 |
Townhall...
Carbon and Carbon
Dioxide: Clearing Up the Confusion
By Paul Driessen
We are constantly bombarded with information – much of it inaccurate,
misleading, even deliberately so.
We are frequently told we must reduce carbon emissions, support “carbon
disclosure” and invest in “carbon trusts” – to prevent catastrophic
global warming, global climate change or global climate “disruption.”
News stories, advocacy and lobbying activities, and corporate “ethics”
promotions frequently use “carbon” and “carbon dioxide” almost
interchangeably; some occasionally talk about “dangerous carbon
monoxide emissions.”
Torn by misplaced hydrocarbon guilt, wanting to do right ecologically,
and often scientifically challenged, people are naturally confused.
Because so much is at stake – for our energy supplies and prices, jobs,
economies, living standards, budget deficits and environment – clearing
up that confusion is a high priority.
“Carbon” (chemical symbol C) is what we burn to get energy to power
modern society. Carbon is the molecular building block for wood,
charcoal and coal, and hydrocarbons (HC) like oil and natural gas. Cars
and power plants do not emit carbon, except in the form of soot. Thus,
talk of “carbon disclosure” or “reducing our carbon emissions” is
misleading, unless one is confessing how much charcoal was used at a
picnic, or apologizing for not having pollution controls on a
wood-burning stove.
“Carbon monoxide” (CO) is an odorless, deadly gas. A natural product of
combustion, it increases when ventilation is poor, oxygen levels are
low and burning is inefficient. It’s why we shouldn’t use charcoal
grills indoors or operate cars in garages, unless we’re suicidal.
“Carbon dioxide” (CO2) is another natural byproduct of combustion, from
power plants, factories, vehicles, homes, hospitals and other users of
wood, coal, petroleum and biofuels. This is what many environmental
activists, politicians and scientists blame for recent and future
climate change.
(The other major byproduct is water vapor or steam – plus pollutants
that reflect impurities in the fuel and are removed via scrubbers and
other technologies, or reduced by controlling the temperature, airflow
and efficiency of combustion processes: sulfur and nitrogen oxides,
particulates, mercury and so on.)
Literally thousands of scientists vigorously disagree with the
hypothesis that CO2 is responsible for (dangerous) climate change. It
plays only a minor role, they argue, in a complex, chaotic climate
system that is driven by numerous natural forces, cycles, and positive
and negative feedback loops. They also note that CO2 increases have
followed, not preceded, temperature rises, throughout Earth’s history.
CO2 constitutes a mere 0.0380% of our atmosphere. That’s 380 parts per
million (380 ppm), which sounds much more threatening, especially when
used in juxtaposition with the pre-Industrial Revolution figure of 280
ppm. But even that 100 ppm increase represents only 0.0100% of Earth’s
atmosphere – equivalent to one penny out of $100.
380 is far below historical CO2 levels. During the Jurassic and Early
Carboniferous periods, geologists calculate, our atmosphere contained
1,500-2,500 ppm carbon dioxide. However, even at today’s comparatively
CO2-impoverished levels, this trace gas is vital to the health of our
planet.
As every grade schooler learns, CO2 enables photosynthesis and plant
growth: carbon dioxide in, oxygen out, through complex chemical
reactions. Without CO2, there would be no plants and no oxygen; life as
we know it would cease. Carbon dioxide is truly the “gas of life” – and
no attempt by Al Gore, James Hansen or EPA to brand it as a dangerous
pollutant can change that.
The 100 ppm rise in CO2 levels came courtesy of two things. As oceans
warmed after the Little Ice Age ended 160 years ago, they released some
of their carbon dioxide storehouses. (As with beer and soda water,
seawater is able to retain less CO2 as it warms.) The rest came from
hydrocarbon fuels burned during the Industrial Revolution and modern
era, and from billions more impoverished people still burning wood and
animal dung in open fires.
Though vilified by radical greens and climate alarmists, hydrocarbon
energy and the Industrial Revolution have hugely benefitted mankind.
They doubled average life expectances in industrialized nations and
increased prosperity, overall health and living standards, in
proportion to the ability of poor communities to acquire electricity
and modern technologies. Thus, telling poor countries to limit
hydrocarbon use, and focus instead on wind and solar power, sharply
limits their ability to modernize, create jobs, and improve health,
living conditions and life spans.
And all that extra CO2 from electrical generation and other economic
activities? As Drs. Craig and Sherwood Idso explain on their
CO2science.org website and in their fascinating book, The Many Benefits
of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment, the extra carbon dioxide has blessed
people and planet in at least 55 ways.
For example, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide increases the
photosynthesis rates for plants. It enables plants to extract more
moisture from the air and soil, thereby expanding root systems that
stabilize soil, reduce erosion and help plants survive better during
droughts.
Higher CO2 levels also reduce the need for plants to keep their stomata
(pores in leaves) open to absorb carbon dioxide – and in the process
release moisture from the plant – further increasing drought
resistance. Because stomata don’t need to be open as much, plants also
reduce their absorption of harmful pollutants that can damage their
tissue. As with the air in greenhouses, rising atmospheric CO2
concentrations improves nitrogen fixation by soil bacteria, increasing
the availability of this important chemical.
CO2-enriched air also increases plants’ ability to manufacture Vitamin
C, antioxidants, and health-promoting substances in medicinal plants –
while likewise improving plants’ immune systems and ability to
withstand a wide variety of common plant diseases.
Many climatologists and astrophysicists believe recent sun spot,
Pacific Ocean and global temperature trends suggest that our planet may
have entered a cool phase that could last for 25 years. If that is the
case, the additional carbon dioxide being emitted by China, India and
other developing countries could bring a major additional benefit:
helping to protect wildlife habitats, enhance oceanic biota and
preserve crop yields under sub-optimal climatic conditions. Attempts to
coerce expanded wind and solar installations will require that we
devote still more land, raw materials and taxpayer subsidies to these
expensive, unreliable energy supplies. And trying to capture and store
carbon dioxide from power plants and factories will require trillions
of dollars and vast supplies of energy, to take this plant-fertilizing
gas out of the atmosphere and inject it under high pressure deep into
the earth – and keep it from escaping, to kill animals and people.
To get 1000 megawatts of net electricity from a power plant designed
for CO2-capture-and-storage would require building (at minimum) a
1300-MW plant, burning at least one-third more fuel than a conventional
plant does, using over one-third of the 1300 MW to power the CCS
equipment – and paying much higher electricity prices. The impact on
factories, shops, jobs, household budgets and fuel supplies would be
significant.
Legislators and regulators need to focus on controlling unhealthy
amounts of real pollutants (based on valid medical and environmental
science) – and keep their pesky hands off our CO2!
Read it at Townhall
|
