The biggest source of confusion and errors in climate discussions probably concerns "carbon" versus "carbon dioxide." I was reminded of this last week when I saw an analysis done for a major environmental group that confused the two and hence was wrong by a large factor (3.67). The paragraph I usually include in my writing:
Some people use carbon rather than carbon dioxide as a metric. The fraction of carbon in carbon dioxide is the ratio of their weights. The atomic weight of carbon is 12 atomic mass units, while the weight of carbon dioxide is 44, because it includes two oxygen atoms that each weigh 16. So, to switch from one to the other, use the formula: One ton of carbon equals 44/12 = 11/3 = 3.67 tons of carbon dioxide. Thus 11 tons of carbon dioxide equals 3 tons of carbon, and a price of $30 per ton of carbon dioxide equals a price of $110 per ton of carbon.
I confess that in my books I have tried to consistently use CO2, for clarity's sake, but I have failed to embrace that strategy in my blog posts. I realized that was a mistake after receiving an email from a reader who was confused as to whether the price I quoted in a recent post was dollars per ton of carbon or carbon dioxide, even though I had said in the post that it was "the price of carbon."
This confusion occurs so frequently because scientists usually use carbon, as they are studying the carbon cycle, and governments use carbon because the scientists do. But "carbon" is not intuitive, whereas carbon dioxide is what we all emit -- that is why businesses and the public typically report numbers in terms of carbon dioxide. Point Carbon, for instance, reports prices in the European market for CO2 allowances (in euros, of course).
And, indeed, the central climate number in this whole area is the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. The media is typically caught in between, sometimes using one, and sometimes using the other -- and sometimes making a mistake or being unclear.
So I am going to try to be consistent and use CO2. Where relevant, I will also include one conversion to carbon, without bombarding you with too many numbers. So hopefully, from now on, if I fail to be clear, you should make the default assumption I am talking carbon dioxide.
I would recommend that all blogs and journalists clearly state their "carbon dioxide policy" -- and ensure they know whether they are talking in terms of carbon or carbon dioxide when reporting on studies, articles, or business action.
EPA affirms California’s right to set tougher automobile emissions standards
MoveOn asks members whether it should launch major campaign to strengthen climate bill
Comments View as Flat
Sam Wells Posted 1:50 am
26 Mar 2008
It gets worse than that ...
Many inventories report individual species such as CO2, CH4 (methane), and N20 (nitrous). However, one can also compute Global Warming Potential (GWP) by combining them together. So CO2 has a GWP of 1 but methane has 62 times the warming potential (20-year lifetime); N20 can be 275x. These are included in the IPCC and EPA protocols and are very frustrating sometimes, a source of confusion as well. Some are pre-adjusted and some are not. Obviously, with N20 there is no carbon equivalent ... haha! -sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 5:28 am
26 Mar 2008
Carbon is the problem
The main source of GHG's is coal. Anthracite is 80% carbon by weight so that you can establish carbon equivalency.
1 gallon gasoline (burned)= 19.6 lbs CO2= 6.7 lbs. Anthracite coal (burned)= 5.3 lbs carbon (graphite)= ~ 6 lb. charcoal (buried and sequestered)
Since the carbon doesn't go back into the ground as CO2 (normally) but as calcium carbonate (CaCO3 in oyster shell) or mineralized carbon (charcoal) it's just easier to demonstrate the emissions cycle with charcoal. As the oceans acidify the geological norm for C sequestration as CACO3 decreases and limits the return of carbon to it's mineral form. That leaves weathering of rock (slow) or uptake by land based plant life (potentially faster).
So burial of that 6 lbs of biomass charcoal (biochar) is going to be our best shot for sequestering carbon outside of the living biosphere.
As an added advantage biochar added to soil has been demonstrated to limit the release of NO3 from agricultural soils. As this is the most potent, commonly released, greenhouse gas present with every use of nitrate fertilizers, biochar (that charcoal stuff again) provides a sequestration bonus.
If anyone has a better or more universally available method of sequestering carbon than burial of biochar please let us all know. The minimal required tools are plants, a stone ax and a digging stick. Metal tools could be used as available but aren't really necessary.
Our alternative is demonstrating the need to sequester a colorless, odorless, invisible and toxic (when concentrated) gas. Good luck with that.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink