4 ms·
Better for the climate.
by konschubert 10y ago
Better for the climate.
- clort 10y agoSurely something that emitted pure greenhouse gases, no large particles or soot but disastrous for the climate would be pollution, by definition? I'm thinking that better for the climate (wood pellets) but worse for (what GP defines as) pollution is a trade off, and probably people are going to argue about that balance, but at the end of the day if we pollute the planet today and just hope our grandchildren will be able to fix the problem or suffer the consequences then that is pretty poor.
- rleigh 10y agoNot when the wood is coming from non-renewable sources. I've read much is sourced from the US, and is not from quickly-growing softwood but long established slow-growing hardwood which burns better in power plants. When the end goal is to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, destroying carbon sinks and burning them is one of the most counterproductive activities you could engage in. There's a reason we stopped burning wood as our primary fuel source several hundred years ago. There's not enough to burn, and it doesn't renew fast enough to satisfy demand. Coal met that demand. Returning to wood makes zero sense, unless you want to satisfy a short-term legal/policy goalpost at the expense of missing the bigger picture. Personally, I think that while reducing coal is a laudable medium-term goal, this is not better for the climate. Whether you burn wood or coal, both are producing CO2, but when you burn wood your are also reducing the size of an important carbon sink.