Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is one thing that is not localized, it cannot be fixed locally or even nationally. Most of that mercury in your soil probably came from China.
When you burn coal the mercury is vaporized and it will enter the atmosphere if left unchecked. It can be carried thousands of miles before it is deposited back on earth. US coal plants have emission controls to capture mercury and other pollutants, they account for less than 1% of the global pool and that was before the current mercury regulations went into affect. By EPA estimates very little of that is deposited inside the US. These new rules are expected to decrease deposition rates an estimated 1 to 10 percent, the average IQ will increase an estimated 2/1000 of one point. The result of these new regulations is negligible nationally or globally, when you hear about over regulation this is an example.
The primary source for mercury emissions is Asia which contributes about 50% to the global pool, in particular China. Third world gold mining operations are also another source, some estimates suggest it may exceed global emissions caused by coal.
Guess that will give you different perspective on that wasteful ornamental gold jewelry? Nothing better than having this discussion with someone that has a really nice piece of gold on and being able to crush their self righteousness by pointing to it.
Quote:
In about two weeks I'm going to drive 3 miles south of my home to a local tree farm and cut myself a beautiful 7 year old fraser fir as my Christmas tree and while I'm there I'm going to sit in front of the burning yule log and drink my hot cocoa without complaint.
You can get live trees, plant it outside after Christmas and enjoy it forever. It's actually a pretty cool idea, you could have a line of Christmas trees for each year.
As for what we as individuals can do, educate yourselves. Consider growing a garden, flower or vegetable, or plant a small orchard. Walk or ride a bike rather than drive, and if you must drive, consider a hybrid for your next car.
Vacation close to home, if possible. Consider joining a non-profit dedicated to preserving the natural environment. Membership in the Sierra Club is only $15.
If you can manage it, buy up some inexpensive land that is mostly untouched or which can be restored. There are still lots of woodland tracts of a few acres which are affordable in most places - find one close to you (go in with like-minded friends to cut costs), check it out, buy it if you can. Use it for picnics and camping. Make your own trails, perhaps add a small cabin, keep it safe.
I was blessed to do just this about ten years ago, and it was one of the best decisions I've ever made. Taxes are less than $20 a year, absurdly...but I have waterfalls, wildflowers, woods, wildlife, a cabin, trails, archeological traces from long-ago inhabitants...and it's less than an hour from my suburban home.
In fact, I need to check on the place this afternoon, and am running late. See you later, folks - I'm off to the woods!
I like your advice. It is hard to choose the best non profit. I can afford to support one. I have distrusted charities in general believing they do not spend most of the money on the things they are supposed to, but I know there must be a few good ones out there. I have wanted to buy some small land too. I was thinking I could start my own small non profit to do that ?
That is going to be expensive and you need to store it until some other tech comes along to utilize it. I would suggest it will not happen. Industries are always trying to find a way to capitalize on their waste stream and that is probably what will happen here. For example CO2 captured from a fossil fule plant can be used as feed stock for algae based bio fuels, this effectively removes the CO2 emissions from the power production end of it.
.
I love that idea. Feed the CO2 to the plants that need it to live and they will turn it back into oxygen! What a beautiful idea.
Given that wood is actually a renewable resource, that's sort of a dumb additude for a supposed environmentalist, isn't it?
Burning wood is undesirable in areas of low air quality because it is very sooty when it burns. We had wood burning bans in the winter at times because the air was so still and the smoke would build up and not dissipate. It is really hard on people with asthma.
Wood as a renewable resource, or if you look at in another way, as a temporary repository for carbon, would be OK if it were truly renewed. But we burn stuff faster than it grows back, or we burn and then don't allow it to grow back because we re-purpose the land. The carbon that was stored as wood gets released and cannot return to new plant material because there is less forested surface of the earth. Otherwise it would be perfect cycle - carbon is released from the wood, goes into the atmosphere as CO2, and gets reused by new trees. The net change of carbon in the atmosphere is zero. But we have messed up the cycle by not allowing new trees growth at the rate that previously existed.
That is going to be expensive and you need to store it until some other tech comes along to utilize it. I would suggest it will not happen. Industries are always trying to find a way to capitalize on their waste stream and that is probably what will happen here. For example CO2 captured from a fossil fule plant can be used as feed stock for algae based bio fuels, this effectively removes the CO2 emissions from the power production end of it.
No, that won't work.
Think of the problem this way: For the last 100 - 200 million years or so the earth has had X amount of carbon within the biosphere. That carbon is continually cycled between different reservoirs - a lot is stored as plant material, some is in the atmosphere, a lot is dissolved in the ocean as carbonic ion, and some is converted into minerals like limestone.
Carbon continually cycles between these different stores, but the key thing is that the total amount of carbon does not change - it is still X. It simply appears as different forms as it cycles around.
But when fossil fuels are burned, we are adding carbon into the total that used to be X. The total is now X+Y. If that new carbon goes into bio-fuels or algae or whatever, it is still a net addition to the biosphere and because the biosphere is in equilibrium with the atmosphere, part of the new carbon will also add to the carbon load in the atmosphere.
The only way to not change the biosphere carbon load, and hence not change the atmospheric load (and oceanic load - carbonization of the ocean is also a problem) is to not release CO2 from burned fossil fuels into the biosphere. It would have to be captured and pumped back into the ground.
Burning wood is undesirable in areas of low air quality because it is very sooty when it burns. We had wood burning bans in the winter at times because the air was so still and the smoke would build up and not dissipate. It is really hard on people with asthma.
Wood as a renewable resource, or if you look at in another way, as a temporary repository for carbon, would be OK if it were truly renewed. But we burn stuff faster than it grows back, or we burn and then don't allow it to grow back because we re-purpose the land. The carbon that was stored as wood gets released and cannot return to new plant material because there is less forested surface of the earth. Otherwise it would be perfect cycle - carbon is released from the wood, goes into the atmosphere as CO2, and gets reused by new trees. The net change of carbon in the atmosphere is zero. But we have messed up the cycle by not allowing new trees growth at the rate that previously existed.
In wooded areas of the country, we are lucky to have that perfect cycle still.
In wooded areas of the country, we are lucky to have that perfect cycle still.
Yes, you are. But the problem is we don't live in isolation any more. The fact that 13 million hectares of forest and jungle are cut down every year, globally, affects you. It is not just "your cycle", it is a global cycle.
But when fossil fuels are burned, we are adding carbon into the total that used to be X. The total is now X+Y. If that new carbon goes into bio-fuels or algae or whatever, it is still a net addition to the biosphere and because the biosphere is in equilibrium with the atmosphere, part of the new carbon will also add to the carbon load in the atmosphere.
You need to read more carefully but I guess I could of been a little more clear. What I said was you are effectively removing it from the "power generation end of it". The bio fuels would be used in applications where we are extracting oil (and the carbon stored in them). You would still have emissions from your liquid fuels but that is the only source assuming you could utilize all of the CO2 from the power generation.
Practical solution like this that may not fully address the problem but partially solve it is what needs to be done, sans some major technology discovery you are not going to remove fossil fuels from the energy mix for many decades to come.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
