carbon or carbon dioxide ??

[Gill Catton]

Can someone explain to me why when its CO2 that's causing problems in the atmosphere people keep referring to carbon?

Its leaving me more and more confused - when they're talking for example about carbon trading, reduced carbon footprint or lower carbon emissions do they mean CO2 ?

It grates on me everytime its used because I don't know what they mean - is it lazy media speak Or is the carbon / carbondioxide thing inextricably linked? As in where there's carbon there's carbon dioxide? As in if you use less carbon based fuel then there's less CO2 released into the environment?

[matt_xyz]

in this context the 2 are used interchangeably. Carbon dioxide is released when we burn fossil fuels containing carbon. But you're right, carbon trading etc all refer to emissions of CO2.

Matt

[pressld2]

Hi Gill,

Fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal contain carbon bound up with other elements in molecules. (Coal itself is made up of molecules of pure carbon but there are usually impurities embedded in it). When the fuel is burned the molecules are broken apart into smaller molecules or individual atoms. This is what releases the energy. The individual atoms of each element are then free to join with other atoms to form new molecules. Carbon combines very readily with oxygen to form carbon monoxide (1 carbon atom + 1 oxygen atom) and carbon dioxide (1 carbon atom and 2 oxygen atoms).

Hope that helps!

Dave P.

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by pressld2

Hi Gill,

Fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal contain carbon bound up with other elements in molecules. (Coal itself is made up of molecules of pure carbon but there are usually impurities embedded in it). When the fuel is burned the molecules are broken apart into smaller molecules or individual atoms. This is what releases the energy. The individual atoms of each element are then free to join with other atoms to form new molecules. Carbon combines very readily with oxygen to form carbon monoxide (1 carbon atom + 1 oxygen atom) and carbon dioxide (1 carbon atom and 2 oxygen atoms).

Hope that helps!

Dave P.

Interesting so you need only expose carbon rich things like coal or oil (or peat?) to the air and it forms CO2? Or do you need to burn them? or does that simply release more carbon dioxide?

So carbon in itself (like a lump of coal) can produce CO2 just with us exposing it and/or burning it we make the situation worse?

do diamonds produce carbon dioxide?


plants produce carbon dioxide in the absence of light- but not because they are composed mostly of carbon but because of the gaseous exchange caused by photosynthesis?

Oh I wish I had been taught more about this in chemistry!

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

Interesting so you need only expose carbon rich things like coal or oil (or peat?) to the air and it forms CO2? Or do you need to burn them?

You need to burn them to free the atoms from the molecules that they are currently in. A lump of coal is pretty inert and does not give off CO2 on it's own.

I takes ridiculously high temperatures to burn a diamond but yes, it too would produce CO2 if you did.

Dave P.

[Ukwildlifeo]

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

plants produce carbon dioxide in the absence of light- but not because they are composed mostly of carbon but because of the gaseous exchange caused by photosynthesis?

Plants are always respiring/breathing like us and producing CO2. Its just when theres light they produce O2 (oxygen) as a by product of photosynthesis (which uses up CO2), and use up more CO2 than they produce.

[Gill Catton]

so when they are talking about something being carbon neutral - do they mean no fossil fuels have been used in its production or that no CO2 has been produced or that the production has been mitigated somehow.....

I wish when people referred to carbon they mean't carbon and when they refer to CO2 they mean CO2 - it probably only bother me but to me its like continually referring to a blackbird as a thrush. They are in a way related but they are still different.

Though I suppose one can't ever become the other....................

[Dogghound]

.....and carbon dioxide is causing a problem due to it being a greenhouse gas, its increasing concentration is causing the planet to warm up.

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by Dogghound

.....and carbon dioxide is causing a problem due to it being a greenhouse gas, its increasing concentration is causing the planet to warm up.

Aaah now I knew that bit what has been confusing me is people keep talking about carbon and I wasn't really sure if they were using lazy media speak or that they were actually referring to carbon and not carbon dioxide

[Dan Salter]

Inresting thread and interesting point, well done Gill.

Cant we just say for ease that anything beginning with Car....is bad?...so, Carbon, Carbon dioxide, Cars, Carpets, Carbunkles, Carboot sales and Carlisle ....all bad i tell thee !

[pressld2]

Thought for a minute you might have hit on something there Dan. There's carbolic acid, carcinomas and Carmarthen too.

But then I thought about caracals, carnations, caribou and cardinal beetles, not to mention caramel and carafes! So on reflection I think that some things beginning with car are okay!



Dave P.

[Dan Salter]

i argued over caramel in my head too ha ha...but i like it too much so didnt include it

i forgot a good one CARAVANS ! lol....or Caravan Owners i should say ! (ooooh ill get in trouble now mwuahaha)...im being a bit unfair as my dream vehicle is a classic 23 window VW split screen Samba bus ( VW CAMPER)....but they are way cooler than any caravan

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

so when they are talking about something being carbon neutral - do they mean no fossil fuels have been used in its production or that no CO2 has been produced or that the production has been mitigated somehow.....

Hi Gill,

An activity is described as carbon neutral if the emissions released by it are offset by a scheme to either reduce concentrations (e.g. planting trees) or to reduce emissions elsewhere. The idea is that the activity results in no net gain in concentrations and is hence 'carbon neutral'. You can take such claims with a pinch of salt 9 times out of 10, in my opinion.

Matt

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

Hi Gill,

An activity is described as carbon neutral if the emissions released by it are offset by a scheme to either reduce concentrations (e.g. planting trees) or to reduce emissions elsewhere. The idea is that the activity results in no net gain in concentrations and is hence 'carbon neutral'. You can take such claims with a pinch of salt 9 times out of 10, in my opinion.

Matt

yes I know the basics of this (and yes I have little faith in it either) but they're actually talking about the manipulation of CO2 not carbon aren't they?

[Meta menardi]

I quite like Carlisle, or parts of it.

If you drain a peat wetland, the increased air in the soil means that the peat starts to shrink, as the carbon slowly combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide. I parts of Lincolnshire, the level of the land has sunk many feet due to this. I used to visit a farm that had had about 6 feet of peat over a clay subsoil, but now had the fields all changing colour as the peat was getting mixed with the clay. Scary to see.

Bring back wetlands.

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

yes I know the basics of this (and yes I have little faith in it either) but they're actually talking about the manipulation of CO2 not carbon aren't they?

the 2 are inextricably linked but I agree it might be clearer to refer to 'carbon dioxide neutral'. It doesn't roll off the tongue as well though

Matt

[Ipso Facto]

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

... I wish when people referred to carbon they mean't carbon and when they refer to CO2 they mean CO2 - it probably only bother me but to me its like continually referring to a blackbird as a thrush. They are in a way related but they are still different ...

Instead of blackbird and thrush, think Euro and Pound. The Euro is a common currency that can be used in many 'states' throughout Europe without having to go through some sort of conversion, the Pound is only of use in the UK.

Carbon is the common currency of most fuels and therefore the common building block if you like that can be used without further conversion to compare the greenhouse potential of anything from crude oil to daffodils. Also don't forget that whilst carbon dioxide may grab most of the headlines it is not the only greenhouse gas. Cars, for example, emit both carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide and landfill sites emit methane (CH4). True carbon neutrality would need to address carbon in all it's forms.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

the 2 are inextricably linked but I agree it might be clearer to refer to 'carbon dioxide neutral'. It doesn't roll off the tongue as well though

Matt

Global warming isnt purely linked to CO2 though - other greenhouse gasses include Carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4), and ClouroflouroCarbons (commonly known as CFCs and subject to confgusion as they are also implicated in ozone layer destruction)

CO is produced by burning or decay in oxygen poor environments (ie car engines, some power stations, and in peat bogs , swamps etc.) CH4 (and associated gasses such as methine C2H3) is released during natural decay , is in cow farts, and is also released extensively from landfil - though some sites flare it off liberating thus converting it to Co2.

I dont thiunk CFCs are a naturally occuring compound but they used to be used as an aerosol propellant , and refrigerent and are still found in these rolls in developing countries.

Therefore in order to be truly carbon neutral (ie to cause no negative effect to the GHE) your activity must realse none of these gasses and thus it is correct to refer to "carbon" rather than "carbon dioxide"

[matt_xyz]

Pete, CO isn't a greenhouse gas - it's not classified by the IPCC as being one. Also, carbon offsets are all about creating carbon sinks (tree planting in the main) so wouldn't do anything to help some of the other greenhouse gases, particularly CFCs and N20. So in the context of global warming, carbon sinks (offsets) are basically all about carbon dioxide so it would still be more accurate to refer to 'carbon dioxide neutral'.

Unless, I'm missing something which is always possible

Matt

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

Pete, CO isn't a greenhouse gas - it's not classified by the IPCC as being one. Also, carbon offsets are all about creating carbon sinks (tree planting in the main) so wouldn't do anything to help some of the other greenhouse gases, particularly CFCs and N20. So in the context of global warming, carbon sinks (offsets) are basically all about carbon dioxide so it would still be more accurate to refer to 'carbon dioxide neutral'.

Unless, I'm missing something which is always possible

Matt

I agree about creating sinks for Co2 (I also agree that most of these schemes are little more than a con) - however a lot of people use carbon neutral to mean that a product or activity doesnt generate any Co2 - and i was just pointing out that in this context it would only be accurate if you didnt generate other greenhouse gasses either.

Methane is said to be between 4x and 20x worse than Co2 so stopping generating Co2 (or absorbing all we release) but continuing to release the CH gasses would be a really bad idea.

also as regards Co it acts as a gh gas in experimental conditions , but i guess ithe IPCC don't classify it as a GH gas because it is in so small proportion - particularly at altitude - that it doesnt majorly contribute to the problem.

[matt_xyz]

yes, and also because CO has a short atmospheric life so only causes local problems. I agree it is theoretically a greenhouse gas.

CH4 has 60x the global warming potential of CO2, per unit, according to some estimates.

I've never heard carbon neutrality interpreted as implying zero emissions, but rather that any emissions are offset. Hence carbon neutral albums by Coldplay , carbon neutral construction projects, flights etc. All great until somebody cuts the trees down....

Matt

[eeyore]

quite so - or half of them die because they were planted way to close and then not given any aftercare.

On the other point take a look at govt proposals (or rather journo reporting of govt proposals) for things like wind farms and nuclear powerstations - these are littered with refferences to carbon neutral generation etc. I agree with you that co2 is the largest thing in the public eye but lazy reporting leaves journos using carbon and cor interchangably. ( and dont even lets get started on their conflation of global warming, GHE, and climate change )

edit : presumbably CO has a short atmospheric life because it "wants" another oxygen ion - thus out putting CO will contribute to GHE because when the CO will eventually become Co2

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by pressld2

You need to burn them to free the atoms from the molecules that they are currently in. A lump of coal is pretty inert and does not give off CO2 on it's own.

I takes ridiculously high temperatures to burn a diamond but yes, it too would produce CO2 if you did.

Dave P.

another really big outputter of Co2 is the manufacture of cement - the underlying issue being that you have to cause carbon to react with oxygen - or cause a carbon containing molecule to react with oxygen (in this case calcium carbonate (CaCo3) - being reduced to calcium oxide then calcium hydroxide. You dont necessarily have to "burn" anything for this to happen.