NoaIzumiBarack Obama’s Polluted Mind, by Eric Englund
January 15th 2009 20:29
One more on global warming. Caught this one linked from Junkscience.com, and it just looked too good to resist. One thing I’ll say for it, this is definitely an angle I have not seen before.
Really Long Link
The article is obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek, so in analyzing it, I run the risk of taking it too seriously. Still, even considering the humor of the argument, it’s still flawed.
The “dangerous pollutant” quote
This is probably a minor nitpick, but the wording makes it sound like Mr. Obama said those exact words, when he never did. “Dangerous pollutant” is Bloomberg’s phrase, not Obama’s.
“the carbon dioxide emissions from breweries, wineries, and distilleries would be viewed as a serious problem. In the United States alone, annual wine production is about 2.44 billion liters while annual beer production is approximately 23 billion liters. Throw in distilled spirits and it is inescapable to conclude that a whole lot of manmade carbon dioxide is being generated”
Englund never says how much CO2 in total comes from the alcohol industry, and to be fair, probably no one really knows, with precision. But he seems to focus on the fermentation process as the big CO2 emitter, and we can make some estimates based on that.
Really Long Link
In the basic fermentation process, as the author says, sugar is broken down into alcohol and carbon dioxide, in generally equal proportions by weight, so one gram of CO2 is produced for one gram of alcohol (actually, slightly less than one gram of CO2, but that’s not important). Density of alcohol is about 0.8 kilograms per liter. Assuming beer is 10% alcohol, wine is 20% alcohol, and spirits average 60% (and one case is ten liters), I calculated 2.8 million metric tons of alcohol produced in a year, or the same amount of carbon dioxide produced by fermentation in the US in a year.
Sounds like a lot, and it is. But what about compared to total carbon emissions? In the US in 2007, burning of fossil fuels produced over six billion metric tons of carbon dioxide.
Really Long Link
So CO2 production from fermentation is about one twentieth of one percent of the total US CO2 emissions.
Carbon dioxide emissions in this country generally increase from year to year, by 75-80 million metric tons.
Really Long Link
Fermentation would be less than four percent of that. Eliminating it entirely wouldn’t even slow the emissions down.
So, if Obama is serious about cutting CO2 emissions, the alcohol industry would be a pretty lousy place to start. It would be like sending bombers against an enemy carrier battle group, and ordering them to attack the rowboats first. Or advising an obese person to cut back on dry toast.
Of course, there’s another little thing about fermentation that you may have already figured out, and have been patiently listening to my numbers spiel while waiting for me to get to the point that would invalidate it all: fermentation doesn't actually add carbon to the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide is released during the fermentation of sugars, fine, but those sugars came from atmospheric carbon dioxide in the first place. CO2 goes in, CO2 comes out, for zero net emissions. In fact, when you consider the carbon that goes into the other plant parts (leaves, stems, etc.), if they are composted or otherwise handled so that they don’t decay quickly, you’ve really got a fair amount of carbon sequestration going on. Done properly, production of booze could be a model of carbon neutral industry. So, if you should tie one on at your next party or drink a little too much at the bar, remember, you’re not being a lush, you’re doing your part to encourage eco-friendly businesses! Those twenty margaritas you drank helped save the planet.
The funny thing is, Englund comes close to this revelation too. He talks about photosynthesis, he talks about fermentation, but for some reason, he’s unable to connect the two. So, while it’s well established that Eric Englund is smarter than a fifth grader, I think he’s still working up to seventh grade.
Really Long Link
The article is obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek, so in analyzing it, I run the risk of taking it too seriously. Still, even considering the humor of the argument, it’s still flawed.
The “dangerous pollutant” quote
This is probably a minor nitpick, but the wording makes it sound like Mr. Obama said those exact words, when he never did. “Dangerous pollutant” is Bloomberg’s phrase, not Obama’s.
“the carbon dioxide emissions from breweries, wineries, and distilleries would be viewed as a serious problem. In the United States alone, annual wine production is about 2.44 billion liters while annual beer production is approximately 23 billion liters. Throw in distilled spirits and it is inescapable to conclude that a whole lot of manmade carbon dioxide is being generated”
Englund never says how much CO2 in total comes from the alcohol industry, and to be fair, probably no one really knows, with precision. But he seems to focus on the fermentation process as the big CO2 emitter, and we can make some estimates based on that.
Really Long Link
In the basic fermentation process, as the author says, sugar is broken down into alcohol and carbon dioxide, in generally equal proportions by weight, so one gram of CO2 is produced for one gram of alcohol (actually, slightly less than one gram of CO2, but that’s not important). Density of alcohol is about 0.8 kilograms per liter. Assuming beer is 10% alcohol, wine is 20% alcohol, and spirits average 60% (and one case is ten liters), I calculated 2.8 million metric tons of alcohol produced in a year, or the same amount of carbon dioxide produced by fermentation in the US in a year.
Sounds like a lot, and it is. But what about compared to total carbon emissions? In the US in 2007, burning of fossil fuels produced over six billion metric tons of carbon dioxide.
Really Long Link
So CO2 production from fermentation is about one twentieth of one percent of the total US CO2 emissions.
Carbon dioxide emissions in this country generally increase from year to year, by 75-80 million metric tons.
Really Long Link
Fermentation would be less than four percent of that. Eliminating it entirely wouldn’t even slow the emissions down.
So, if Obama is serious about cutting CO2 emissions, the alcohol industry would be a pretty lousy place to start. It would be like sending bombers against an enemy carrier battle group, and ordering them to attack the rowboats first. Or advising an obese person to cut back on dry toast.
Of course, there’s another little thing about fermentation that you may have already figured out, and have been patiently listening to my numbers spiel while waiting for me to get to the point that would invalidate it all: fermentation doesn't actually add carbon to the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide is released during the fermentation of sugars, fine, but those sugars came from atmospheric carbon dioxide in the first place. CO2 goes in, CO2 comes out, for zero net emissions. In fact, when you consider the carbon that goes into the other plant parts (leaves, stems, etc.), if they are composted or otherwise handled so that they don’t decay quickly, you’ve really got a fair amount of carbon sequestration going on. Done properly, production of booze could be a model of carbon neutral industry. So, if you should tie one on at your next party or drink a little too much at the bar, remember, you’re not being a lush, you’re doing your part to encourage eco-friendly businesses! Those twenty margaritas you drank helped save the planet.
The funny thing is, Englund comes close to this revelation too. He talks about photosynthesis, he talks about fermentation, but for some reason, he’s unable to connect the two. So, while it’s well established that Eric Englund is smarter than a fifth grader, I think he’s still working up to seventh grade.
| 50 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
