CO2 to oil companies to extract more oil from old fields which is not really a climate solution. Climeworks buries its CO2 deep underground in Iceland permanently, working together with Carbfix and supported by the EU. I'm hoping Klaus Lackner and his Mechanical Trees take the second option, or something close to it.

planting half a billion trees around the world sounds rather trivial. But I guess there's no taxation involved in this.

Device will absorb carbon dioxide but the govt will do with that gas how are we going to dispose off such massive amount without pumping massive amounts of money

I thought about building something like this but do not have the education to do it, I'm glad to see someone else doing it

thanks you for sharing information with us and for this idea we can try to reduce a air pollution problem.

If it's an "artificial tree", it should produce oxygen.

This is much needed lets take it globally every industry on earth must have this government should adapt this in cities and towns initially going further people will afford advantage :its not massive in size

Absolutely very interesting topic of discussion. As we see the public at large doesn't comprehend the emissions from like automobiles.

The amazing information. love you creater.

What about the life efficiency of those machines? I can't imagine one running for 50 years without issues, probably need to replace the PLASTIC filter membrane every year or even faster degrading due to the amount of work (filtering) for a short period of time. What about the area of contact? the only way for it to filter air is by air moving through the membrane so if the area of contact is minimal despite how good its, it cant suck air in like a vacuum so not efficient (debatable? would you rather have a stair that can fit 1000 people but requires people to walk up slowly or an elevator that runs super fast but can only fit 1 at a time and sometimes break?), ++++ electricity +++ coal burn to create electricity + maintenance + ........... - Tree have been on earth for millions of years and doing their job perfectly until humans come and destroy mother nature. Tree might not work as well as the machine but it does have a larger area of contact, free to grow, naturally friendly, green energy, timber, and last forever (debatable? tree does grow itself without the need of humans). - Do you think half a billion trees is a lot? think! we have 7.9 billion people on earth, only if each of us donates 6 cents to plant a tree (to grow 500m trees), I bet in the next 50 years we would have enough trees not only for our generation but the future of future generations as well. Tree is not the problem, man-made issue does. In the world of trash recycling, we create more trash to recycle more trash thus no trash is recycled.

Pre purchase an artificial tree today and receive a free plastic squirrel

Very interesting exploration and I'm interested in installing one. Governments across the globe should come forward to make this available to people to install on roof tops along with solar panels. How may I get one installation panel and how much would it cost me?

Would be better if the carbon could be used as graphene or carbon fibre to replace plastic

The best solution would be to tackle c02 at source before emissions, meaning that you'll have to find a way of earlier conversion of co2 to low carbon before emissions. Moreover, why is synthetic fuel not used even though discovered round 70 years ago?

S0 you are saying a gal of gas 128 Oz or 8 lbs produces 20 lbs of CO2? That is impressive...how exactly is that accomplished? This video is all over the place. First CO2 is needed because it is indeed plant food then you want to zero it out or produce zero CO2. Smdh

The problem aint gone take care of itself so you gotta start somewhere might as well gone head and start here . And yeah , plant some trees around the machine too ...

How much does one of his artificial trees cost? This is a great investment opportunity. Let him put his trees on the market, for many people would buy them!

Thanks for sharing

Save Our Planet

Will they breathe out Oxygen? I find that more important.

he needs to make it affordable for individuals, many people would buy.

Using technologies like this will encourage people to produce even more emissions/pollutants, driving up costs and potentially making the planet worse off.

I really liked this innovation, but let's look on the other side, C02 is a mixture of two elements of which carbon mixes one atom and oxygen two, That means we will be losing one molecule of oxygen from here that planting trees which splits co2 to oxygen

Hello, does anyone know exactly where this takes place because I'm trying to do a science project but I need where this is.

how or where can we get this resin plastic ?

What is the cost of this 1 tree

basically Modular Carbon Capture, and we know carbon capture doesn't work

Great

Why cant the fabrics/industry lead their polluted air into some spherebubbles in some way - and have these aircleaner-machines together with the pollution inside, instead of cleaning (all) the air outside?

nice!

The solution wont be easy for example solar energy is green energy but the toxic waste to produce the solar panel can create 2 to 5 times more emission. The calculation probably around the cost for electricity to run the machine and the cost for the chemical panel, and the question is around wether that cost is less or more than the benefit of the artificial tree.

So, 100 million of these contraptions, or 500 billion trees, I know which I'd prefer. And what about fabrication, maintenence costs, personell costs.

Right. As if Mother Nature doesn’t know how to fix itself 🙄 Just mandate and regulate, why is that so hard?

The statement of 20 pounds of CO2 is produced per 1 gallon of gasoline burned? Really? 1 gallon of gasoline weighs about 6.3 pounds. Where does the extra 13 pounds come from?

It's an exciting idea... But *only* 200 million of these devices are required? Even if they cost $10 (USD) that would never happen. Hopefully we're still early on in the s-curve of this technology, and multiple factors of efficiency can still be gained. Then this could become a critical piece of reducing the pollution we've caused. I just hope the global society doesn't use technologies like this as a crutch to prevent stopping the activities that are killing us in many ways. Not just climate.

Can they develop the artificial tree to the level of replace 10K or 20K real ones?

PRICE?

Leave the CO2 for the plants

create a bacteria that can eat all carbon that includes all life

So the answer to excess carbon is to use heavy industry to produce 200M of these units with a bunch of plastic and steel? How much carbon goes into the production of one of these (ie: when do these offset the carbon it took to produce them) and how long could they even be in service? Trees help eco systems, they help the soil, they help reduce temperatures like heat islands in cities, they are self replicating and easy to clone. I would rather see 500M trees added to the world than 200M steel and plastic structures added.

This is basically about how we get energy. The solution is not to remove the pollution this makes but to get/produce energy without making CO2 in the first place. That is what Tesla is doing. Nonetheless; it would be very good if we could also remove as much CO2 from the atmosphere as we can in the short turn. By that I mean the next several decades.

to expensive but one way more to save the world.

We will get a different ' tree' to produce oxygen.

An Australian professor has debunked this already

Does. The. Polymer degrade. Over. Time and. If. So. Will. It. Release. The. Carbon. It. Has. Captured. Back. Into. The. Atmosphere

so how much oxygen do these trees make, you know like real trees? how much do they aid the ground? how muych shelter and protection do they provide to animals? scam

It would help, if not for the excessive expense. however the carbon-cycle that is occurring, is far larger, than of humans' doing, & we need to pull out the co2, a lot faster than 50 more years.

this is a good idea however is incomplete. because this should be designed as modules to add to all the industry, so the gases are captured directly and make those polluting corporations pay directly for their own pollution, so they have a direct incentive to optimize their processes. then complement with these artificial trees on the top of buildings or on those billionaires skyscrapers that are empty.

Why look for mechanical solutions when all that needs to be done is plant more trees, not cut down the one's we currently have AND put less of these into place. Everything is about money in some way or the other.

ဘယ်လောက်ဘဲ co2ကို စုပ်ယူနိုင်တယ်ပြောပြော သဘာဝရဲ့ လက်ဆောင်ဖြစ်တဲ့ သစ်ပင်တွေကသာအကောင်းဆုံးပါ❤❤

We need to text pollution

instead of investing huge amount of money in research it is better to plan tree... it will protect the word.

It's a cool idea, but I feel bad for the guy who is championing his technology. But I don't like it as a solution. It's like someone saying they're quitting smoking by switching to vaping. It's still a nicotine addiction that needs to be fixed, AKA, It's still society's CO2 addiction that needs to be fixed.

I think it's sad that time and time again, we hear of these great little innovations - and then they seem to lose traction, vanish from the limelight. Where do they go? Why do I not have one in my nearest town already? And the same goes for these breakthroughs in solar and wind energy, great breakthroughs in some cases. But they seem to get put to one side while less efficient, conventional models continue to be installed. Why do we not move on? There was a calculation that if a wave energy collecting boom was placed around Scottish waters - that would be more than enough to supply the UK's needs. That was a suggestion made decades ago, but where is it? We 'still' have fossil fuel fired power stations here in the British Isles, that are put into action when there is an extreme in weather. The government is funding a huge mine in a National Park - in order to extract 20 year's supply of oil and gas. What on Earth does the government think it's doing? It was telling the world it would go 'net zero' by 20 year's time, so already it has broken that promise and failing to find and fund decent alternatives, continuing to put big money into fossil fuels instead. So I don't expect to see these devices fitted in the numbers we need and reversing climate change to acceptable levels in my son's lifetime (let alone the rest of mine).

A woods does this more effectively

The money is not going out there for those. They still want to pocket the cash and live like chapo. Chapo is now telling investors buy gold out there since his investment are not getting the returns they used to get.

I thought this was Microalgae - what a waste

Thanks for this great information !

4:40 check the math on that. I don't see how 1 gallon of gas weighs 6 pounds - there is NO WAY the burnt gallon of gas carbon residue can weigh 20 lbs - I doubt if it would be 2 lbs ~ maybe .02 lbs

Until the next volcano erupts and then that math is all over.

DANG! 😬 I AM NOT IMPRESSED! 🥵 The Algea based Systems that absorb Co² look so much better than this! 😅 Sorry Klaus but you failed! 🤨

Stupidist idea to make something that costs so much when trees grow for free and give a resource. Co2 is just above the minimum needed for plant growth.

Amazing, we worry about food for the growing populations of the world "not" acknowledging that carbon was an thousand times "higher" during the Jurassic period. PLANTS LOVE CARBON.....dhua!!! 🏹🤠👍

Please, do you realise plants thrives on CO2 ?

Really could be a game changer in climate change

What a joke

What's wrong with God's Trees?

We need more CO2 in the atmosphere not less!

Wish few ultra rich people fund this 2 million artificial trees.

Terrible

This is a joke, right?

Exactly what climate change are you speaking about? You and others speak about it as though it's settled science when its not.

we dont need all this goofy technology stop tearing down the forests! this stuff is actually scary to me! having humans developing technology to manipulate the weather on purpose

This is beyond stupid. Make a mechanical treeeeee?!?! That makes co2 to build ??? I think tree's do a pretty good job how about planting some instead. Oooh right the professor has to spend the grant money I get it now ...what it is , it's a load of twoddle .......yeah nice

how much does one cost? can you rent it ?