Monday, May 16, 2011

Carbon? Carbon Dioxide? They’re the Same, Aren’t They?

Well, no, they are not the same. Pundits, politicians and some who just want to appear smart may think they are the same thing.

But because you want to be, as well as look, intelligent, you need to know the difference.

CARE blog-favorite writer Paul Driessen explains it so well, that the next time you are drawn into a discussion on climate change, or whatever the current buzzword is for carbonphobes, you will know how to outsmart the strongest spinmeister.

And you will be doing it with facts, not agenda-driven arguments that sooner or later fall flat on their faces.

Carbon and carbon dioxide: Clearing up the confusion

Let's restore common sense to our public policy debates on energy and climate

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.


(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 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 and water in, oxygen and plant growth 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 the EPA to brand it as a dangerous pollutant can change that.





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 improve 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.



To get 1,000 megawatts of net electricity from a power plant designed for CO2-capture-and-storage would require building (at minimum) a 1,300-MW plant, burning at least one-third more fuel than a conventional plant does, using over one-third of the 1,300 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!

