On ‘carbon positive’ Fiji Water
Tully.ca writes about “Is Carbon Neutrality Actually Possible?”
Although this is good, and don’t get me wrong, it is good, yet where do we draw the line on what is carbon negative, neutral, or positive?
While you are being skeptical, you might consider a couple more points.
The plastic bottle – is still carbon based, right? I mean, glass bottles could be done carbon neutral, managing the cartons (re-use wood, like back in the 1950′s and 1960′s) and energy sources used.
When you are talking about carbon footprint, does recycling – meaning keeping plastics and other carbon forms available, possibly to be burned in the future to co2 – or landfill actually withdraw the carbon, even temporarily, from chance burning or fermenting back to co2 and greenhouse gases?
When you reforest, that is good. What about the 1,000 acres [EDIT: should be 1,000 square miles!] of rain forest that Brazil claims to have chopped down and begun farming – last year alone? What about reports that the forests of Southeast Asia and China are expected to be completely denuded in the next few years, as the trees are cut to provide charcoal for heating homes and cooking, and structural wood? Sounds like good intentions, but spit in the bucket for effect.
Biofuels suffered a setback in reputation this last week. One report points out the use of fermented biostuffs to create fuels actually produces more greenhouse gases that burning fossil fuels.
There are many carbon neutral forms of energy. Geothermal and coldwater ocean ducts, solar, wind, nuclear, and hyrdodynamic come to mind. There are the recent advances in generating electricity from motion – from ocean waves to actions of the human knee to clothing material with nanogenerators embedded. But the human-powered stuff isn’t carbon neutral – we consume plants and animals that consumed plants, and emit co2. Carbon neutral or even ‘existing carbon’ cycles don’t ‘put the genie (excess carbon) back in the bottle.’
Many people have been concerned about the level of greenhouse gases emitted by belching cows. I wonder if anyone has actually proven that an acre of grass grazed by cows produces more total greenhouse gases over the course of a year, than an acre left on it’s own (fallow) or used to raise grains for food.
For all I know, composting may be a serious threat to global warming. Except the recent reports that the Northern Hemisphere cooled this last 4 quarters – cooled more than the global warming in the last 100 years, according to NASA and others.
I would like to see more work done on micro-hydroelectric systems. Something one could install in a creek with occasional 1 or 2 foot deep water, without creating a major basin. Average the system into the power grid as small farm-sized wind generators have been. Maybe someone could begin a ‘sustainable growth harvest’ emblem to designate lumber and wood products taken from sustained, managed woodlands, rather than clear-cut lumber projects.
It seems that for now, extending forest growth is our best ‘carbon positive’ action. Which is barely carbon positive – since the wood will eventually either burn or decompose back to co2. Maybe we can build a fission reactor that runs on charcoal, and produces electricity, heat, and various metals on demand. Maybe I won’t hold my breath.
I had no idea that you had other hot topics other than making babies
I will pass the article onto the boyf who is very interested in biofuels. I think that when certain things are declared as being great for the environment, a lot of it is PR or they just don’t understand the medium or long term effect of what they are doing. Either that or they just don’t consider other factors. But yes, don’t go holding your breath.
NML, Global warming and tree huggers have been a peeve of mine. I mean, I thought America realized that Global Warming ended when we kept Gore out of the white house.
While Brazil is getting tree hugger kudos over being essentially ethanol fueled, I see that they aren’t letting foreign oil dictate as much of their economy as much as the rest of the world. If history is any indicator, OPEC jacking up oil prices, artificially, is a means of equipping for war. Certainly we are at the point that wars are about to become economical to secure oil. I was told in school that every war ever fought has been about assets – money. Including the Crusades (another case of history repeating?).
Many ecology and conservation topics are useful. But as the saying goes, “Figures don’t lie, but Liars figure.” ‘Green’ and ecology marketers are no more ethical, as a group, than the tobacco companies were, or car makers today.