Close this Advertisement

Environmental Protection Blog

Blog archive

Hurrying a Carbon Neutral Society

Comment:Visions contacted me last week and asked what I thought it would take to "really speed up" the transition to a carbon neutral society. I'm no expert but my first response was: Is that what we are aiming for? Is that even scientifically possible?

For the sake of argument, let's say it is. There are billions of people on Earth. Can we make a difference by all driving electric cars or switching to biofuels? Maybe a dent.

The Carbon Neutral Society says it uses education and carbon offsets and reductions to achieve its mission of making the process easy and affordable. The site offers more than 50 steps (several of them require the use of vinegar) to green your home but it doesn't really explain what gains will be made toward neutrality. Strangely enough, I was unable to access the material behind the tab "Carbon Credits." (Actually, the more time I spent on this site, the more I began to question its legitimacy.)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified power companies as one of its first targets for greenhouse gas emissions reporting because of their impact. But New Zealand already is boasting that it has a carbon neutral power company, which relies on wind and hydro power. So, what motivated Meridian to run ahead of the rest of us, who are using coal and emitting that nasty new pollutant ─ carbon dioxide? According to this website, the state-owned company was moved to action by possible penalties for not lowering its CO2 output.

We use penalties in the United States and they don't always get the job done, like the cases in which the violator doesn't have any money. But the answer most assuredly lies with the dispensation of money; perhaps, as a colleague suggested, the government should be paying us for good behavior (read: tax breaks) and give us a deadline. They do in some cases, but maybe not on the scale that is needed.

Could we institute tax breaks for walking and riding bicycles, ridesharing, using public transit, buying and eating only locally grown foods, and adjusting thermostats and energy use at home and at businesses and manufacturing facilities? I can imagine people wearing some kind of sensing device that would track our activities and measure the resulting emissions so we would get credits at the end of the year. Similar devices could be incorporated into smart building systems.

Would you change your behavior for a tax break? Do you think your employer would, too?

Posted by L.K. Williams, EPonline on Nov 22, 2010 at 12:43 PM


Comments

Fri, Jan 7, 2011 Straightpath

Not so long ago, "Scientific American," ran an entire issues of articles entitled, "Did human's prevent another ice age?" The premise was that human produced CO2 may have done just that. How quickly the fashions of climate science change. Political rhetoric, Nobel prizes, and carbon trading billionaires waiting in the wings aside, the data on CO2 damage is less than convincing. One of the greatest producers of CO2 is animals. Wait! Isn't there something called the "carbon cycle," don't plants have something to do with that? Animals produce CO2 (mimicking heat engines-how clever!), and plants absorb it and produce O2. Isn't O2 good? Why not generate more plants to reduce the CO2, instead of trying to tax it? Is it because noone can get rich by planting trees and grasses? Follow the money!

Tue, Dec 14, 2010 E. Harper CSP DABFE

CO2 is NOT a pollutant, it is non-toxic below 5000ppm and DOES NOT Cause Global warming! CO2 as a Green House Gas? Carbon Dioxide makes up 0.0387% (387 ppm) of the earth’s atmosphere by volume (2009y) but CO2 comprises only around 1 percent of total Green House Gases (GHG) in the atmosphere. The bulk, water vapor, comprises 95 percent of all GHGs. The other GHGs are methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone and CFCs. Water vapor varies from a trace in extremely cold and dry air to about 4% (40,000 ppm) in extremely warm and humid air. Water vapor therefore averages about 2 – 3% in atmosphere while CO2 is about 0.0387% (0.04%) by volume averaged over the planet. There is about 60 times more water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide under average conditions. [It is worth noting that most supporters of global warming leave out water vapor when charting GHG’s.]

Of the approximately 1% of CO2 to total GHG’s, ~ 3% of the 1% is anthropogenic or Human caused. (Goldburg).
Human addition (anthropogenic) is 8 Gton which is approx. 1 % of total atmospheric CO2 (750 Gton in atmosphere). Comparing greenhouse gases by strict concentration only, the total human component is somewhere between 0.1% and 0.2%, depending on whose numbers you use. Adjusted for GWP (Global Warming Potential), the total human contribution to Earth's overall greenhouse effect is about 0.28%. Negligible compared to water vapor, not to mention solar affects.

The Carboniferous Period (about 286 -360 million years ago) and the Ordovician Period (about 438 million years ago) were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. The Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. (C.R. Scotese and R.A. Berner, 2001)

Vostok Ice Core Data, about the timing of CO2 and climate change – from extensive studies in the Vostok ice core over the period that comprises what is called Glacial Termination III, which occurred about 240,000 years BP (Before Present). The results of their meticulous analysis led them to conclude that "the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years." (Caillon et al., 2003) All historical data to date supports a finding that increasing atmospheric CO2 can lag temperature by as much as 100 – 800 years but consistently shows it as a lagging, not a leading indicator of Global warming.

Fri, Dec 10, 2010

Carbon neutrarlity is another boondoogle pie in the sky idiocy perpetuated by people who want us all to return to the stone age.

Wed, Dec 1, 2010

Carbon Neutrality is important and acheivable, albeit with big changes to our society that are needed. The Carbon Neutral Society looks fishy to me too, however, with their donate button on the home page and no info to where it goes. Better sites and organizations are: http://www.carbonzero.co.nz/, 350.org, Center for Resource Solutions, Global Footprint etc.

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above