On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Shane Mage <[email protected]> wrote:
> The point is not emissions measured by the microgram. It is global > emissions, which is the same thing as global hydrocarbon output. So the > average content works perfectly well. Once the commitment is made to a > zero CO2 economy (not the compromising "low" CO2 that will inevitably leave > the whole parasitic structure in place); prices are set right; and the > death grip of the energy parasites has been broken--then the revolution in > infrastructure will follow of itself. > > I note that you assert without evidence that infrastructure will happen by itself. With a fucking carbon tax. Also global emissions are not the same as global hydrocarbon output,especially not the same as fossil fuel output. ) About 1/5th to 1/3rd to due wilderness destruction, wilderness degredation and other land use changes. Much of this is due to harvesting of natural hydrocarbons, but by no means all. Another 3% or more is due to chemicals that are not fossil fuels - high GWP gases used in refrigeration, as teflon precursors, used in electronic manufacturing, used in transmission and distribution grids, used in fertilizer manufacture. Also how hydrocarbons are burned affects their emissions. Inefficiently burned coal and oil produce black carbon which is 700 times as intense per ton a contributor to global warming as CO2. Methane, when it leaks instead of being burned, is 25 times as intense a greenhouse gas over a period of 100 years (used to considered 20X but recent revisions now say 25X). And even worse over shorter periods. So transporting and burning fossil fuels inefficiently leads to them producing multiples of what the embedded carbon would produce if converted to CO2.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
