3 ms·

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 th

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.

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.