3 ms·

One of the problems with focusing only on CO[2] (or global warming in general) is that it sometimes is in direct conflict to other environmental improvements.

by rdl 13y ago

One of the problems with focusing only on CO[2] (or global warming in general) is that it sometimes is in direct conflict to other environmental improvements. Spending energy to keep air/water/land clean of other pollutants, either on remediation or lower overall efficiency, can boost CO[2] emissions. I'd personally prefer to take the risk on GW if we could cut down on mercury, localized pollution of land and water, etc. There are some cases where CO[2] reduction is generally related to environmental improvements overall, like swapping in nuclear or (in some places) wind for dirty soft coal, but it's not all the time.

MichaelSalib 13y ago
I don't think this is really true. The biggest public policy advocated by people who care about climate change is a carbon tax. The effects of such a tax on the margins are more energy conservation (better weatherization, green roofs, smart grids, etc), and shifting fossil fuel consumption to natural gas and wind/solar. Every single one of those changes yields significant non-CO2 related environmental benefits. The worst you can say is that natural gas burning requires higher temperatures that produce more NOx emissions, but they also take out a lot more mercury and SOx emissions produced by equivalent coal fired plants. Moreover, because old coal fired plants are grandfathered in, they face less stringent air pollution control regulations than brand new natural gas plants that replace them. Finally, the costs of doing serious air pollution control in power plants is generally tiny and such controls probably pay for themselves just in reducing asthma cases alone. My source is my father, who designed air pollution control systems for power plants for the last 30 years or so.
- rdl 13y ago
  I agree coal -> natural gas is almost exclusively good (the only real counter-argument is that coal -> natural gas precludes coal -> something better than natural gas (nuclear, hydro, magic, etc.)). The "CO[2] optimization, but otherwise moronic and environmentally destructive" is most biofuels. They're arguably lower CO[2] output (since it's atmospheric carbon), minus the CO[2] used to grow them, but let's assume EROEI of 1+epsilon. You still destroy a bunch of land, use up water (including often fossil water), fertilizer runoff, etc., so the environmental harm outweighs the minor net CO[2] reduction benefit. Not true of things like the Brazilian fuels, I think. Mainly just that corn ethanol is at best stupid and most likely a crime.

by rdl 13y ago

MichaelSalib 13y ago

I don't think this is really true. The biggest public policy advocated by people who care about climate change is a carbon tax. The effects of such a tax on the margins are more energy conservation (better weatherization, green roofs, smart grids, etc), and shifting fossil fuel consumption to natural gas and wind/solar. Every single one of those changes yields significant non-CO2 related environmental benefits. The worst you can say is that natural gas burning requires higher temperatures that produce more NOx emissions, but they also take out a lot more mercury and SOx emissions produced by equivalent coal fired plants. Moreover, because old coal fired plants are grandfathered in, they face less stringent air pollution control regulations than brand new natural gas plants that replace them. Finally, the costs of doing serious air pollution control in power plants is generally tiny and such controls probably pay for themselves just in reducing asthma cases alone. My source is my father, who designed air pollution control systems for power plants for the last 30 years or so.

rdl 13y ago
I agree coal -> natural gas is almost exclusively good (the only real counter-argument is that coal -> natural gas precludes coal -> something better than natural gas (nuclear, hydro, magic, etc.)). The "CO[2] optimization, but otherwise moronic and environmentally destructive" is most biofuels. They're arguably lower CO[2] output (since it's atmospheric carbon), minus the CO[2] used to grow them, but let's assume EROEI of 1+epsilon. You still destroy a bunch of land, use up water (including often fossil water), fertilizer runoff, etc., so the environmental harm outweighs the minor net CO[2] reduction benefit. Not true of things like the Brazilian fuels, I think. Mainly just that corn ethanol is at best stupid and most likely a crime.