Re:Scientists Identify How Many Trees to Plant and Where to ...
by DarmokJalad1701 on Monday September 30, 2019 @11:37AM
(#21116483)
> Just switching from coal to natural gas reduces CO2 per kWh generated by 50%.
At the cost of increased methane emissions due to leakages from natural gas infrastructure that makes it far worse than coal since methane is a much more potent GHG.
Sources:
https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/natural-gas-industry-has-methan...
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fu...
Re:Scientists Identify How Many Trees to Plant and Where to ...
by api on Monday September 30, 2019 @02:32PM
(#21118317)
Point taken, but my main point is about people harping on activities that account for only a few percent while not even mentioning activities that account for large double digit percentages of emissions. To lead with air travel while not even mentioning coal is bizarre.
OR eliminate coal as a source of energy.
Coal is the #1 source of manmade CO2 by far. Just switching from coal to natural gas reduces CO2 per kWh generated by 50%. Obviously putting any solar or wind alongside that natural gas cuts much more deeply.
By contrast the airline industry only accounts for a few percent of global CO2 emission. Why even bring up air travel at this point?
I feel like there's this perhaps subconscious desire to bring moralism into it by shaming people for consumption. The "problem" is that coal can be replaced with almost no impact to our lifestyle, and so getting rid of coal doesn't involve enough sacrifice. The narrative of redemption through sacrifice is deeply woven into not just Western culture but most human cultures really.