http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccolithop...
and it does it for free and on a scale that humans would have a great difficulty equalling. In addition the ocean precipitates excess carbon as carbonates. There are other organisms such as corals that also remove carbon from the air/ocean.
The biggest problem is that bacteria need an energy source and the most efficient biologic system known is aerobic, which uses oxygen and produces CO2. Plants manage a net gain in fixing CO2 by using sunlight as an energy source. There are geothermal sources for chemical energy but the pathways aren't efficient compared to oxygen metabolism. Anaerobic bacteria can't compete in an environment that contains free oxygen. In anoxic environments, the most efficient bacteria I know of produce either methane or hydrogen sulfide, neither of which is especially good for the environment we live in. Algae that get their energy from sunlight and produce mineral carbonates, or shellfish that live off the algae and also produce mineral carbonates in shell formation, seem like a better bet. There are chlorophyll-containing bacteria, but they can't outcompete algae except in very specialized environments.
The above is why there's a lot more effort put into using algae and higher plants to produce biofuels than into using bacteria. Most everything produced bacterially involves complex molecules, and a lot more bacterial mass than output mass.
because if something goes wrong with the bacteria they may take to much and leave non left for plants which they need to produce oxygen which we need also how would people feel if we threw billions of air born bacteria into our atmosphere could it harm us will it make things worst will it work what will religion think and if the bacteria mutates it may not be able to be killed the same way costing more money also the bacteria used for insulin is safe because the nucleus is removed and replaced with the nucleus that produces insulin it is very costly
Because human history with finding a natural solotuion to a "problem" has been not so stellar. Here is on every simple and very REAL possible impact you mihgt not have considered.
1. Said bacteria is developed.
2. Said bacteria gets out of the lab and into earth environment.
3. The bacteria thrives and begins to eat a significant amount of CO2.
4. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere begin to drop. Goes below 300 ppm nearing pre-industrial level.
5. Bacteria continues to thrive grow and spread.
6. CO2 concentrations continue to drop. Reaches 180 ppm level during the ice ages.
7. Bacteria continues to thrive
8. CO2 concentrations drop to 140 ppm. All plant life which utilizes photosynthesis dies.
9. Without plants for food all complex organisms on plant earth begin to die.
10. Your new bacteria is nearly the only form of life left on earth.
Do i have to say this this is an exceptionally bad an dangerous idea?
Turning CO2 into sugars is metabolically expensive. Unless you have a source of energy, you can't do it. You can get energy from the sun--in which case, we don't need to engineer bacteria, we could just grow preexisting strains of algae.
And, if we kill them after we're done with them, they will start to decay... releasing all that CO2 you just captured back into the air. If we bury the algae, or something like that, it will buy us *some* time, but unless we bury it very deep, it *will* turn back into atmospheric CO2 within a few years, unless we manage to engineer a peat-bog type situation.
One thing we *could* do is grow algae, harvest it, turn it into biofuel, and pump any excess (that we're not using to replace gasoline) back *into* dry oil wells. Though it doesn't really make sense to do *that* until we've stopped pumping out petroleum and burning it.
jim z gives a good answer, there are already organisms that do this. One of the proposed geoengineering solutions is to dump iron into the oceans to enhance the carbon dioxide uptake, since these organisms can be iron-limited. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertil...
Whether this would work or not is up for debate.
As with all geoengineering, we need to have a very good idea what we're doing and proceed cautiously.
there was once an engineering solution to running out of Whale oil too. we put out a lot of CO2 and 'solutions; like carbon capture and others ignore the simpler solution- quit burning fossil fuels.
read the link.. it's a kid's story that is relevant.
we need to "fix" a bunch of bacteria to eat the global-warming denier morons. Without this steady right wing lie, the government might have actually DONE something about global warming... but probably too late now. The Billionaires won.... you lost.
It's already been done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel
But it hasn't been proven comercially. We still need nuclear power.
Or plant more crops , plants of various kinds .
I know this question sounds oddly strange and I don't mean to come off as ignorant, but why not? Why can't harmless bacteria (like the ones we use to produce insulin) be engineered to fix carbon dioxide (I think the ones that naturally can live in the ocean) and turn it into sugar or something? And then take those bacteria and just create vats of them worldwide and put them outside, have them absorb all the greenhouse gases in the air, and then kill them with heat or something after the deed is done.
It sounds like such a simple answer. So why aren't we doing this? Looking at the big picture, isn't this something that could work?
In your proposal, who do you expect to pay for it?
Start by explaining how a solution should be funded. Once you have that answer, there are many alternatives.
Why do we want to reduce CO2?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/th...
Go ahead do it, if it's so simple
