10555Re: [carfree_cities] warming from methane vs. CO2
- Oct 28, 2007
> The CO2 from the breakdown of such methane shouldn't count=v= I addressed this point last Monday. The "inevitably" part
> 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.
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.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>