Why are Fossil Fuels and Deforestation Still the Main Causes of Global Warming?

AI Thread Summary
Global warming is primarily attributed to carbon dioxide emissions, mainly from fossil fuels and deforestation. Despite advancements in renewable energy, approximately 80% of global energy still comes from fossil fuels. Deforestation practices vary globally, with some regions adhering to reforestation guidelines while others do not. Human respiration does not significantly contribute to carbon dioxide levels because it primarily releases "new" carbon from recently absorbed sources, while fossil fuel combustion releases "old" carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years. This process is unsustainable, as it releases vast amounts of carbon in a short time, outpacing natural carbon trapping. Discussions around individual actions, like turning off lights or chargers, often highlight the disparity between small personal efforts and the larger industrial emissions that drive climate change. The effectiveness of switching vehicle fuels, such as diesel versus LPG, also remains a topic of debate in the context of reducing emissions.
n0_3sc
Messages
238
Reaction score
1
I know this topic should be in the section: "politics and world affairs" or "earth"... but I get the feeling "true" scientists (physicists :biggrin:) won't be in those sections to answer this.

Anyway, I hear everywhere that the primary reason for global warming is "CARBON DIOXIDE".
Now apparently the prime reasons to CARBON DIOXIDE are:
- Fossil Fuels
- Deforestation

I would like to know who still uses fossil fuels to generate power? I thought they abandoned this technique many years ago?

And finally deforestation...I was taught many years ago that ALL deforestation companies/industries obey the rule where for every tree cut down, a new tree must be planted.

Did I dream these up? And why is it that with the billions of humans on this Earth our exhaled breaths aren't the prime reason for carbon dioxide?
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
n0_3sc said:
Did I dream these up?

Yes! There are some alternatives to fossil fuels, but about 80% of energy we use is still from fossil fuels. Source.

While some companies manage sustainable forests, not all of them do by any means.

And why is it that with the billions of humans on this Earth our exhaled breaths aren't the prime reason for carbon dioxide?

Because other sources create more...
 
The carbon in fossil fuels used to be in the atmosphere, but it's been sequestered for millions of years. Buring oil re-releases the carbon that had been sequestered so long ago. Think of that carbon as "old" carbon.

All animals living today, including humans, eat food that has sequestered carbon in it. But that carbon was absorbed from the atmosphere just a few months ago; it's "new" carbon. We eat plants and animal, metabolize the carbon, and re-release it to the atmosphere - it's considered "carbon neutral."

Activities you do that release "old" carbon are considered to increase the size of your "carbon footprint," but activities that release "new" carbon do not.

This is a vastly simplified explanation, but I think it explains why human breath doesn't contribute to greenhouse gasses.

With regard to reforestation: it depends where on the planet you live. In North America, reforestation is normal practice. But in many countries, it isn't.
 
And the carbon released by fossil fuels is not only from a long time ago, it also (and perhaps more importantly) took a long time to trap. In burning coal to generate electricity, we release in a single day an amount of carbon that took hundreds or thousands of years to trap. And gasoline is even worse.

Obviously, this is not a sustainable process. So, we might think to ourselves, "well, the problem will fix itself, then; eventually the available carbon will run out, because we can't keep releasing it at a rate greater than it is trapped." However, this will not happen until we have burned up all the fossil fuels on the planet, releasing hundreds of millions of years worth of carbon in just a couple of centuries.
 
matthyaouw: that source was pretty interesting - it shows that transport gas usage is extremely small compared to what industries use.

Ok, so I understand now that Fossil Fuels and Deforestation is still the main issue.
Now, all these "save the world" commercials and advertisements talk about making the "little" change where we need to switch of an unused lamp or just a cell phone charger with no phone on it...
Are these people just "over" exaggerating the global warming concept?? I don't imagine that the few watts of power a lamp consumes (compared to a continually running refrigerator) and a cell phone charger with NO load can help by just turning it off...

Power plants are generating MW to GW of electricity which I'm sure primarily goes to industries, so am I wrong too disbelieve people who are taking the global warming issue far too 'out of hand'?

There is also the concern whether you switch your vehicle to diesel or lpg - which is the better of the two?
 
On August 10, 2025, there was a massive landslide on the eastern side of Tracy Arm fjord. Although some sources mention 1000 ft tsunami, that height represents the run-up on the sides of the fjord. Technically it was a seiche. Early View of Tracy Arm Landslide Features Tsunami-causing slide was largest in decade, earthquake center finds https://www.gi.alaska.edu/news/tsunami-causing-slide-was-largest-decade-earthquake-center-finds...
Hello, I’m currently writing a series of essays on Pangaea, continental drift, and Earth’s geological cycles. While working on my research, I’ve come across some inconsistencies in the existing theories — for example, why the main pressure seems to have been concentrated in the northern polar regions. So I’m curious: is there any data or evidence suggesting that an external cosmic body (an asteroid, comet, or another massive object) could have influenced Earth’s geology in the distant...

Similar threads

Back
Top