Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10555Re: [carfree_cities] warming from methane vs. CO2

Expand Messages
  • Jym Dyer
    Oct 28, 2007
      > The CO2 from the breakdown of such methane shouldn't count
      > as an agravator of global warming (unlike the methane)
      > because it would have been released when the plants were
      > burned, metabolized, or decomposed -- something that
      > inevitably happens.

      =v= I addressed this point last Monday. The "inevitably" part
      is relevant. Industrializing the rate of processes that occur
      naturally changes the picture, specifically by keeping more CO2
      in the atmosphere for longer than it would be.

      =v= I strongly disagree with the "shouldn't count" mindset.
      People are far too willing to ignore variables that they should
      be paying attention to, side-effects, second-order costs, and
      long-term consequences. All of this is precisely why we are in
      the mess we are in, and we aren't going to get out of it without
      thinking more ecologically.

      =v= The "shouldn't count" argument is routinely advanced to
      support the use of biofuels to run cars. The notion is that all
      we need to do is swap a fuel source and society can continue to
      run the same fleet of cars the same distances they're run now.
      Nobody bothers to tally up all the "shouldn't count" variables,
      so they delude themselves that they're doing something that's
      better for the environment.
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic