Originally Posted by
willibrord
When there is too much carbon in the atmosphere, every molecule added is bad. We are in absolutely no danger of having too little C02 in the atmosphere of our planet. If we keep on adding it from every conceivable source, and remove only miniscule amounts, the planet is doomed. Look at Venus. 95% CO2 temperatures of 470 degrees.
If we sequester too much carbon dioxide, there is indeed a danger of having too little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide levels were much higher in the past and the planet was much warmer. About 65 million years ago, the planet was 8°C warmer than it is now. This period was followed by a period of rapid cooling and ice formation.
But then, as now, the problem is with
adding carbon dioxide. The carbon that exists in living organisms (or short term dead organisms) and is released due to natural processes is not "added". It is merely recycled.
Originally Posted by
boomhauer
When wood bio-degrades doesn't it release CO2 anyway? Why not burn it? Isn't this the definition of carbon neutral?
Exactly. That's the point of biomass as a form of
renewable energy. Rather then dig it up out of the ground, we should utilize the plants growing now...0 to 100 years ago being "now"... rather than plants that grew 100 million years ago.
On a side note, only a portion of that wood degrades into carbon dioxide naturally. There is about 20 percent of all wood that won't degrade. It's a structural member of the plant and there is no organism that utilizes it for energy. If you've ever seen "punky" wood, i.e. brown and kind of rotten, that's the lignin part. It will burn, of course, but it won't be consumed by organisms. Natural processes bury this part and eventually turn it into coal.
Originally Posted by
Happy Feet
Not really.
Those terms always relate to a specific activity. What something else does, somewhere else, doesn't make what you or I do any better or worse. If that were the case, every corp would claim some natural process as a cancelling justification for their action. The only way that works is if a corp pays to facilitate an action which is the premise behind carbon offsets.
It's not that hard to understand. If your process releases CO2 gas it creates a footprint. If you run a cleaner process you reduce that footprint. If you cause CO2 gas to be resequestered you offset that footprint. Sequester enough CO2 equal to that which you produce and you are CO2 neutral and, if you use a process that does not emit CO2 you are also carbon neutral. Fit any fuel into that concept and it's the same.
You seem to be missing the whole point of "carbon neutral". The only way that a company can be "carbon neutral" is to not use energy derived from carbon...which isn't possible with most industrial processes...or do something to offset those processes. Currently about the only way to be "carbon neutral" is to plant crops to absorb carbon. But, unless those crops are being utilized to make energy to offset the use of fossil energy, even they aren't "carbon neutral".
On the other hand, if a cyclist on tour uses a twig to cook a meal, they have already offset the use of that twig by not utilizing fossil carbon based fuels for their travel. They
are carbon neutral both in the use of a renewable energy source for cooking and for travel. They aren't putting fossil carbon into the biosphere.