YOUR second leader takes the US to task for dragging their heels in reducing their production of greenhouse gases. I hear that at the CHOGM the Australians are trying to make a case for burning more of their abundant coal which would mean more carbon dioxide. That is frequently said to be a greenhouse gas that needs to be held in check. I find that very hard to follow.
According to Kaye and Laby the mass of the earth's atmosphere is just over 5 x 1018 kg and CO2 is present at about 0.03% by volume, so there are roughly 2300 billion tonnes in the atmosphere. That concentration would seem to be necessary since CO2 is an essential plant nutrient. The concentration will be higher near cities, industrial areas, and power stations, but that will have little bearing on the greenhouse effect.
Carbon dioxide is one of the very big-tonnage active chemicals of the earth. Each year about 200 billion tonnes are generated by animals breathing, decay of organic matter, volcanoes, forest fires, etc. That is roughly in balance with the amount taken up by green plants so the atmospheric content remains roughly constant.
Artificial CO2 produced by people burning fuel in fires that vary from small wood stoves, vehicle engines, up to very large power station furnaces amounts to about seven billion tonnes a year, and we can at best only save a small part of that. That small part is a drop in the bucket compared with that naturally generated. It is even less significant compared with that already in the atmosphere.
A long time ago the earth's atmosphere contained a lot more CO2 than it does now but plants fixed that and it is now locked in limestone mountains. Why don't we trust green plants to keep surplus CO2 in check now? James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis suggests that this is happening.
If the Australians scrub the other serious pollutants out of their flue gases, releasing carbon dioxide won't do much harm.
Chris Parton,
40 Bellshill Road, Uddingston.
October 25.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article