101
Chart: Is LNG worse for the climate than coal? Research suggests that liquefied natural gas can have a bigger emissions footprint than coal, undermining LNG’s status as a “bridge fuel.”
(www.canarymedia.com)
Coal, oil, gasoline, propane, natural gas, biodiesel, wood fired stoves, candles, its all the same; molecules made up of a bunch of carbon bonded together. Add heat and oxygen and the bonds break in order to bond with oxygen, creating co2 or carbon monoxide and releasing heat. Its always gonna emit a shit ton of greenhouse gases, the entirety of the fuel is being turned into one.
Wood takes atmospheric carbon to grow though, so it’s not a net addition. The carbon taken from the ground does increase the carbon in the atmosphere.
The carbon in the ground took atmospheric carbon too. Ancient plants and animals eating those plants. All of it is a matter of carbon being sequestered in a solid state or burned into a gaseous state.
Sure but the issue is that sequestered carbon from millions of years ago is being released. In the short term carbon from trees is comparatively neutral. There could be an issue if you start using firewood in a non sustainable way, however at the current scale it doesn’t seem to be the issue.
Burning trees does not grow trees. It just releases greenhouse gases.
You know we farm trees, right?
Is burning trees part of it? This is like eating a bunch of pizza to lose weight, because you can exercise it off. The pizza is only hurting your ability to lose weight, and burning trees is only hurting our ability to reduce greenhouse gases. You can grow trees without burning any.
No point. Its the diversified old-growth forests we need to protect. Planting more trees without achieving that is pointless. There is not enough wood-burning for heat and/or fuel happening to make a difference vs what we do grow though, as the vast majority of what we do grow goes into construction.
You want to stop indigenous peoples burning wood for heat and cooking? How about we stop paying them to burn down rainforests for farms and ranches first. If we can accomplish that, cracking down on campfires becomes a pointless endeavor.
Yes actually, because turns out it does have a large impact on emissions https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332221002967
The carbon footprint of the average person in Sub-Saharan Africa is nothing close to yours or mine. The idea that that article recommends eliminating wood-burning entirely is ... not born-out in its text.
What do you think the biomass in "Efficient Biomass Cooking" is? Its wood. The carbon footprint of the transportation of any other fuel to these people alone would more than offset any criteria by which wood-burning falls short, until we can electrify the entire world, and/or get everyone using solar ovens for cooking.
https://youtu.be/6-9-FkwUrRo
I can't even find the quote you've "replied" to in this thread, and it deffinitely was not myself who said it ...
Nah, its more the whole farming/regenerating trees thing reminded me of that clip. And i find it absolutely hilarious, and wanted to share
It's not all the same, partly because gases leak and may cause more damage than CO2.