4 ms·
That's what I said. I said "the Romans did not use fossil fuels but they used charcoal (which has it's own problems).
by jbotz 4y ago
That's what I said. I said "the Romans did not use fossil fuels but they used charcoal (which has it's own problems).
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoEverything has it's own problems. If the question is "Could we (re-)boot a modern civilisation without fossil fuels", then "charcoal is and was a widely-used, sustainable (and sometimes superior) alternative for things that fossil fuels were and are used for" isn't a "...but..." it's an "... of course ...". So, to be clear, deforestation is a potential problem for any kind of wood usage. It is generically, an issue for all resources, fish, buffalo, bees, golden geese. If you need something, don't kill the source of it, is a good general rule to follow. Though if you're an invading army on foreign land, that generally doesn't impact on your long term planning as much as it should. But, crucially for the question posed, wood can be managed as a sustainable resource, and is not a source of fossil carbon, so burning it, gasifying it etc., which almost certainly has "it's own problems" is not a problem from a carbon perspective, even though it releases carbon into the atmosphere when burnt.