Welcome To Tony Palmeri's Media Rants! I am a professor of Communication Studies at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. I use this blog to try to promote critical thinking about mainstream media, establishment politics, and popular culture.
According to this [http://www.epa.gov/RDEE/energy-resources/calculator.html] USEPA GHG equivalencies calculator, 1.3 acres of forest (not pine or fir forests) annually sequesters about 186 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide (for details, see [http://www.epa.gov/RDEE/energy-resources/refs.html#deforestation]). In case we have to deforest that 1.3 acres, the calculator says that 186 tonnes of CO2 is equivalent to:
Annual greenhouse gas emissions from 34.1 passenger vehicles CO2 emissions from 21,112 gallons of gasoline consumed CO2 emissions from 433 barrels of oil consumed CO2 emissions from 2.5 tanker trucks’ worth of gasoline CO2 emissions from the electricity use of 25.8 homes for one year CO2 emissions from the energy use of 16.9 homes for one year Carbon sequestered by 4,769 tree seedlings grown for 10 years Carbon sequestered annually by 42.3 acres of pine or fir forests Carbon sequestered annually by 1.3 acres of forest preserved from deforestation CO2 emissions from 7,750 propane cylinders used for home barbeques CO2 emissions from burning 0.97 railcars’ worth of coal Greenhouse gas emissions avoided by recycling 64.1 tons of waste instead of sending it to the landfill
In other words, we could "offset" 186 tonnes of CO2 emissions annually by any removing any one of those emission sources, or any combination of them which adds up the 186 tonnes. There are many good reasons to prefer to do the carbon offsetting within our own community, such as the many environmental, social and economic co-benefits or externalities, in addition to GHG mitigation, that may come with those offsets. The IPCC's assessement of the climate change literature confirms the wisdom of such an integrated approach, where all the co-benefits and externalities are given equal consideration, along with climate change mitigation and adaption:
"Near-term anticipatory action in [climate change] mitigation and adaptation would reduce risks and provide benefits because of the inertia in climate, ecological and socio-economic systems. The effectiveness of adaptation and mitigation is increased and costs are reduced if they are integrated with policies for sustainable development." -- pg 642, Chapter 11 "Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective," in _Climate Change 2007: Mitigation_. Working Group III Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change [http://www.ipcc.ch]
2 comments:
LMFAO!!
According to this [http://www.epa.gov/RDEE/energy-resources/calculator.html] USEPA GHG equivalencies calculator, 1.3 acres of forest (not pine or fir forests) annually sequesters about 186 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide (for details, see [http://www.epa.gov/RDEE/energy-resources/refs.html#deforestation]). In case we have to deforest that 1.3 acres, the calculator says that 186 tonnes of CO2 is equivalent to:
Annual greenhouse gas emissions from 34.1 passenger vehicles
CO2 emissions from 21,112 gallons of gasoline consumed
CO2 emissions from 433 barrels of oil consumed
CO2 emissions from 2.5 tanker trucks’ worth of gasoline
CO2 emissions from the electricity use of 25.8 homes for one year
CO2 emissions from the energy use of 16.9 homes for one year
Carbon sequestered by 4,769 tree seedlings grown for 10 years
Carbon sequestered annually by 42.3 acres of pine or fir forests
Carbon sequestered annually by 1.3 acres of forest preserved from deforestation
CO2 emissions from 7,750 propane cylinders used for home barbeques
CO2 emissions from burning 0.97 railcars’ worth of coal
Greenhouse gas emissions avoided by recycling 64.1 tons of waste instead of sending it to the landfill
In other words, we could "offset" 186 tonnes of CO2 emissions annually by any removing any one of those emission sources, or any combination of them which adds up the 186 tonnes. There are many good reasons to prefer to do the carbon offsetting within our own community, such as the many environmental, social and economic co-benefits or externalities, in addition to GHG mitigation, that may come with those offsets. The IPCC's assessement of the climate change literature confirms the wisdom of such an integrated approach, where all the co-benefits and externalities are given equal consideration, along with climate change mitigation and adaption:
"Near-term anticipatory action in [climate change] mitigation and adaptation would reduce risks and provide benefits because of the inertia in climate, ecological and socio-economic systems. The effectiveness of adaptation and mitigation is increased and costs are reduced if they are integrated with policies for sustainable development."
--
pg 642, Chapter 11 "Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective," in _Climate Change 2007: Mitigation_. Working Group III Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change
[http://www.ipcc.ch]
Post a Comment