Climate change and environmentalism can be confusing. They can also be contradictory. As an example consider this.
Climate change
We are told that fossil fuels are bad for the environment because they produce carbon dioxide (CO2).
We are told that this CO2 stays in the atmosphere and adds to the greenhouse effect. This in turn increases downwelling radiation which causes global warming.
We are told that we need to prevent global warming by putting less CO2 into the atmosphere. This means either less use of fossil fuels or removing CO2 from the atmosphere. As using less fossil fuels is difficult to achieve economically, then maybe we need to look at CO2 removal.
One suggested removal method is carbon capture. This involves removing the CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it underground in perpetuity. One way to achieve this could be to turn fossil fuels into a compound of carbon that does not degrade or decompose. Well we have such a set of compounds - they are called plastics. So plastic is a form of carbon capture. So plastic is good, yes?
The environment
Well no, because we are also told that we are polluting our environment with unnatural materials.
One of the worst of these is plastic because it does not decompose. So the trend now is to make plastic biodegradable so that it does decompose. But if it does decompose then it will just add to the carbon in the carbon cycle (see Post 36), first in the soil and then it will add to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
So biodegradable plastic is good for the environment but bad for global warming.
Bio-plastic or non-bio?
So there is the dilemma. Plastic could help to permanently store unwanted carbon and prevent it entering the atmosphere, but it could damage the environment instead.
But if we prioritize protecting the environment by making plastic biodegradable, then we will just add the carbon in those plastics to the atmosphere in the form of CO2.
It appears that there are no easy solutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment