Could we actually build enormous machines to scrub the air and remove any or all human created pollution and bring the levels back down to prior the industrial revolution.

Cymek said:

Could we actually build enormous machines to scrub the air and remove any or all human created pollution and bring the levels back down to prior the industrial revolution.

Yes. Though they need not be enormous. They could merely be very numerous.

Some of the car manufacturers claim that air coming out of the exhaust is cleaner than the air going in.

Cymek said:

Could we actually build enormous machines to scrub the air and remove any or all human created pollution and bring the levels back down to prior the industrial revolution.

The physical chemistry is simple enough and the engineering capability is available… the only issues are scale (given the low concentration of atmospheric CO2) and cost.

dv said:

Cymek said:

Could we actually build enormous machines to scrub the air and remove any or all human created pollution and bring the levels back down to prior the industrial revolution.

Yes. Though they need not be enormous. They could merely be very numerous.

That as well

AwesomeO said:

Some of the car manufacturers claim that air coming out of the exhaust is cleaner than the air going in.

Those car manufacturers say the darnedest things.

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

Could we actually build enormous machines to scrub the air and remove any or all human created pollution and bring the levels back down to prior the industrial revolution.

The physical chemistry is simple enough and the engineering capability is available… the only issues are scale (given the low concentration of atmospheric CO2) and cost.

And source of the energy to remove the CO2, without emitting more CO2 than you remove.

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

Could we actually build enormous machines to scrub the air and remove any or all human created pollution and bring the levels back down to prior the industrial revolution.

The physical chemistry is simple enough and the engineering capability is available… the only issues are scale (given the low concentration of atmospheric CO2) and cost.

And source of the energy to remove the CO2, without emitting more CO2 than you remove.

damn you all and your low carbon utopian future…

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

Could we actually build enormous machines to scrub the air and remove any or all human created pollution and bring the levels back down to prior the industrial revolution.

The physical chemistry is simple enough and the engineering capability is available… the only issues are scale (given the low concentration of atmospheric CO2) and cost.

And source of the energy to remove the CO2, without emitting more CO2 than you remove.

Too easy.

Patches of the Siberian plains are developing trampoline like qualities as CO2 and methane thaws. Sites like these might be as important to address. The task is formidable but can be achieved provided a coordinated effort. All the telescope construction that has been occurring is not dissimilar in logistics and cost I would reason.

Can we use these trampolines to our advantage?

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

The physical chemistry is simple enough and the engineering capability is available… the only issues are scale (given the low concentration of atmospheric CO2) and cost.

And source of the energy to remove the CO2, without emitting more CO2 than you remove.

Too easy.

less easy when you consider the full life cycle carbon cost, but on an operating basis, I agree it’s easy enough…

dv said:

Can we use these trampolines to our advantage?

With the aid of Cirque du Soleil

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

And source of the energy to remove the CO2, without emitting more CO2 than you remove.

Too easy.

less easy when you consider the full life cycle carbon cost, but on an operating basis, I agree it’s easy enough…

Come on …

I mean eventually, all power generation on earth will be non-emitting, and the next generation of equipment built after that will have zero full life cycle carbon cost. I don’t know whether that will be in fifty years or five thousand years but it will necessarily occur.

Postpocelipse said:

Patches of the Siberian plains are developing trampoline like qualities as CO2 and methane thaws. Sites like these might be as important to address. The task is formidable but can be achieved provided a coordinated effort. All the telescope construction that has been occurring is not dissimilar in logistics and cost I would reason.

I’m pretty sure that if you converted all the telescopes in the World into air scrubbers, they’d only make a tiny dent in pollution levels.

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

Too easy.

less easy when you consider the full life cycle carbon cost, but on an operating basis, I agree it’s easy enough…

Come on …

I mean eventually, all power generation on earth will be non-emitting, and the next generation of equipment built after that will have zero full life cycle carbon cost. I don’t know whether that will be in fifty years or five thousand years but it will necessarily occur.

Unless the species responsible for all the emissions dies out first.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

less easy when you consider the full life cycle carbon cost, but on an operating basis, I agree it’s easy enough…

Come on …

I mean eventually, all power generation on earth will be non-emitting, and the next generation of equipment built after that will have zero full life cycle carbon cost. I don’t know whether that will be in fifty years or five thousand years but it will necessarily occur.

Unless the species responsible for all the emissions dies out first.

The cow?

So how would they work ?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Patches of the Siberian plains are developing trampoline like qualities as CO2 and methane thaws. Sites like these might be as important to address. The task is formidable but can be achieved provided a coordinated effort. All the telescope construction that has been occurring is not dissimilar in logistics and cost I would reason.

I’m pretty sure that if you converted all the telescopes in the World into air scrubbers, they’d only make a tiny dent in pollution levels.

I couldn’t see an initiative beginning with a greater budget before escalation of a program. System check requirements etc.?

Cymek said:

So how would they work ?

eg, If the Siberian plains are going to be thawing for some time maybe establish some form of irrigation canal system and grow forest where there wasn’t. Not all options have to be high tech.

Cymek said:

So how would they work ?

Obv, different mechanisms would be required for different pollutants. The most important one is CO2, for GH effect purposes.

There are plenty of these machines already in existence. People have been working on this since late in the 20th century. The basic chemistry has been known since WW1 at least so the problem is in making it efficient and less expensive.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/blue-crude-audi-pilot-produces-diesel-fuel-from-co2-and-water-66638
The Audi blue crude stream uses renewable energy to electrolyse water, extracts CO2 from the atmosphere and reacts the hydrogen and CO2 to make hydrocarbons.

http://www.sciencealert.com/a-canadian-start-up-is-removing-co2-from-the-air-and-turning-it-into-pellets
This Canadian scheme instead stores the CO2 as carbonate.

These schemes are both focused on sucking up CO2 into a reduced form that can be later used as fuel, but if we want to permanently reduce the CO2 levels, we don’t want them to be a “fuel”: we want to store them in a form that will be solid and stable for a long time, probably as graphite.

Of course this raises the question of what we are going to do with trillions of tonnes of graphite. Maybe we could use it as a building material.

—-

BTW for mine, I think that reforestation is an easy way to stick away unwanted carbon. Not instead of the high-tech method, but as well as.

I think the telescope comparison is not appropriate. Telescope manufacture is not a major sector of the earth’s economy.

dv said:

Cymek said:

So how would they work ?

Obv, different mechanisms would be required for different pollutants. The most important one is CO2, for GH effect purposes.

There are plenty of these machines already in existence. People have been working on this since late in the 20th century. The basic chemistry has been known since WW1 at least so the problem is in making it efficient and less expensive.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/blue-crude-audi-pilot-produces-diesel-fuel-from-co2-and-water-66638
The Audi blue crude stream uses renewable energy to electrolyse water, extracts CO2 from the atmosphere and reacts the hydrogen and CO2 to make hydrocarbons.

http://www.sciencealert.com/a-canadian-start-up-is-removing-co2-from-the-air-and-turning-it-into-pellets
This Canadian scheme instead stores the CO2 as carbonate.

These schemes are both focused on sucking up CO2 into a reduced form that can be later used as fuel, but if we want to permanently reduce the CO2 levels, we don’t want them to be a “fuel”: we want to store them in a form that will be solid and stable for a long time, probably as graphite.

Of course this raises the question of what we are going to do with trillions of tonnes of graphite. Maybe we could use it as a building material.

—-

BTW for mine, I think that reforestation is an easy way to stick away unwanted carbon. Not instead of the high-tech method, but as well as.

Yes that obviously makes a lot of sense to do both.

dv said:

Of course this raises the question of what we are going to do with trillions of tonnes of graphite. Maybe we could use it as a building material.

—-

Spaceships!

dv said:

I think the telescope comparison is not appropriate. Telescope manufacture is not a major sector of the earth’s economy.

I also only stated ‘not dissimilar’. I could have used ‘bridge building’ for the euphemistic comparison…..

dv said:

Cymek said:

So how would they work ?

Obv, different mechanisms would be required for different pollutants. The most important one is CO2, for GH effect purposes.

There are plenty of these machines already in existence. People have been working on this since late in the 20th century. The basic chemistry has been known since WW1 at least so the problem is in making it efficient and less expensive.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/blue-crude-audi-pilot-produces-diesel-fuel-from-co2-and-water-66638
The Audi blue crude stream uses renewable energy to electrolyse water, extracts CO2 from the atmosphere and reacts the hydrogen and CO2 to make hydrocarbons.

http://www.sciencealert.com/a-canadian-start-up-is-removing-co2-from-the-air-and-turning-it-into-pellets
This Canadian scheme instead stores the CO2 as carbonate.

These schemes are both focused on sucking up CO2 into a reduced form that can be later used as fuel, but if we want to permanently reduce the CO2 levels, we don’t want them to be a “fuel”: we want to store them in a form that will be solid and stable for a long time, probably as graphite.

Of course this raises the question of what we are going to do with trillions of tonnes of graphite. Maybe we could use it as a building material.

—-

BTW for mine, I think that reforestation is an easy way to stick away unwanted carbon. Not instead of the high-tech method, but as well as.

GM bamboo, big as trees but fast growing.

Cymek said:

Could we actually build enormous machines to scrub the air and remove any or all human created pollution and bring the levels back down to prior the industrial revolution.

Levels are already back down to prior to the industrial revolution, aren’t they? Let’s see.

Yes, certainly on a per capita basis.

“2,000 years ago, wood charcoal really took off. In AD 43-410, the Romans were coppicing on a truly grand scale. Wood charcoal was not only the fuel of choice at this time, but was also used in making tar for caulking and a thinner version is used in embalming. It was used in dyes, and as construction material in wet areas where rotting was an issue. During this period wood charcoal was also used in filtration and purification of liquids for the first time.”

Air pollution levels during this period of charcoal production were higher than they are now. Particularly soot levels. And that was before the industrial revolution. Wood fires pre-industrial revolution also contributed to the higher pollution levels then.

“Smoke from wood heaters and open fireplaces is a significant source of air pollution in autumn and winter months. When wood is burned, very small particles and gases are released into the atmosphere. These particles and gases are air pollutants. This pollution can affect air quality and impact on our health and quality of life. Woodsmoke pollution has a demonstrated impact on people’s health, especially those who have existing lung or heart conditions such as asthma or angina. Wood smoke can also affect people’s ability to enjoy their home and the outdoors. Complaints about wood smoke are among the most common complaints received by local government and EPA during winter.”

AwesomeO said:

GM bamboo, big as trees but fast growing.

The Pandas will approve.

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

Could we actually build enormous machines to scrub the air and remove any or all human created pollution and bring the levels back down to prior the industrial revolution.

Levels are already back down to prior to the industrial revolution, aren’t they? Let’s see.

Yes, certainly on a per capita basis.

“2,000 years ago, wood charcoal really took off. In AD 43-410, the Romans were coppicing on a truly grand scale. Wood charcoal was not only the fuel of choice at this time, but was also used in making tar for caulking and a thinner version is used in embalming. It was used in dyes, and as construction material in wet areas where rotting was an issue. During this period wood charcoal was also used in filtration and purification of liquids for the first time.”

Air pollution levels during this period of charcoal production were higher than they are now. Particularly soot levels. And that was before the industrial revolution. Wood fires pre-industrial revolution also contributed to the higher pollution levels then.

“Smoke from wood heaters and open fireplaces is a significant source of air pollution in autumn and winter months. When wood is burned, very small particles and gases are released into the atmosphere. These particles and gases are air pollutants. This pollution can affect air quality and impact on our health and quality of life. Woodsmoke pollution has a demonstrated impact on people’s health, especially those who have existing lung or heart conditions such as asthma or angina. Wood smoke can also affect people’s ability to enjoy their home and the outdoors. Complaints about wood smoke are among the most common complaints received by local government and EPA during winter.”

I think that bushfires contribute far more of those pollutants.
A couple of years ago we had a 10,000 hectare fire & that clouded the sky for weeks.

Postpocelipse said:

AwesomeO said:

GM bamboo, big as trees but fast growing.

The Pandas will approve.

Cannabis would probably grow well on the Siberian plains. :)

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

Could we actually build enormous machines to scrub the air and remove any or all human created pollution and bring the levels back down to prior the industrial revolution.

Levels are already back down to prior to the industrial revolution, aren’t they?

lolno

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

AwesomeO said:

GM bamboo, big as trees but fast growing.

The Pandas will approve.

Cannabis would probably grow well on the Siberian plains. :)

Unfortunately people tend to burn cannabis…

Ok instead of prior to the industrial revolution prior to humans appearing on the scene and altering the environment.
Pollution in general isn’t good for our health so having an almost pristine atmosphere can only be an advantage.
If we went clean immediately how long before all the pollution we’ve added would be recycled by the Earth itself, decades or centuries

Cymek said:

Ok instead of prior to the industrial revolution prior to humans appearing on the scene and altering the environment.
Pollution in general isn’t good for our health so having an almost pristine atmosphere can only be an advantage.
If we went clean immediately how long before all the pollution we’ve added would be recycled by the Earth itself, decades or centuries

7 billion people & increasing. I don’t think it could ever happen. We cannot become totally clean.

It’s kind of a bogus concept. The earth is not “pristine” and never was. It is literally covered in filth.

dv said:

It’s kind of a bogus concept. The earth is not “pristine” and never was. It is literally covered in filth.

Pre major human influence there were worldwide bushfires on an enormous scale. Almost nothing within their boundaries survived.
These fires put enormous quantities of CO2 into the air.

I should say that my “trillions of tonnes of graphite” line is exaggerative.

There are about 900 billion tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere than there were before the industrial revolution. So that would work out to more like 250 billion tonnes of graphite, not trillions.

Tamb said:

dv said:

It’s kind of a bogus concept. The earth is not “pristine” and never was. It is literally covered in filth.

Pre major human influence there were worldwide bushfires on an enormous scale. Almost nothing within their boundaries survived.
These fires put enormous quantities of CO2 into the air.

Right, and previously non-human events had put enormous quantities of CO2 into the air.

Humans are just part of life on earth. There wasn’t some “pristine” pre-human world to which to return, any more than we can return to a pristine pre-dinosaur world.

dv said:

Tamb said:

dv said:

It’s kind of a bogus concept. The earth is not “pristine” and never was. It is literally covered in filth.

Pre major human influence there were worldwide bushfires on an enormous scale. Almost nothing within their boundaries survived.
These fires put enormous quantities of CO2 into the air.

Right, and previously non-human events had put enormous quantities of CO2 into the air.

Humans are just part of life on earth. There wasn’t some “pristine” pre-human world to which to return, any more than we can return to a pristine pre-dinosaur world.

Fair enough point

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

Could we actually build enormous machines to scrub the air and remove any or all human created pollution and bring the levels back down to prior the industrial revolution.

Levels are already back down to prior to the industrial revolution, aren’t they? Let’s see.

Yes, certainly on a per capita basis.

“2,000 years ago, wood charcoal really took off. In AD 43-410, the Romans were coppicing on a truly grand scale. Wood charcoal was not only the fuel of choice at this time, but was also used in making tar for caulking and a thinner version is used in embalming. It was used in dyes, and as construction material in wet areas where rotting was an issue. During this period wood charcoal was also used in filtration and purification of liquids for the first time.”

Air pollution levels during this period of charcoal production were higher than they are now. Particularly soot levels. And that was before the industrial revolution. Wood fires pre-industrial revolution also contributed to the higher pollution levels then.

“Smoke from wood heaters and open fireplaces is a significant source of air pollution in autumn and winter months. When wood is burned, very small particles and gases are released into the atmosphere. These particles and gases are air pollutants. This pollution can affect air quality and impact on our health and quality of life. Woodsmoke pollution has a demonstrated impact on people’s health, especially those who have existing lung or heart conditions such as asthma or angina. Wood smoke can also affect people’s ability to enjoy their home and the outdoors. Complaints about wood smoke are among the most common complaints received by local government and EPA during winter.”

I presume they are neglecting CO2 as a pollutant.

It may be true that air pollution (excluding CO2) in central Rome is now less than it was 2000 years ago (although without an accurate measure of pollution then, we can’t be sure), but I doubt that pollution in central Peking is less than it was 2000 years ago.

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

Too easy.

less easy when you consider the full life cycle carbon cost, but on an operating basis, I agree it’s easy enough…

Come on …

I mean eventually, all power generation on earth will be non-emitting, and the next generation of equipment built after that will have zero full life cycle carbon cost. I don’t know whether that will be in fifty years or five thousand years but it will necessarily occur.

I agree, it’s incredibly difficult to say when that transition will occur… if we nail fusion tomorrow then I’d say we’d be on our way to a carbon free energy future within a decade but if we’re stuck with crummy solar and the like it will take a lot longer…

dv said:

Tamb said:

dv said:

It’s kind of a bogus concept. The earth is not “pristine” and never was. It is literally covered in filth.

Pre major human influence there were worldwide bushfires on an enormous scale. Almost nothing within their boundaries survived.
These fires put enormous quantities of CO2 into the air.

Right, and previously non-human events had put enormous quantities of CO2 into the air.

Humans are just part of life on earth. There wasn’t some “pristine” pre-human world to which to return, any more than we can return to a pristine pre-dinosaur world.

Those damn volcanoes have a lot to answer for.

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

less easy when you consider the full life cycle carbon cost, but on an operating basis, I agree it’s easy enough…

Come on …

I mean eventually, all power generation on earth will be non-emitting, and the next generation of equipment built after that will have zero full life cycle carbon cost. I don’t know whether that will be in fifty years or five thousand years but it will necessarily occur.

I agree, it’s incredibly difficult to say when that transition will occur… if we nail fusion tomorrow then I’d say we’d be on our way to a carbon free energy future within a decade but if we’re stuck with crummy solar and the like it will take a lot longer…

HEY!!

Crummy solar is currently keeping my children fed and housed.

sibeen said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

Come on …

I mean eventually, all power generation on earth will be non-emitting, and the next generation of equipment built after that will have zero full life cycle carbon cost. I don’t know whether that will be in fifty years or five thousand years but it will necessarily occur.

I agree, it’s incredibly difficult to say when that transition will occur… if we nail fusion tomorrow then I’d say we’d be on our way to a carbon free energy future within a decade but if we’re stuck with crummy solar and the like it will take a lot longer…

HEY!!

Crummy solar is currently keeping my children fed and housed.

you don’t say… now what’s the line about keeping one’s enemies close??

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

Could we actually build enormous machines to scrub the air and remove any or all human created pollution and bring the levels back down to prior the industrial revolution.

Levels are already back down to prior to the industrial revolution, aren’t they? Let’s see.

Yes, certainly on a per capita basis.

“2,000 years ago, wood charcoal really took off. In AD 43-410, the Romans were coppicing on a truly grand scale. Wood charcoal was not only the fuel of choice at this time, but was also used in making tar for caulking and a thinner version is used in embalming. It was used in dyes, and as construction material in wet areas where rotting was an issue. During this period wood charcoal was also used in filtration and purification of liquids for the first time.”

Air pollution levels during this period of charcoal production were higher than they are now. Particularly soot levels. And that was before the industrial revolution. Wood fires pre-industrial revolution also contributed to the higher pollution levels then.

“Smoke from wood heaters and open fireplaces is a significant source of air pollution in autumn and winter months. When wood is burned, very small particles and gases are released into the atmosphere. These particles and gases are air pollutants. This pollution can affect air quality and impact on our health and quality of life. Woodsmoke pollution has a demonstrated impact on people’s health, especially those who have existing lung or heart conditions such as asthma or angina. Wood smoke can also affect people’s ability to enjoy their home and the outdoors. Complaints about wood smoke are among the most common complaints received by local government and EPA during winter.”

I presume they are neglecting CO2 as a pollutant.

It may be true that air pollution (excluding CO2) in central Rome is now less than it was 2000 years ago (although without an accurate measure of pollution then, we can’t be sure), but I doubt that pollution in central Peking is less than it was 2000 years ago.

I was in Beijing in 82 & again in 06. The photos I took on both occasions show a huge increase in pollution.

sibeen said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

Come on …

I mean eventually, all power generation on earth will be non-emitting, and the next generation of equipment built after that will have zero full life cycle carbon cost. I don’t know whether that will be in fifty years or five thousand years but it will necessarily occur.

I agree, it’s incredibly difficult to say when that transition will occur… if we nail fusion tomorrow then I’d say we’d be on our way to a carbon free energy future within a decade but if we’re stuck with crummy solar and the like it will take a lot longer…

HEY!!

Crummy solar is currently keeping my children fed and housed.

Hydro works as a carbon sink also if trees are planted around the lakes.

Cymek said:

dv said:

Cymek said:

So how would they work ?

Obv, different mechanisms would be required for different pollutants. The most important one is CO2, for GH effect purposes.

There are plenty of these machines already in existence. People have been working on this since late in the 20th century. The basic chemistry has been known since WW1 at least so the problem is in making it efficient and less expensive.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/blue-crude-audi-pilot-produces-diesel-fuel-from-co2-and-water-66638
The Audi blue crude stream uses renewable energy to electrolyse water, extracts CO2 from the atmosphere and reacts the hydrogen and CO2 to make hydrocarbons.

http://www.sciencealert.com/a-canadian-start-up-is-removing-co2-from-the-air-and-turning-it-into-pellets
This Canadian scheme instead stores the CO2 as carbonate.

These schemes are both focused on sucking up CO2 into a reduced form that can be later used as fuel, but if we want to permanently reduce the CO2 levels, we don’t want them to be a “fuel”: we want to store them in a form that will be solid and stable for a long time, probably as graphite.

Of course this raises the question of what we are going to do with trillions of tonnes of graphite. Maybe we could use it as a building material.

—-

BTW for mine, I think that reforestation is an easy way to stick away unwanted carbon. Not instead of the high-tech method, but as well as.

Yes that obviously makes a lot of sense to do both.

Unless with higher temperatures and the greater likelihood of forest fires burns them all down.

Tamb said:

dv said:

It’s kind of a bogus concept. The earth is not “pristine” and never was. It is literally covered in filth.

Pre major human influence there were worldwide bushfires on an enormous scale. Almost nothing within their boundaries survived.
These fires put enormous quantities of CO2 into the air.

Refs?

Tamb said:

I presume they are neglecting CO2 as a pollutant.

It may be true that air pollution (excluding CO2) in central Rome is now less than it was 2000 years ago (although without an accurate measure of pollution then, we can’t be sure), but I doubt that pollution in central Peking is less than it was 2000 years ago.

I was in Beijing in 82 & again in 06. The photos I took on both occasions show a huge increase in pollution.

mollwollfumble refuses to accept food additive E290 as a “pollutant”. For starters it’s very much safer than H2O.

Not just in ancient Rome, throughout the whole of Europe in pre-industrial-revolution times from 1470 onward the air pollution was probably worse than it is today. Possibly even in pre-European Australia – the aborigines used to light bushfires you know.

There’s no doubt that water pollution is less now that in pre-industrial-revolution times, even on an absolute (rather than per capita) scale. Back then they dumped raw sewage in the streets and rivers.

Differences in Beijing – could just be a bad or good week. Depending on the wind speed and height of the inversion layer (if any) the pollution in Beijing can vary day to day by a factor of 1000 or so. Pollution levels throughout the USA have dropped almost alarmingly.

I have seen massively huge reductions in air and water pollution in my lifetime. Particularly throughout Sydney and Wollongong. But also throughout England. And also in the open ocean.

I met a chemist yesterday who has developed a new method for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Originally from Sheffield University, he’s a specialist in organo-metallic chemistry and has developed a new small organo-metallic chemical that does the catalysis. True story.

There’s just one teensy tiny drawback……..

…..It converts carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide.

mollwollfumble said:

I met a chemist yesterday who has developed a new method for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Originally from Sheffield University, he’s a specialist in organo-metallic chemistry and has developed a new small organo-metallic chemical that does the catalysis. True story.

There’s just one teensy tiny drawback……..

…..It converts carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide.

That will solve the population overload.