In a new book ‘Eco-Freaks, Environmentalism is hazardous to your health’, John Berlau contends that environmentalists have promoted doomsday scenarios some of which have proven to be false, and that nature is not always benign and can sometimes pollute and poison.
Following my post on John Berlau’s chapter on DDT (Eco-Freaks: Part 1, DDT), a regular commentator at this blog known as SJT, suggested the book was misleading because Berlau’s has written that, “tree contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than cars.”
When I first posted on DDT, I hadn’t read the chapter on trees or the chapter on cars.
I read on, and on, and on, including these two chapters. But I could not find any reference to “trees contributing more C02 to the atmosphere than cars”.
So I emailed John Berlau. He replied:
“Jennifer,
I never have written that trees contribute more CO2. I was talking about the hydrocarbons in smog, [in] which I do document that tree contribute a greater portion, part of which is due to the fact that the catalytic converter has reduced cars’ hydrocarbon emissions by 90 percent.
But also due to the fact that new measurements show that gases from trees contribute much more than thought, when devices were developed to trace the hydrocarbons’ source.
The first such study documenting this was the University of Georgia Chaimedes in 1988. It has been show again by dozens of prestigious reasearchers, including some I cite [in the book] from Australia’s top scientific agency.
[Ronald] Reagan, however, was not simply pulling this out of his hat when he said this in the late 1970s and the 1980 campaign. He cited scientists such as Texas A&M’s John J. McKetta, who questioned the assumptions about the relative contributions of cars and trees [to smog] and were later vindicated when the research confirmed their theories.
An interesting point is that in cars, the catalytic converter reduces pollutants by, or course, transforming hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide into water vapor and carbon dioxide. This was hailed as a great advance at the time, around the early 1970s.
Liberal senator Edmund Muskie, a Democrat from Maine who sponsored the Clean Air Act of 1970, spoke about how wonderful this device was that could turn these harmful pollutants into, in his words, “harmless carbon dioxide” that we breathe out and plants breathe in.
This is a point that needs to be made more often: that one major reason for the increase in carbon dioxide emissions is actually pollution control. [end of quote]
The first time John Berlau mentions trees and cars in ‘Eco-Freaks’ is in chapter 4 ‘Smashing the engine on public health’. This chapter is essentially about the long running campaign in the US against cars. On page 118 Berlau makes the point that:
“The main charge against cars made since the late 1970s is not that they are adding harmful pollution. It’s that they are contributing to the buildup of carbon dioxide … but carbon dioxide is not a pollutant like lead. It is a basic element that humans breathe out and plants breathe in. In fact, cars are emitting carbon dioxide in part as a way of reducing pollutants. Catalytic converters, placed on cars after the mandated pollution reductions from the Clean Air Act of 1970, “oxidize” pollutants such as carbon monoxide and harmful hydrocarbons and transform what comes out of the tailpipe into water and carbon dioxide. … Proponents of the Clean Air Act, including many environmentalists now sounding the alarm about carbon dioxide, thought this was great … proclaiming proudly that with catalytic converters, cars would now be primarily emitting the same substance that plants breathe. [end of quote]
In summary, trees can contribute to smog, cars now emit more carbon dioxide than they used to, and don’t believe everything you read in comments following my blog posts.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
OK Jen – tell us why his assertion about catalytic converters producing more greenhouse gas than before is moronic.
Luke,
Why do you always have to us such derogatory language.
And I see nothing “moronic” in this interesting piece of information.
Jen – you must have me confused with Ian on the count of derogatory language 🙂
it takes about 30 seconds to put a round through Berleau’s argument. It’s utterly stoopid. I can’t believe you have penned it uncritically.
What happens to the automotive exhaust emissions of CO and hydrocarbons eventually – they become CO2. A duh !
Furthermore CO is a greenhouse gas in its own right and gets up to a few other indirect warming tricks with methane and ozone, before it becomes CO2 anyway.
No mention of the move to computerised ignition systems, overhead cam designs, fuel injection and everything else that comes with the catalytic converter to make similar power for less fuel burned. A reduction in carbon emissions per km.
The breakdown path for the carbon related air pollution is CO2 in the long run anyway.
So leaving off the catalytic converters would make GHG warming worse not to mention the respiratory illness costs in major cities!
We do know where the additional atmospheric CO2 that is raising the global atmospheric CO2 concentration comes from (gee it’s fossil fuels):
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
So next time one is in the blue mountains one can admire the blue haze of VOCs – volatile organic compounds from the eucalypts.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag/41/i05/html/030107feature_goldstein.html (great new March 2007 article – worth a squiz)
“Knowledge of organic composition in the background atmosphere lagged behind urban pollution studies. In 1960, Went theorized that biogenically emitted VOCs created the blue haze observed in the atmosphere above many forested regions, such as the Blue Mountains in Australia shown on p 1514 (6). Subsequent research has shown that, on a global scale, emissions of VOCs from vegetation are an order of magnitude greater than those from petrochemical production and use (7). Even in some urban environments, biogenic VOC emissions were shown to be as important for regional photochemical ozone production as anthropogenic VOC emissions (8). Furthermore, studies of plant signaling, defense, and food and flavor chemistry have led to the detection of thousands of individual VOCs (9), yet only a small fraction of these have been studied by the atmospheric science community.
VOCs are now known to be essential components of tropospheric chemistry; their oxidation leads to ozone and aerosol production. However, knowledge of organic aerosols’ composition, sources, chemistry, and role in the atmosphere and the earth’s climate system is still extremely limited, and the importance of biogenic and anthropogenic precursors for SOA production is a major current research topic (10, 11).” {ENDS}
So perhaps we should clear fell the blue mountains – that would be popular?
Other relevant bits on carbon monoxide (CO) ans opposed to carbon dioxide (CO2).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases
“Carbon monoxide has an indirect radiative effect by elevating concentrations of methane and tropospheric ozone through scavenging of atmospheric constituents (e.g., the hydroxyl radical, OH) that would otherwise destroy them. Carbon monoxide is created when carbon-containing fuels are burned incompletely. Through natural processes in the atmosphere, it is eventually oxidized to carbon dioxide. Carbon monoxide has an atmospheric lifetime of only a few months[19] and as a consequence is spatially more variable than longer-lived gases.
Another potentially important indirect effect comes from methane, which in addition to its direct radiative impact also contributes to ozone formation. Shindell et al (2005)[20] argue that the contribution to climate change from methane is at least double previous estimates as a result of this effect.[21]” {ENDS}
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995GeoRL..22..925E
“An observation of the greenhouse radiation associated with carbon monoxide
Evans, W. F. J.; Puckrin, E.
AA(Trent University, Ontario, Canada), AB(Trent University, Ontario, Canada)
Geophysical Research Letters (ISSN 0094-8276), vol. 22, no. 8, p. 925-928
Ground-based measurements of the downward thermal emission spectra from the clear sky have been made in the spring and autumn seasons. These measurements clearly show the presence of the carbon monoxide emission band between 2000-2200/cm. A simulation of the background emission has been performed using the FASCD3P line-by-line radiation code. The simulation has been used to isolate the downward thermal emission that is attributed uniquely to carbon monoxide. From these measurements the actual downward greenhouse radiation flux from carbon monoxide has been determined to vary between 0.06 W/sq m +/- 16% and 0.11 W/sq m +/- 10%, depending on the time of year and other meteorological factors. A comparison to the longwave fluxes associated with other important greenhouse gases suggests that carbon monoxide itself may be a relatively important trace gas in the atmosphere, and may make a significant contribution to the radiation imbalance of the atmosphere.” {ENDS}
The claim was made based on a review of the book on a sympathetic web site.
I think Lukes ‘moronic’ was referring to John Berlau’s view of ‘green’ attitudes to trees, although John did not use that word.
““The main charge against cars made since the late 1970s is not that they are adding harmful pollution. It’s that they are contributing to the buildup of carbon dioxide … but carbon dioxide is not a pollutant like lead. It is a basic element that humans breathe out and plants breathe in. In fact, cars are emitting carbon dioxide in part as a way of reducing pollutants.”
No, it’s not a pollutant like lead. That’s true. It’s a role in the ecology of the earth has been a pretty stable concentration in the atmosphere for many thousands of years. That value has been a part of a rich ecology, and allowed human civilisation to flourish. As much was going in as came back out.
Now the value of CO2 is rising, and that stable state is going askew. In that sense it is a pollutant, but I have argued from the start that CO2 is part of a healthy planet.
“Catalytic converters, placed on cars after the mandated pollution reductions from the Clean Air Act of 1970, “oxidize” pollutants such as carbon monoxide and harmful hydrocarbons and transform what comes out of the tailpipe into water and carbon dioxide. … Proponents of the Clean Air Act, including many environmentalists now sounding the alarm about carbon dioxide, thought this was great … proclaiming proudly that with catalytic converters, cars would now be primarily emitting the same substance that plants breathe. [end of quote]”
Yes, CO2 is not as bad as what was coming out before, but the amount coming out still causes it’s own problems.
Jennifer: It’s all bunkum!
Listening to comments on Gardening Australia one has to believe great hordes have no idea about the tree dangers. We do know however many are working with about half the water they once had. That includes the north coast of NSW and Geelong.
Peter Thompson has Peter Cundall on Talking Heads next Monday. Organics etc is from the other side of our lifestyle debate.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/talkingheads/about/peter.htm
Now Luke & SJT that’s the kind of quality commentary we need! Can’t let people go around believing silly nonsense now can we? Might lead them to espouse dumb opinions and make bad decisions.
SJT gets it really wrong. He should really post an apology. But the cheer squad/Pinxi asks for more misinformation!
It’s a sad world when so many, so often, seek affirmation of their own prejudices regardless of the facts of the matter.
So Jen how about engaging – do you really think that after all the emissions are oxidised in weeks or months that more CO2 is now emitted because of catalytic converters?
I am continually amazed by silly arguments that look at one side of the source/sink relationship. There may be some big sources out there – but the equilibrium balance is the issue (so surprise also big sinks) and we do not very well what’s changing the global atmospheric CO2 balance ! (Despite the biosphere and ocean sinks trying their best).
As far as trees contributing to smog – not much information provided?
Luke SJT and Pinxi, on your bikes, don’t drive dont’ use any vehicles, grow your own food and just in case you beleive there are too many humans on the planet, just go and swim in a shark pool, save the planet.
As a mater of fact don’t use bikes they are made from that great evil steel. Don’t use wood either, that’s against your basic ethos.
You are nihilists, there is no debate with nihilists.
No response will be entered into, into practice what you preach.
Luke, you’ve included links that don’t take me anywhere useful quickly, and lots of side commentary. but i am interested in the guts of your argument that John Berlau is wrong to claim that “one major reason for the increase in carbon dioxide emissions [from cars] is actually pollution control”. can you provide links/references that specifically rebut this point and a concise argument? please.
Jennifer
what I said was based on a sympathetic book review.
“If he is going to use the same argument as TGGWS, that trees put out more CO2 than cars, then he is already on the wrong track.
“Trees cause more “air pollution” than cars? In Eco-Freaks, John Berlau shatters long-standing environmental myths with startling facts, and exposes the many ways that shortsighted environmentalism — often based on pseudo-science or outright falsehoods — has actually helped amplify the dangers of natural disasters, and destroyed the health, lives and property of millions of people.”
http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c7010“
That is what this review claimed, “trees cause more air pollution than cars”.
Gee Jen – it’s pretty basic isn’t it.
Car exhausts emit CO2, CO and hydrocarbons. (SO2 and NOx too but another issue). With catalytic converters they produce less CO and hydrocarbons and more CO2. Which is what Berlau is saying.
Assuming for argument’s sake no other engine efficiency gains in using converters (which are also very real – meaning less C per km emitted) – the mass balance of carbon is the same. So the carbon content of fuel consumed is the same – but the chemical ouput different.
What happens to the CO and hydrocarbons emitted – oh they get oxidised to CO2 in days to months.
NETT RESULT no difference assuming no technical efficiency changes that go with the converter technology. Add in the effciency improvements and converters mean less C emitted per km.
His argument is about as stupid as it gets.
If that’s his style of argument I’d throw his book in the bin.
Where it did get somewhat interesting was the assertion that trees contribute to smog which I presume is the VOC story – but alas no detail. I provided some.
John – go bite your bum. Am I saying don’t drive you gimp? Where did I say that?
We’re not nihilists but you’re an idiot. Go jump numb nuts.
There are consequences of using technology – it’s interesting that the automotive industry can seem to make vehicles that deliver good fuel efficiency and minimise exhast pollution. When initially raised in the 1970s it was the end of the world. But looky they have changed their technology and you’re still getting incredible automotive technology at a reasonable price. It behoves humanity to develop better technology or mitigate its side-effects. Effects of CO2 are just another such issue.
It’s the kind of argument only an accountant could make. Add and subtract the data, but make sure you draw the bottom line where it’s most convenient. In this case, at the exhaust pipe. Unlike accounting, the CO2 equation is part of an eco-system.
Does anyone remember leaded petrol? Lead was added to improve the octane rating and allow the engine to operate at higher compression and hence higher efficiency. Lead and catalytic converters don’t mix. When unleaded petrol was first introduced, the fuel efficiency initially decreased i.e. more CO2. Of course lots of new technology since then, but originally pollution control did increase fuel consumption
SJT,
Correct – Co2 is at the basis of our whole ecosystem. Without it there would not be life.
Luke,
There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. To think so implies a serious misunderstanding of of physics.
OK viewers – I’ll tell him what he wants to hear – “Oh hello Louis – yes there are greenhouse gases Louis and some are very evil – it’s just like the glass roof on your greenhouse that’s keeps all that big bad nasty heat in”. I think we need to introduce a socialist government that regulates all production of CO2 especially from individual households. Only by this will we save the planet and arrive at deep green ecological purity.
Luke,
So, quoting John Berlau, proponents of the Clean Air Act, including “many environmentalists now sounding the alarm about carbon dioxide, thought this was great… proclaiming proudly that with catalytic converters, cars would now be primarily emitting the same substance that plants breathe”.
When in fact they could have been a bit more specific and said that even without the catalytic converters it would all end up C02.
And is this the worst thing about cars now, that they still generate C02?
Oh do pull my leg Jen – so he says – can he name two environmentalists that actually said that – and for all those kids with asthma and people with respiratory disorders and sore eyes etc in high density urban areas we say hurrah for catalytic converters.
It’s difficult isn’t it – 6 billion of us all wanting our share – plug a whole in the dyke here and Gaia springs another leak over there. We’re working on it.
Of course we could start a Club of Rome discussion on Peak Platinum (look a rabbit !!), or the other pollutants like NOx and SO2 but I’d go straight to hell for that one. http://members.tripod.com/~JB5353/gmvn/tohell.wav
Anyway while we’re in limbo awaiting Sir Ian and his envelope to return from his retreat at Valhalla can you bring us up to speed on Berlau’s argument about trees and smog – I’m just assuming it’s about VOCs. And you didn’t even appreciate my VOCs find either – I thought it was jolly interesting. Unloved in his own land. Sniff.
Louis
Still waiting for you to comment on a theory. How about the theory of gravitation, if the theory of Global Warming is too off putting.
“There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. To think so implies a serious misunderstanding of of physics.”
I would think you would be one of the very few people on the planet who would actually believe that. Even Christy and Lindzen believe it, the planet would be 20C cooler and uninhabitable without it.
The current state of the ‘no’ camp is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, for well understood scientific reasons, but that the ‘enhanced’ greenhouse effect, which is behind the whole global warming hubub, is overstated.
Jennifer
The major reason for the introduction of catalytic converters was, as Luke said, that some of the products of vehicle exhausts was detrimental to the health of people. Yes, CO2 was a better output in the short term than the alternative.
Now, it’s the fault of the environmentalists if it subsequently turned out that CO2 has it’s own problems. Science is not perfect, and the effects of CO2 being added to the atmosphere were not realised till later on.
Luke, yes, the chapter was more about “trees and smog”, SJT created something of a diversion for us.
but first i want to post something on that chapter about asbestos. so you might have to wait for the post on smog … perhaps until part 4.
i’m anticipating part 3 on asbestos.
you could always read the book.
one of the most interesting bits in the chapter on cars is a claim by John Berlau that evacuation of New Orleans (when Katrina was bearing down) worked for those who owned cars … that those left behind mostly didn’t own a car or know someone who owned a car.
According to a study from Princeton:
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/04/q3/0927-trees.htm
As I understand it, smog has little to do with carbon monoxide or ‘hydrocarbons’ as such.
Its more about the mix of ground-level ozone, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds like benzene and stuff, and hot days and sunlight to drive a reaction.
I could be wrong, but i don’t think trees emit too many VOCs or ozone.
Steve – think of the Blue Mountains blue haze – it seems that trees do do their share of “VOC-ing”. “Subsequent research has shown that, on a global scale, emissions of VOCs from vegetation are an order of magnitude greater than those from petrochemical production and use ”
says http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag/41/i05/html/030107feature_goldstein.html
But you are right about what you say involves urban and city smog. But smog in developed areas tends to be a local issue.
The biogenic issue is that VOCs ain’t necessarily smog, although smog probably nees VOCs. Most people seem to breathe easily in the Blue Mountains when it’s not burning.
Thanks Luke
One more thing I have learned. It’s an incredibly complex field of knowledge. I think we can safely say that there have never been complaints in the Blue Mountains about pollution from the trees.
The whole point is, Eco-Freaks are against anything humans do.
We clean up car exhaust so it’s just plant food. Well, then for them it’s bad stuff all over again.
When we get cars powered by hydrogen, they’ll say, the water-vapor exhaust is bad and that will be bad, too.
Then there will be electrical cars. Well, they will prove to have electrical fields that cause brain cancer just like cell phones. So electric cars will be bad.
So we’ll get bicycles. Well, the bicycles will be built by by people in countries where wages are lower, so we will have to boycott bicycles from those places and put those people out of work.
So people will walk, and they will want sidewalks. But sidewalks are made with concrete, which produces C02 when made.
So we will walk in mud and dust, and want shoes. The shoes will be of leather, made from dead animals, which we must stop. The soles, of rubber, either use petroleum (a scarce resource) or natural rubber (which exploits people in developing nations). So we will have to stop wearing shoes, and walk in the mud and dust.
Walking barefoot will result in cuts and infections, requiring antibiotics. But the use of antibiotics results in antibiotic-resistant germs. So we will go barefoot and die from infections.
Freaks are freaks, and I say, if that’s the way they want to live, let them go. Will they be equally fair to us?
Never.
Well possibly right with hydrogen – may affect the ozone layer like CFCs.
Schiller – you can’t help it if all your worshipped technologies have side effects.
Schiller
you’re making things up again. You’ve been warned about that before.
The CSIRO made a demonstration house back in the 1980’s, that was designed from the ground up to be energy efficient and cheap to heat and cool. I couldn’t tell the difference from a normal house. It was all just a matter of locating the windows on the block right, decent eaves and verandah, insulation, etc. It didn’t cost much more than a normal house, but the heating and cooling costs, (and hence CO2 footprint), were reduced by a significant amount.
In contrast, these days, the eaves are a thing of the past, they add too much to the price, apparently. It’s just a classic case of cost shifting. At least building regulation specify a required standard of insulation in buildings, and that a rainwater tank or solar hot water heating must be installed.
In the city, massive towers are built with glass, because it’s cheaper for the builder. The cooling and costs of these are considerable, as they are massive, vertical, greenhouses. Also considerable is the water usage to run the air con stacks.
Luke: Great link but on this haze versus smog issue we must look the role of water vapour in both; see Cantrell, Cape Grimm etc.
IMO we must also get a handle on the density of the photo chemicals in each case and there is one heck of a difference in colour re our survival and say photography at the individual level.
Filters of all kinds become another big issue.
Blog based lessons in atmospherics is another danger. It takes years of work at the practical level.
Schiller; who is the freak here most likely to strangle your lifestyle?
Good point Schiller – once you define eco freaks as being against anything humans do – it really simplifies things doesn’t it? Helps you remove yourself from reality, ignore complexity and satisfy your own paranoia… doesn’t it?
I love this from Jen:
“one of the most interesting bits in the chapter on cars is a claim by John Berlau that evacuation of New Orleans (when Katrina was bearing down) worked for those who owned cars … that those left behind mostly didn’t own a car or know someone who owned a car.”
Whats interesting Jen? A transport system geared to preference cars, combined with an economic system with skewed wealth distribution (and hence car affordability), creates a situation where some people win (the wealthy with cars) and some people don’t (the poor without cars or any alternative). Wow, that interesting… about as interesting as stripping paint of a tin shed the size of a football field with a 20 cent piece.
Any stats on road deaths there pre-compulsory seatbelts? Any stats on head injuries post seatbelts? Any exploration of health costs associated with the automobile? Any discussion of the historical circumstance in which the automobile benefited from an illegal conglomeration of business interests which dismantled light rail and contrived urban planning models to preference the car? Any discussion of the viable alternatives to the car?
I nominate Schiller as the shrillest eco freak here, but that’s just my opinion and as worthless as his.
There is no technology out there that Eco-Freaks are not against.
If they’re not against it, it’s not technology.
evidence pls
or did God Himself tell you that directly?
Interesting – was this the same Schiller that was selling the benefits of GM technology over toxic pesticides. Noting the air was cleaner and wildlife was back.
Schiller do you want to make vehicles pollute again – despite some initial yucks with anti-smog devices on automobiles the modern vehicle has heaps of technology that deliver both power and low emissions i.e. fuel injection, multi-valves, computerised ignition systems, sensors etc. Cumulatively in a fleet sense they make a big difference. The industry is moving to recycle components. Safety measures – passive and active have improved out of sight. You would like to devolve ?
You may have noticed this is a blog about the environment – not about engineering or road building. So surprise surprise we’re discussing matters environmental.
You’re assuming here that most of us of an environmentally considerate nature (and I can assure you that Pinxi and I would be tossed out of the local greenie collective as veritable right wing rednecks)are hell bent on returning to the caves and committing the western world to 3rd world living standards.
Not so.
But that doesn’t mean improvements need to be continually made and we’re well aware now after 200 years that much of our modern technology and consumption has consequences. So we move to address those issues. It’s amazing how much can be done if you make an attempt. It’s amazing how innovative business’s become when subjected to some pressure.
All the pollution achievements were held as unattainable by the auto industry in the 1970s but surrpise surprise they’ve been able to deliver.
Luke and Pinxi,
Perhaps you could tell me about (1) what technology you are *not* against, even though it (2) constitutes technology, and then you can explain to all of us how (3) it has no side-effects that Eco-Freaks would protest against.
Simple. Three parts.
Explain.
I have already described the CSIRO home from over 20 years ago. It doesn’t take a lot of thought to make a house low energy and ‘normal’ looking. Eaves, verandahs, insulation, water storage, on a slab, solar hot water. The list goes on. It also doesn’t take a lot of nouse to realise you can’t build a multistory greenhouse and not have inordinate demands on energy and water to keep it cool.
Sensible, informed architecture is a good start. Hook it up with workable public transport and you have a good head start on carbon management.
Nuclear power is an option, but I would hate to think it was the only option, since it does come with it’s own significant baggage.
SJT,
It doesn’t take a lot of thought to discover that the house you describe is vastly wasteful of resources and terrifically inefficient.
Let me scratch your head for you, as you seem reluctant.
(scratch, scratch)
Average people on an average wage couldn’t afford to build such a house. The would if they could, but they don’t.
While you’re at it, you, too, could answer the three-part question. Or try to.
Schiller – simple – I’m not philosophically opposed to GM technology, agricultural chemicals, nuclear power, coal power, solar or wind power, light and heavy railways, the automobile, irrigated agriculture – that’s a small list.
All these technologies have side effects unfortunately – but I am extremely interested in mitigating these impacts with thoughtful action, management and technology.
As SJT also illustrates, a lot can be done already with very simple ideas.
Schiller
the whole point of that house is that it was very cost effective. Just the way you place the windows, eaves and verandah, can make a huge impact on the energy requirement.
My last house had a north facing window that was quite big, looking over the garden. It had an eave that projected far enough to block out the sun in summer, but allowed the sun to come in through the window in winter. That’s not hard, and it adds *nothing* to the cost.
Anthony,
Just following on from your response to my comment about car owners getting out of New Orleans when Katrina was bearing down. Apparently there was a plan to evacuate with buses, but apparently the plan didn’t get executed very well, and there is apparently low car ownership in New Orleans because the city is/was considered to have a good public transport network.
You’ll need to read the book to get the stats on ‘car accidents’. There is a fair bit in it discussing some of the issues you raise and also car size.
I have to agree with you SJT, building an environmentally friendly house need not be more expensive. Mine isn t, although the solar hot water was relatively so. However if we allow the govt to enforce specific regulations, like they have in canberra, that require frequent inspections to ensure compliance, then the costs will start adding up considerably.
It makes sense to let individuals make informed choices. If they are able to recognise the benefits, such as lower power bills, a more consistent inside temperaure without the need for artificial heating or cooling, less artificial lighting etc, then I would like to think people will automatically desire this.
I’m not against any technology per se shiller, it’s a silly demarcation to try on
go ahead then, run on with an eco-freak rant and don’t justify it and don’t examine your own contribution to any of the world’s problems. We can never see eye to eye becuase you start from a God given position that conveniently justifies everything you want to get away with and forgives you everything else that falls outside his notice, like certain ethnic and non-christian groups
All of the comments are very interesting , but can someone please tell me what the effect a catalytic converter has when you are running on LPG????????????
Berlau is quoted as saying: “the catalytic converter has reduced cars’ hydrocarbon emissions by 90 percent…”
Apparently not.
“although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency predicted that catalytic converters would reduce national automotive carbon monoxide emissions by 90 % and nitrogen oxide emissions by 70 % between 1975 and 1985, in fact the emission of carbon monoxide decreased by only 19 %, and nitrogen oxide emissions increased by 4 % over that period. This is typical of the overall results of the massive effort to reduce pollution levels in the United States. Generally, emissions and environmental concentrations have declined by perhaps 10-20%, with the levels of some pollutants, notably nitrogen oxiden in air, nitrate in water, and many toxic chemicals actually increasing…”
http://www.czp.cuni.cz/values/citanka/dobris/barry_commoner.htm
In any case there is incontrovertible evidence that points to the fact that pollution cannot be ‘controlled’. Rather ‘prevention’ is the only method that actually works. Our technologies should therefore be redesigned to ensure this happens.
The 6 laws of ecology:
1. ‘everything is connected to everything else’
2. ‘everything goes somewhere’
3. ‘the ecosystem is consistent with itself; its numerous components are compatible with each other and with the whole. Such harmonious structure is
the outcome of a very long period of trial and error – the 5 billion years of biological evolution.’
4. ‘a distortion or incompatible component leads to harm’
5. ‘if you don’t put something into the environment, it isn’t there. Linked
to this is another law,
6. In the task of restoring environmental quality prevention works, control does not.
( from ‘Making Peace with the Planet’ by Barry
Commoner.)
http://www.geocities.com/rosserbj