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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the causes of global warming, specifically focusing on fossil fuels and deforestation. Participants explore the role of carbon dioxide in climate change, the current reliance on fossil fuels for energy, and the effectiveness of reforestation practices. The conversation touches on misconceptions about carbon emissions and the impact of individual actions on global warming.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about the continued use of fossil fuels, questioning whether they are still a primary energy source.
  • It is noted that while alternatives to fossil fuels exist, a significant portion of energy consumption (about 80%) still comes from fossil fuels.
  • Concerns are raised about the effectiveness of reforestation practices, with some companies adhering to sustainable practices while others do not.
  • A participant explains the distinction between "old" carbon from fossil fuels and "new" carbon from recent biological processes, suggesting that human breath is considered carbon neutral.
  • Another participant emphasizes the unsustainable nature of fossil fuel consumption, highlighting the rapid release of carbon compared to the long time it takes to sequester it.
  • There is skepticism about the impact of small individual actions, such as turning off lights or chargers, on the larger issue of global warming, with some questioning the exaggeration of the problem in public discourse.
  • Participants discuss the comparative environmental impact of different fuel types for vehicles, such as diesel and LPG, without reaching a consensus on which is better.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that fossil fuels and deforestation are significant contributors to global warming, but there are multiple competing views regarding the effectiveness of individual actions and the sustainability of current practices. The discussion remains unresolved on several points, including the impact of small changes and the best fuel options for vehicles.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the effectiveness of reforestation and the role of individual actions in combating global warming. Additionally, the definitions of "old" and "new" carbon are not universally accepted, and the discussion does not resolve the complexities of carbon emissions from various sources.

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?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 184 ·
7
Replies
184
Views
50K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 106 ·
4
Replies
106
Views
38K
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K