Commentary
Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide
April 7th, 2007 by jayb
You may be clear about the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide but the distinction has tripped up a few people over the years. In Detroit in 1980, presidential candidate Ronald Reagan shockingly said that “Trees cause more pollution than cars do
”.
Though Mr. Reagan inadvertently had his science all backwards and inside out (more on that in a second), his comment reflected the tension between people who wanted cars to emit less carbon monoxide and those that wanted less government car regulation.
The reason we’ve been reducing carbon monoxide emissions is that it’s a toxic gas that causes smog and respiratory health problems. When the weather reporter says “don’t go outside today unless you have to
” or “put off exercising until later in the week
” or “check in with your elderly neighbors and family members today
” it’s usually because of smog.
In the smog context, a “clean” car was one that burned gasoline so cleanly that there were very little carbon monoxide emissions.
But the context is shifting. During the past 25 years, we’ve realized (some people faster than others – count me in the slow group) that the other gas coming out of our tailpipes and smokestacks, carbon dioxide, causes global warming. Carbon dioxide is odor-less and color-less with a slow, subtle and creepy side effect.
Getting back to Mr. Reagan, what do trees have to do with this? Trees are really part of the solution, not the problem. Trees don’t produce pollution or carbon monoxide (unless they are burned). But trees do have a big connection to carbon dioxide. Trees take carbon dioxide out of the air, combine it with sunlight and water and create oxygen. It’s a pretty important trick that turns us all into “tree-huggers”. There are even efforts underway to plant new trees as a way of absorbing some of the carbon dioxide emissions we’re creating.
Unfortunately, there isn’t a carbon dioxide catalytic converter or some new piece of technology that a car manufacturer can install to reduce the amount of CO2 produced except to design the engine to get use less gas (or no gas at all).
As if the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide wasn’t confusing enough, one of the groups that has been trying to keep us from taking action on carbon dioxide emissions has a TV commercial that points out that CO2 is a natural part of life because it comes out of our children’s mouths. (It’s true. We breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.) And what could be bad about something that comes out of our children’s mouths?
Well, the writer of that TV ad has obviously never had children.
Comments from other sites (trackbacks)
Post a Comment
The trackback url for this entry is: http://www.energyrace.com/trackback/23/YLoQ8l5z/

Comments
Mike said...
The pervasive misunderstanding about greenhouse gasses is central to the strategy employed by groups who could potentially lose profits as a result of a greener public conscience. When things are confusing, people tune out, when there exist shreds of evidence contrary to a scientific finding, people use them to continue their normal habits (ie: smoking).
Unfortunately this can work both ways. There are currently technologies available to cheaply sequester Carbon Dioxide (in liquid form) deep in the ocean, where it is more dense and will permanently be fixed to the deepest ocean strata. This is a panacea for power plants located near oceans in communities that are looking to cap their emissions.
This technology, however, will be implemented by nobody, precisely because of the lack of understanding, about how CO2 works. The reality is, 2/3 of the world is covered by ocean, and the gases we put in the atmosphere come in contact with ocean surfaces 2/3 of the time, and the earth 1/3 of the time. When it hits the earth, trees make leaves out of it.
When it hits the ocean, it dissolves and forms carbonic acid, thus lowering the pH of the upper strata of the ocean (where a majority of all ocean life exists). Ironically it is the environmental lobbies that have protested ocean sequestration because of the suspected risk to marine life, yet most of the CO2 we emit ends up in a worse place for marine live than had we sequestered it at the bottom to begin with.
Posted on: April 13th, 2007 at 3:01pm
said...
Thanks Mike. Excellent post. I am reminded of the mercury issue. The coal-fired power plants put it in the air and then it settles into the ocean. The EPA now has to tell us not to eat too much tuna-fish because it’s bad for our health.
Posted on: April 13th, 2007 at 7:28pm