If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
In this politically correct world we live in, there are so many new and exciting developments to keep track of. For instance, I learned today that it’s now fashionable, or shall we say expedient, to measure greenhouse gases in CO₂ equivalent.
Because we humans like to think in the simplest terms possible, the way we quantify greenhouse gas emissions has been distilled down to CO₂ equivalent. This is quickly becoming the preferred terminology when discussing greenhouse gas emissions.
What is CO₂ equivalent anyway?
Using methane as an example, when one pound of methane gets emitted into the atmosphere, it’s equal to releasing 21 pounds of CO₂. Or it can be written as 21 pounds of CO₂e.
Just for a little clarity, lets see what it takes to emit one ton (2000 pounds) of CO₂ into our atmosphere.
- drive 1,350 miles in a large gas guzzling SUV
- drive 1,900 miles in a mid-size sedan
- drive 6,000 miles in a small hybrid vehicle
There are plenty of other ways we send CO₂into the atmosphere. But what’s that really mean? And how does it affect us?
These days we equate greenhouse gas emissions with global warming. The more CO₂we produce, the more global warming increases.
At least that’s the conventional wisdom espoused by our esteemed former Vice President Al Gore. I’m not totally convinced but I think it prudent to take measures now rather than wait until things get totally out of hand.
So when you help send CO₂or methane gas into the air, you are directly responsible for global warming. Or at least a very tiny portion of it. So quit eating starchy foods you know will ferment and give you smelly problems later.
Dang, where’d that bean burrito I was eating earlier go. 
For instance, by drinking milk did you know you indirectly contribute to global warming. Each politically incorrect milk-producing cow in your local dairy burps and flatulates (that’s a nice way to say farts for you folks from Rio Linda - a little Rush Limbaugh humor there) roughly 200 grams of methane up into the atmosphere every day.
That doesn’t seem so bad, you think.
However…
Way back in 1989 New Scientist magazine cites a study done by a German scientist named Dieter Ehhalt. He calculated at that time there were approximately 1300 million, (yes, you read right, 1,300,000,000 or 1.3 billion cows) on the planet.
That was roughly one head of cattle for every four humans on the planet in 1989.Based on the number of 1,000 to 2,000 cow dairies around where I live there are lots more cows now. I’d be guessing though.
Apparently, the bacteria contained in the stomach of a cow breaks down the cellulose it eats into usable energy the cow needs. Unfortunately, in the process, 3 to 10 percent of the food a cow ingests turns into methane in the process. (It’s pretty hard to get an exact measurement of cow burps and farts apparently.)
Then there’s the methane produced by the piles of rotting manure every dairy contains, along with the pond. According to one of the local dairymen where I live (it pays to go to the barbershop once in a while) if the pond is managed properly most of the methane stays suspended in the water.
That’s not the worst part though. Methane is 25 times better at trapping the sun’s heat in the atmosphere than CO₂.
Now, I’m not telling you it’s OK to keep driving your gas-guzzling SUV, God forbid.
However, I do plan on keeping my own Ford F250 Diesel. Sheesh, I just paid the dang thing off. I need it to pull my 28′ fifth wheel trailer when we go camping. But, we try not to drive it unless we need it. It does get quite a bit better mileage in town, than the Ford Expedition we traded in on it a few years ago, got on the highway.
I’m a big fan of diesel at this point.
You’d probably have a greater impact on global warming if you got rid of your milk-guzzling kids. My 24 year old (thankfully he’s on his own now) can drink a half gallon of milk a day or more. Then we wouldn’t need as many cows burping and you-know-what-ing.
Here’s some more food for thought.
According to one unnamed source (to protect the idiotic although it’s an apparently otherwise reputable company), in order to remove 1,000 tons of CO₂ from the atmosphere we need to do one of the following…
- Have 145 SUV drivers move into small hybrids for an entire year. (I doubt they took into account how much energy–hence greenhouse gas emissions–it takes to build a hybrid–let alone the cost of recycling the batteries–and don’t forget how much it will cost the first time a hybrid gets crushed by a semi and spews battery residue across 4 lanes of your favorite interstate.)
- Replace 2,000 refrigerators with highest efficiency models you can buy (Again I doubt they factored in the energy/greenhouse gas component of building the new refrigerator)
- Plant an acre of Douglas fir trees (I’m sure they thought of how long it takes a tree to get big)
I don’t know about you, but I highly doubt the act of planting one acre of Douglas fir trees is going to remove 1,000 tons of CO₂ from the air. However, in the long run, I do believe that would be one of the most effective things to do for our children. Unfortunately, once an acre of Douglas fir gains maturity the next overwhelming desire is to cut them down and sell the logs.
My guess as to what they are really saying is that one acre of mature (left standing - not logged off) Doug fir would pull 1,000 tons of CO₂out of the atmosphere each year. Digging a little deeper doing some research, I find I’m correct and we’re both wrong all at the same time.
It’s been estimated an acre of mature Douglass fir trees store 1.4 metric tons of carbon each year. Without going into the fuzzy math, that equates to roughly 11,300 pounds of CO₂every year. Not even close to 1,000 tons (2,000,000 pounds or 2 million pounds)
I think you’ll agree with me the over-simplified version my hitherto unnamed source didn’t look too deeply into the issue. But they were on the right track.
That said, I still think we should all plant as many trees as we can. They look great and do help. It’s something we can all do, at least if we have a yard to plant one or two in.
In conclusion, I think we all have do our part. My sister says she’s never drinking another glass of milk in her life. This is the last straw for her. Actually, she’s always hated milk anyway.
We really do need to take individual responsibility for our impact on the environment.But the most prudent thing to do isn’t always the most obvious.
I’ll get back to this subject soon because I barely scratched the surface of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions in this article.
Best,
Thomas Burton
P.S. Please add your comments if you have anything to add or dispute. I’d love to hear it.
For the New Scientist article that cited the German Scientist, Dieter Ehhalt, go here http://tinyurl.com/3498q7