Man-made trees and shells will save us from climate change

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Trees suck carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the air and turn it into energy: carbohydrates. Shells are largely composed of calcium carbonate, a stable amalgam made from CO2. Physicist Klaus Lackner would like to imitate those natural processes because "if sustainable development is to succeed, then energy better be cheap, copious and clean." It's the latter part that the natural processes can help with. Lackner has designed"”and his start-up Global Research Technologies in Tucson, Ariz., has built demonstration versions of"”tall towers that can absorb the CO2 in the atmosphere and concentrate it so that it can be stored. "Without carbon capture and storage, fossil energy is doomed," Lackner said at the State of the Planet conference. But what to do with the carbon after you've captured it? "If nothing else, we can inject it into the ground," he said. "But I'm not entirely convinced that we can deal with 2,000 billion tons of CO2, and that is the scale at which we have to operate." Instead, Lackner suggests we imitate the shell-making creatures of the sea and sequester all that carbon in carbonates. The process is simple chemistry, albeit chemistry that requires energy to make it happen, all that's left is to demonstrate it"”and the capture side of things"”on real coal-fired power plants or in vast farms of CO2-scrubbing towers. That is not something the Bush administration has shown much interest in of late, most recently scrapping the FutureGen power plant that would have demonstrated similar technology. "Things were getting more serious," Lackner noted, "and they said: 'Don't bother us, we are only pretending to do something.'"

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe