In the story about Montana Gov. Schweitzer, Samuel
Western seemed confused by the terms “pollution” and “climate
change.” In the science community, we rarely refer to either of
these words. They tend to be used by people who study policy.
Typically, climate change is used to mean changes in long-term
average patterns of temperature and precipitation due to changes in
concentrations of “greenhouse gases” (carbon dioxide, methane,
etc.) Pollution has historically referred to changes in near-ground
level concentrations of physically harmful chemicals. However,
carbon dioxide is slowly starting to be seen by many as a
pollutant.
Western writes, “With climate change making
conventional uses of coal less palatable, the two plants could
provide a relatively clean future use for it.” And later, “The
process gives off carbon dioxide, but in a form that is easy to
re-use, although plenty of questions remain about carbon dioxide
transport and storage.”
It seems as if there is an
attempt to claim that this technology will help with the big
problems of climate change. In fact, it seems to me as if this form
of energy production is likely to produce more carbon dioxide
molecules per watt of energy than other fossil fuels, and as such
is likely to be worse for the problem of climate change. However,
it seems as if it is likely to help with the problem of low-level
atmospheric unhealthful emissions from coal plants.
Furthermore, there are not “questions about carbon dioxide
transport and storage.” There are only “pie in the sky” thoughts
about storage and removal.
Andrew
Conley
Boulder, Colorado
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Pie in the sky, a la carbon.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
