DEC 30

What a stupid thing to do. It is utterly unproductive, and in fact may damage the historical building. This kind of stunt is typical of the low IQ end of the green movement.

How about this instead - use the $100 million to buy say 100 square kilometers of marginal grazing land in Australia and sequester carbon from the atmosphere there through either creating biochar and/or simply dumping grown plant matter into the deep ocean or an area of sedimentation. The operating costs will come from selling carbon credits. In return, Australia will institute national France Day and carry a model of the Eiffel tower through the streets during the Sydney Mardi Gras.

Practical? Probably not.
Cheap? Certainly not.
Aesthetically pleasing? Oh, yes. Yes indeed.

I don't see why they don't cover it in Ivy, though. It naturally crawls up towers like that, and would be much easier and cheaper to provide nutrition for. It could even be permanent.

There are loads of other way to raise environmental awareness, just not covering the tower with plants, it's way unappealing!!!!
Plus, why use so much time and energy when you can plant it somewhere else.

This is not the only thing that is to be prevented with such an effort. Pollution has affected all spheres of life. Such efforts need to broaden. Make every vacant place green, efforts need to start at the individual level.

People are already writing about this (see article above) before this thing has even remotely gotten off the ground. The amount of publicity a stunt like this would produce is why I think people are even considering it. Maybe that would be good for the movement. However, I think it's terrible for the environment. Wouldn't it take a tremendous amount of water and energy to get the water to the plants in order for it to stay alive?

This one seems so obviously environmentally stupid that one really has to wonder about the people behind it, and their understanding of why we have the problems we have.

To spend their 100 million on creating systems that people could use to lower their environmental footprint would be a much better use of such money, or even better, buy some wilderness and protect it.

Severely dumb idea. The tower is made of iron. I saw it a couple of years ago, and rust is obviously a problem. Cover it with wet dirt, and if the whole thing lasts more than a year before it falls down, I would be surprised. Ronald Brak has a much better idea. See his comment. Lots of better uses for the money, uses that won't actually destroy something beautiful.

so how much plastic tubing, water & electricity will it use to make this statement? Wouldn't it be a better use of those resources to provide seeds, clean water & food to an underserved group of people?

Wow....just wow. I vote "stupid idea." As has been said, the amount of energy and resources it would take just to get the plants to live, plus the obstacles such an installation would likely pose to maintenance of the Tower itself is fairly obvious. Plus, visually, I'm sure the millions of tourists who go to France specifically to see the Tower as-is would be more than a little angry...Bad idea on all fronts. Planting trees in barren areas, reducing use of fossil-fuels, etc. would be more environmentally effective...and more aesthetically pleasing to all.

And this sort of reminds me of a Cristo-type idea...why not cover the Tower in some bright orange cloth? lol

Lord.....

You are obviously not a maintenance person. Ivy on an iron or mild steel tower is the kiss of death. It would be impossible to see where rust was occurring, and impossible to maintain the paint which is the only thing between the tower up or crashing to the ground. Your cute "neighsayer" crack just reveals the danger that lurks in ignorance of simple practical knowledge. Some of those saying Nay to the idea are simply expressing logic and practicality in the face of an egregiously bad idea.

Another concept is to remember to respect the intention of the creator of such an artwork. "The Eiffel Tower was built for the International Exhibition of Paris of 1889 commemorating the centenary of the French Revolution. The Prince of Wales, later King Edward VII of England, opened the tower. Of the 700 proposals submitted in a design competition, Gustave Eiffel's was unanimously chosen. However it was not accepted by all at first, and a petition of 300 names - including those of Maupassant, Emile Zola, Charles Garnier (architect of the Opéra Garnier), and Dumas the Younger - protested its construction." Gustsve Eiffel did not include any covering of plants, and I am very sure would have scoffed at the idea, for reasons that certainly would have included the danger of Corrosion.
(Quote from http://www.corrosion-doctors.o...istory.htm )

Perhaps we should commend the originators of the idea for enthusiasm and thinking big, and work with them to get their energy directed into something with positive lasting practical value beyond goofy publicity. Such energy should not be simply squashed just because it was at first connected to a lousy idea. Hopefully the group will realize that there are good pratical reasons for looking for an alternate plan.

(For interest, here are a few additional historical notes - "The tower was almost torn down in 1909, but was saved because of its antenna used both for military and other purposes, and the city let it stand after the permit expired. When the tower played an important role in capturing the infamous spy Mata Hari during World War I, it gained such importance to the French people that there was no more thought of demolishing it.- used for telegraphy at that time.

From 1910 and on the Eiffel Tower became part of the International Time Service. French radio (since 191, and French television (since 1957) have also made use of its stature. {same source})

Note that none of these added purposes changed the essential nature or appearance of the Tower.

Thank you all, and especially James, for pointing out the royal rear end I was making of myself. Frankly I'm ashamed that I didn't make the logical connection from 'Iron is good for Ivy' to 'Ivy is bad for Iron.'

I was truly caught up in an illogical sweep of enthusiasm at the sign of a large-scale environmental awareness project.

Excuse me while I retreat, humbled, to areas that I know more about.