Posted on 03/04/2007 9:41:55 AM PST by Clive
More inconvenient truths
Planting trees won't save us, ethanol isn't cool, and rebuilding a city below sea level is insane
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN
The more you research global warming, the more you realize we're being told things that don't add up.
Here's some examples.
"Green" celebrities often claim to reduce their carbon imprint to zero when flying around the world by buying "carbon offsets". One popular way of doing this is by planting trees.
Let's do the math. It takes 15 trees 40 to 50 years to absorb five tons of carbon.
A return flight from Toronto to Vancouver injects 5.4 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per passenger. Carbon dioxide takes 50 to 200 years to dissipate naturally.
Therefore, to absorb most of the carbon dioxide caused by one passenger taking one domestic round-trip flight across Canada in 2007, requires planting 15 trees today that won't complete the job until 2047-2057, assuming none is destroyed by fire, disease or insects. If they are, they'll release their carbon back into the atmosphere.
As Guy Dauncy and Patrick Mazza write in Stormy Weather, 101 Solutions to Global Climate Change, from which I took these figures: "(I)f we imagine that tree planting can be the solution to the world's climate problems, we may be making a massive miscalculation."
Flying is also just about the worst way to emit greenhouse gases. Taking one long flight can easily exceed a year's worth of car emissions. Plus, it injects the gas into the atmosphere at high altitude, heightening the greenhouse effect. The only way to be "carbon neutral" when flying is to get off the plane before it takes off.
Then there's Kyoto's "clean development mechanism" allowing developed countries to obtain "carbon credits" to emit more greenhouse gases by bankrolling projects to reduce them in developing nations. But we can't even be sure our foreign aid is reaching the people who most need it now. How can we possibly know these projects will ever happen, or do what we're told they'll do, particularly in corrupt dictatorships? Remember the widespread fraud in the UN's oil-for-food program in Iraq? Wait until Kyoto, a UN treaty, is fully operational.
We're told ethanol added to gasoline reduces greenhouse gases. Most ethanol in the U.S., the world's biggest emitter, comes from corn. It takes about 74 units of greenhouse gas-emitting fossil fuel energy to produce 100 units of ethanol energy. You also lose the carbon dioxide absorption value of the corn. While ethanol added to gas produces a net of 30% less carbon dioxide emissions compared to plain gas, to plant enough corn to make this significant for global warming, would, as Robert Henson writes in The Rough Guide to Climate Change, require covering 15% of the world's agricultural land -- a country the size of India -- with nothing but corn, solely for ethanol. That would cause starvation.
There's also a war between proponents of "adaptation" and "mitigation" in addressing global warming.
Supporters of "adaptation" argue people living below sea level near any large body of water, especially the oceans, will always be vulnerable to hurricanes, flooding, tsunamis, with or without global warming. They want to start moving the most vulnerable populations inland. For them, rebuilding New Orleans where it is, is madness.
They also argue that since we cannot abandon fossil fuels overnight, we must invest in new technology to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide burning them emits. They note global warming has some positive effects -- for example, a longer growing season in Canada -- of which we must take advantage.
WORTHLESS AND SINISTER
Incredibly, some "environmentalists" who advocate "mitigation" -- focusing only on reducing emissions -- describe these strategies as worthless, even sinister, arguing they distract from the crisis.
Their logic is insane. Man-made greenhouse gases last up to thousands of years. No matter how fast we reduce them, their concentrations in the atmosphere will rise for decades, the earth's temperatures for centuries.
That's what the science says. If it's right, the only policy that makes sense is mitigation and adaptation. Unless you think ideology is more important than humanity.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Planting trees to offset carbon emissions. Maybe. Just keep in mind that trees wick moisture out of the ground. Massive tree planting would lead to ecological disaster.
"Unless you think ideology is more important than humanity."
That's the point exactly. The neo-fascists (liberals) do think that their ideology IS more important than humanity.
The global warming, green, etc. movements are driven by emotion rather than any rational thought or science. That is why they appeal to most liberals and other non-thinkers.
Al Gore will get a piece of every carbon credit sold.
Nice scam this carbon credit scheme. I wish I had gotten in on the ground floor.
On the other hand, trees provide shade for the surrounding ground which reduces surface temperature resulting in a lower evaporation rate. I think the net outcome would depend on the soil conditions in the particular area. Deep soil which can absorb rainwater should support the trees.
BTTT
Amway Gore
And just exactly what does this have to do with a liberal cause?
This writer states
"A return flight from Toronto to Vancouver injects 5.4 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per passenger."
Assuming the plane carries 100 people, thats 500 tons of
emissions per flight. It is a wonder they can even get that plane off the ground!
I absolutely believe that our climate is warming up. Do I believe I am the culprit? Absolutely not.
Are people making money off of this scam? Absolutely. And if I were morally bankrupt, being the Good Little Capitalist I am, I would be, too.
Anyone that has ever gotten off of their couch and done any amount of traveling around the globe can easily see how vast and mighty Earth is. We are insignificant fleas on the back of Mother Earth. She flicks us off at will on a daily basis...and there is little we can do about it other than not living on a Flood Plain or in Tornado Alley, at Sea Level or on a Fault line.
And even then, if she's gunning for you, you don't stand much of a chance. :)
I don't understand the problem. CO2 is all natural, and all we're doing is returning CO2 to the atmosphere that was taken out in the past. Plus, plants love it.
Another way would be to convert all passenger jets to hydrogen fuel. Burning hydrogen produces only water. While water vapor is a so-called greenhouse gas, the emission of water vapor from jets is usually called a contrail, a condensation trail. It is a long threadlike cloud.
And clouds reflect sunlight, cooling the Earth.
Of course, where would we get all that hydrogen? We would have to build many new nuclear power plants just for jet hydrogen. We might as well put them near the airports, and use them for both electrical energy production and hydrogen manufacturing.
Trees are useful, too. In addition to providing food crops, shade, and building materials, they stabilize soil and soak up carbon dioxide, making it easier to sequester it if you choose to do so. I'll take a few tons of sequestered carbon for my library, thank you.
Why don't you read the article and the following comments then figure it out for yourself?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.