Coal Fires in China Contribute as Much CO2 Emissions as Cars in America

[Toro]

I thought this was pretty interesting

You may remember Paul Feldman as the Bagel Man we wrote about in Freakonomics. You may also remember that he was an economist before he got into bagels, with an interest in agricultural, medical, and military issues.

He recently wrote to us about an environmental issue he’s been looking into: the abundance of underground coal fires in abandoned mines and other places that not only waste coal but contribute mightily to worldwide carbon dioxide emissions. According to Paul’s research, underground fires in China alone contribute as much CO2 to the atmosphere each year as all the cars and light trucks in the U.S. ....

But while a worldwide policy to limit greenhouse gases will be difficult to achieve, not all interim steps to reduce emissions have to be contentious. One example concerns an issue that has escaped front-page attention: extinguishing underground coal fires that have been burning freely and putting massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the air for decades. Underground coal fires in China alone produce as much carbon dioxide annually as all the cars and light trucks in the United States. Fires in other countries, including the United States, are smaller but still add significantly to the total burden.

Although extinguishing these fires would be costly, it would reduce carbon emissions without the major disruptions to individual national economies mentioned above. And it would further benefit nations by eliminating the loss of their coal fields. As such, it might be possible to work out some international cost-sharing arrangement to attack those fires now, without waiting for all nations to agree on a wide-ranging treaty to limit carbon dioxide emissions.

Freakonomics

 

[razorskater135]

Unfortunately, enough people won't here about this. And for some that do, they will claim that the United States does not need to become more efficient because it isn't the part of the problem.

But that is a lot of pollution.

 

[onedomino]

Coal fires in China: just another example of why Kyoto was DOA when it excluded China and India. During the Clinton Presidency, the US Senate saw the treaty for the sham document that it was and voted it down 97 to zero. Yet a socialist was just elected PM of Australia in part based on his promise to sign the meaningless document. Kool-Aid is flying off the shelves in Sydney and Canberra. As a result, the Left claims Bush is ever more isolated on this topic. Of course they are selectively forgetting the 97 to zip vote, China, India, and all the underdeveloped world.

No one paying any attention denies Global warming. But three things must happen before we are forced to endure yet another politics soaked award for Gore:

1. There needs to be compelling hard science that demonstrates humans are associated with global warming.

2. It needs to be demonstrated that if humans are associated with global warming that there is irrefutable science that something not involving economic suicide can be done about it.

3. All emitters of CO2 must sign the next treaty. Not just those countries from which the Left wants to redistribute industrial production and wealth. If you are on the Left and are saying "I do not want to redistribute anything," well hold your breath and count to ten because there are many from the Left that do want to redistribute wealth and Kyoto is a convenient pretext; especially in Western Europe.

 

[Gunny]

I thought this was pretty interesting



Freakonomics

As a "developing nation," China is exempt from the otherwise stringent emissions standards we supposedly hold ourselves to.

Wouldn't want the 3rd world to lag behind in pollution would we?

 

[cbi0090]

When it was scientifically proven that flurocarbons where destroying the ozone it didn't take long before everyone (not just the U.S.) shut down their production. It's not so hard for people to except facts. The problem with global warming is that its proponents just don't provide facts. Of course it's warming, it's been doing that since the last ice age but are we accelerating it? Maybe, but that doesn't sell as well as someone just pointing the finger accusing us of being the "cause" of it all. Again, high drama sells.