Liberté, égalité, stupidité: French eco-wackos want to replace trees with non-trees
Trees are so 2010. This is 2011 and yesterday’s old-fashioned foliage has been replaced by Treepods. That’s right. Trees are out, Treepods are in.
Gizmag.com has the anti-foliage facts:
[A]n initiative from Mario Caceres and Cristian Canonico of the Influx Studio in Paris, working with SHIFTboston, is looking to roll out a man-made forest of air-cleaning Treepods throughout Boston … which are powered by solar and kinetic energy.
I think that I shall never see, God, a poem lovely as a Treepod (perhaps our best photo caption EVER)
SHIFTboston is an incentive aimed at focusing new, exciting, innovative and environmentally responsible ideas to transform Boston into a more dynamic city. Hoping to help the city of Boston reduce its carbon dioxide, Caceres and Canonico from Influx Studio in Paris have come up with what they describe as a CO2-scrubbing living machine called Treepods, that is said to “embody and artificially enhance the capacity of trees to clean the air.”
The carbon dioxide removal process used by Treepods is based on technology developed by Dr Klaus Lackner, director of the Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy at Columbia University. It enables the energy-efficient capture of carbon dioxide from air. He was inspired by his daughter’s prize-winning 8th grade project which successfully extracted carbon dioxide from the air using a fish tank pump and a battery, and proceeded to create a machine which cleansed the air like a living tree.
Columbia University, the city of Boston and the French. Why are we not surprised that the concept of replacing real trees with ugly, expensive, artificial ones comes from that unholy alliance?
We say it’s a sooper dooper idea. In fact, let’s start bulldozing the Amazon rainforest and installing a bunch of Treepods. Why wait? Let’s start now.
2 questions:
1. where does the carbon go which is collected?
2. Without trees, what will produce the oxygen required for mammals to breathe and live?
so....im the only one that likes them?
im a big sci fi nut, and i think they look crazy awesome, not to mention potentially hilarious for those just waking from a coma begun in the 90s
dont really care what the hell they do, im just digging the idea of finally bringing us into the fashion of the odd and alien. though again, sci fi nerd here.
No. I like them too. I like tech even though it can be used for wrong, tech is not bad in of itself. Do I see a bit of environmentalist stupidity in it? Yes sure, but I got to say that somen parts of the world could use them if region is not very hospitable to wide vegetation. However I do think that it has inherent problems.
Attention, Influx Studio: Dieu est rit de vous!
LOL :-)
Ruben, Good Point. :)
Would the idiots get electrocuted if they hugged one ?
Just a thought.
Treepods are the solution for a problem that doesn't exist. The damn things are probably expensive and it would take billions of them to do the job that real trees easily do---for free. Still, they might have some limited use in congested urban areas or perhaps they could be planted in Hyannis Port across from the Kennedy compound, next to the wind farm.
What do you bet that the new devises cost a hel of a lot more than trees. But at least they'll be hard to maintain. How do you think they'll work after the artificial birds crap all over them?
This one's real good too Ray...LMAO!
Anybody wanna bet that after the loons spend a couple billion billion somebody will do a study and find that these things are causing an extinction of the two peckered gnat or some such thing. Oh the horrors, we'll have to dispose of them immediately but but then it will be discovered that they are a biohazard costing trillions to eliminate.
So, according to the greentards these are perfectly acceptable, yet they will yell, scream and protest if you want to put a fake cell phone antenna tree up. Perhaps they could combine the two.
I am not going to hate too much. The idea and the technology is acceptable to me, especially for some parts of the world where planting trees is not possible either because of weather and location or in places like Tokyo were green places are a commodity, but they seriously need help with the bad air. However I got to admit those trees ARE ugly and if it was possible to plant trees INSTEAD then yes it is idiotic.
It only makes sense in your context if you buy into CO2 causing AGW. Otherwise, why spend taxpayer money on electric trees? If a business wants to spend its own money to plant an electric tree in front of its store, then have a nice day. But stop using tax dollars to solve non-exisent problems--or I'll be gracious and say stop spending tax dollars on problems that has yet to be proven.
Tax payer money shouldn't go to pay for something this ugly and expensive when normal trees are just as good, without tax payers being asked first. I agree that this should be more about private consumers than a whole city. If private consumers want this they can have it, if they can afford it... or else they can put it to a formal vote if the people of Boston (or elsewhere) do not mind tax money going into using this in addition to planting real trees to help with the bad air. I just don't hate on the tech per se because it is actually pretty ingenious.
Thumbs down idiot talk to me. I want to be entertained.
View Comments (23)
1+1=POTATO!!!!1111!!11eleventy
LOLOL! I just got it jukin!
2 questions:
1. where does the carbon go which is collected?
2. Without trees, what will produce the oxygen required for mammals to breathe and live?
so....im the only one that likes them?
im a big sci fi nut, and i think they look crazy awesome, not to mention potentially hilarious for those just waking from a coma begun in the 90s
dont really care what the hell they do, im just digging the idea of finally bringing us into the fashion of the odd and alien. though again, sci fi nerd here.
No. I like them too. I like tech even though it can be used for wrong, tech is not bad in of itself. Do I see a bit of environmentalist stupidity in it? Yes sure, but I got to say that somen parts of the world could use them if region is not very hospitable to wide vegetation. However I do think that it has inherent problems.
Attention, Influx Studio: Dieu est rit de vous!
LOL :-)
Ruben, Good Point. :)
Would the idiots get electrocuted if they hugged one ?
Just a thought.
But, then we would be deprived of comic gold like this http://www.break.com/index/hippies-wail-for-dead-trees.html
Treepods are the solution for a problem that doesn't exist. The damn things are probably expensive and it would take billions of them to do the job that real trees easily do---for free. Still, they might have some limited use in congested urban areas or perhaps they could be planted in Hyannis Port across from the Kennedy compound, next to the wind farm.
What do you bet that the new devises cost a hel of a lot more than trees. But at least they'll be hard to maintain. How do you think they'll work after the artificial birds crap all over them?
This one's real good too Ray...LMAO!
Anybody wanna bet that after the loons spend a couple billion billion somebody will do a study and find that these things are causing an extinction of the two peckered gnat or some such thing. Oh the horrors, we'll have to dispose of them immediately but but then it will be discovered that they are a biohazard costing trillions to eliminate.
So, according to the greentards these are perfectly acceptable, yet they will yell, scream and protest if you want to put a fake cell phone antenna tree up. Perhaps they could combine the two.
I am not going to hate too much. The idea and the technology is acceptable to me, especially for some parts of the world where planting trees is not possible either because of weather and location or in places like Tokyo were green places are a commodity, but they seriously need help with the bad air. However I got to admit those trees ARE ugly and if it was possible to plant trees INSTEAD then yes it is idiotic.
It only makes sense in your context if you buy into CO2 causing AGW. Otherwise, why spend taxpayer money on electric trees? If a business wants to spend its own money to plant an electric tree in front of its store, then have a nice day. But stop using tax dollars to solve non-exisent problems--or I'll be gracious and say stop spending tax dollars on problems that has yet to be proven.
Tax payer money shouldn't go to pay for something this ugly and expensive when normal trees are just as good, without tax payers being asked first. I agree that this should be more about private consumers than a whole city. If private consumers want this they can have it, if they can afford it... or else they can put it to a formal vote if the people of Boston (or elsewhere) do not mind tax money going into using this in addition to planting real trees to help with the bad air. I just don't hate on the tech per se because it is actually pretty ingenious.
Thumbs down idiot talk to me. I want to be entertained.