Jump to content

Harris County #1 in CO2

Subdude

By Subdude
in Houston and the Environment

Recommended Posts

Subdude

Subdude

Posted
Posted

When Chicago is making its case for the Continental-United headquarters, here is one story they will be sure to highlight.

From the Chronicle:

April 18, 2008, 12:06AM

POLLUTION

Harris County has top carbon footprint in nation

Emissions by industry put area past Los Angeles, analysis shows

By ERIC BERGER

Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

When it comes to carbon dioxide, Harris County is king.

The first-ever analysis of county-by-county carbon dioxide emissions in the United States found that Harris County, which emits 18.6 million tons of CO2 per year, narrowly edged Los Angeles for the top spot.

Harris County catapulted to the top of the carbon dioxide list, which tallied emissions from all fossil fuel consumption through the year 2002, because of its large industrial base.

Industry, including petroleum refining and chemical manufacturing, produced 54 percent of the emissions, according to the study. Motor vehicles were responsible for 26 percent; power plants 13.5 percent; and residential and commercial sources 6.5 percent.

In contrast, more than half of Los Angeles' CO2 output was emitted by cars and trucks.

"Somebody has to supply the country with its gasoline and petroleum needs, and Harris County and its surrounding areas have decided that it may as well be us," said John Nielsen-Gammon, the state climatologist and a professor of meteorology at Texas A&M University.

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheNiche

TheNiche

Posted
Posted
When Chicago is making its case for the Continental-United headquarters, here is one story they will be sure to highlight.

From the Chronicle:

Link

If our industrial base is responsible for so much of the output, which is then exported domestically and around the world for consumption, then is Houston really responsible for this? Or are the consumers around the world that actually buy and use what we've produced?

I really don't see why this is a very big deal. CO2 doesn't hurt people, and even if it is deleterious to the environment, it has the same effect whether emitted from Houston or Minneapolis, United States or Turkey. And considering how much jet fuel United burns through every day around the world, it would seem rather hypocritical to make a big deal out of that most of it is produced in one place and not another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BryanS

BryanS

Posted
Posted

Since we are not bounded by a mountain range (e.g. Los Angeles)... our pollution gets blown out to sea, in a way masking the problem. I have lived in both LA (in the late 80's/early 90's) and Houston, and our air is just too blue here. If we could erect a barrier between Houston and Galveston, keeping the air pinned in for, say, 30 days - it would be more apparent that we really do have a problem on our hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheNiche

TheNiche

Posted
Posted
Since we are not bounded by a mountain range (e.g. Los Angeles)... our pollution gets blown out to sea, in a way masking the problem. I have lived in both LA (in the late 80's/early 90's) and Houston, and our air is just too blue here. If we could erect a barrier between Houston and Galveston, keeping the air pinned in for, say, 30 days - it would be more apparent that we really do have a problem on our hands.

How does this relate to CO2 output? You can't see it, don't notice when you're breathing a tiny bit more than you're used to, and it doesn't hurt you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
20thStDad

20thStDad

Posted
Posted

Industry is a long way from even accurately reporting CO2. I do this for a living, and I've worked with 3 out of the 10 largest companies in the U.S., and only one of them is close to an accurate emissions inventory. Even then there are numerous assumptions and factors that go into it that in the end put the numbers at +/- 35 to 50 %. I'm not saying they aren't emitting things, but to start reporting rankings and comparisons is a waste of time until emissions, worldwide, are derived with common practices/methodologies and are required to be certified by some (as yet non-existant) entity. Companies have been reporting criteria pollutants (CO, NOx, SOx, VOC, PM) for 18+ years now, so some of those methods are in place. But not for the GHG gases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Subdude

Subdude

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Industry is a long way from even accurately reporting CO2. I do this for a living, and I've worked with 3 out of the 10 largest companies in the U.S., and only one of them is close to an accurate emissions inventory. Even then there are numerous assumptions and factors that go into it that in the end put the numbers at +/- 35 to 50 %. I'm not saying they aren't emitting things, but to start reporting rankings and comparisons is a waste of time until emissions, worldwide, are derived with common practices/methodologies and are required to be certified by some (as yet non-existant) entity. Companies have been reporting criteria pollutants (CO, NOx, SOx, VOC, PM) for 18+ years now, so some of those methods are in place. But not for the GHG gases.

Interesting. Is there a standard certification entity/methodology in Europe where the CO2 market is in place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
20thStDad

20thStDad

Posted
Posted

In 2004 there were guidelines established in the Official Journal of the European Union, it is mostly high level. Industry groups such as OSPAR have taken it to more detail as well. I don't know who does the verification, but I am sure that it has to be done. The guidelines specify acceptable methodologies and all the extra info you have to submit along with your numbers. I haven't kept up with it though, it's been over 3 years since I did work over there. I think this established guidelines for those who wanted to report and participate in the emissions trading scheme, it didn't state that everyone had to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BryanS

BryanS

Posted
Posted
How does this relate to CO2 output? You can't see it, don't notice when you're breathing a tiny bit more than you're used to, and it doesn't hurt you.

I was speaking more generally about air pollution (NOx, CO, CO2, etc - smog producing elements, etc.)... It would be interesting to see what our NOx and CO levels are/compare to other counties in the country. Flying into Los Angeles, in the late 80's... "Good afternoon... this is your Captain speaking... we'll be on the ground in a few minutes.. weather in Los Angeles is 75 degrees, and sunny... happy breathing." The air was brown. Murky brown. It was gross. I mean, when you can see the air... you've got a problem. Thankfully, militant emission control laws in CA have cleaned up the place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KinkaidAlum

KinkaidAlum

Posted
Posted
Why don't you put a plastic bag over your head, cinch the opening around your neck, breathe for awhile and report back to us.

Hilarious! Best post ever but barely. The Niche's claim that CO2 doesn't harm people is a close 2nd!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CDeb

CDeb

Posted
Posted
Why don't you put a plastic bag over your head, cinch the opening around your neck, breathe for awhile and report back to us.

Cute, and I'm sure it warms the cockles of your heart to give Kinkaid a thrill, but to use your standard, water is also a pollutant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheNiche

TheNiche

Posted
Posted
Cute, and I'm sure it warms the cockles of your heart to give Kinkaid a thrill, but to use your standard, water is also a pollutant.

Yep. Toxicity is all about dose. Water and carbon dioxide are perfect examples.

That Kinkaid is amused by a logical fallacy is nothing new, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KinkaidAlum

KinkaidAlum

Posted
Posted
Yep. Toxicity is all about dose. Water and carbon dioxide are perfect examples.

That Kinkaid is amused by a logical fallacy is nothing new, however.

Logical fallacy?

Yeah right. Again, your claim was that CO2 is NOT harmful to human beings. Sorry, but that is just plain funny. Did Barton tell you that one too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheNiche

TheNiche

Posted
Posted
Logical fallacy?

Yeah right. Again, your claim was that CO2 is NOT harmful to human beings. Sorry, but that is just plain funny. Did Barton tell you that one too?

The comment was taken way the hell out of context. Water can be harmful in any number of ways. I don't propose modifications to human activity to try to reduce the amount of precipitation by 0.5%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mojeaux131

mojeaux131

Posted
Posted
Interesting. Is there a standard certification entity/methodology in Europe where the CO2 market is in place?
In 2004 there were guidelines established in the Official Journal of the European Union, it is mostly high level. Industry groups such as OSPAR have taken it to more detail as well. I don't know who does the verification, but I am sure that it has to be done. The guidelines specify acceptable methodologies and all the extra info you have to submit along with your numbers. I haven't kept up with it though, it's been over 3 years since I did work over there. I think this established guidelines for those who wanted to report and participate in the emissions trading scheme, it didn't state that everyone had to.

Silver lining

Harris County, the nation's biggest producer of greenhouse gases, is a logical place to center carbon trading.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5716236.html

Hmm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
westguy

westguy

Posted
Posted
Why are the comments on Chron articles always so annoying and ignorant? It's almost as bad as YouTube comments...

They're always slamming the editorial board for being too left-wing. The last time they endorsed a Democrat in a presidential election was 1968! You can't reason with people who stick fingers in their ears "lalalalala not listening Gorebage oh snap"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
memebag

memebag

Posted
Posted
Why are the comments on Chron articles always so annoying and ignorant? It's almost as bad as YouTube comments...

Because half of all people have below average intelligence. Sometimes I miss the days when only geeks had the ability to communicate via computers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Subdude

Subdude

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Logical fallacy?

Yeah right. Again, your claim was that CO2 is NOT harmful to human beings. Sorry, but that is just plain funny. Did Barton tell you that one too?

Well I think the real issue here isn't the toxicity of CO2 to humans as it is to how it damages the environment as a whole. Trying to frame the issue as CO2 as a poison is a bit disingenuous.

Silver lining

Harris County, the nation's biggest producer of greenhouse gases, is a logical place to center carbon trading.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5716236.html

I would like to agree (and concur), although trying to define it as a silver lining for polluting is a bit of a stretch. I wonder though if the CO2 market will evolve in a manner where there is a dominant hub for trading. I'm not sure I see where that would be the case unless there is a large secondary or spec market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N Judah

N Judah

Posted
Posted
Because half of all people have below average intelligence. Sometimes I miss the days when only geeks had the ability to communicate via computers.

The internet used to have a very anarcho-libertarian bent. Now it seems like everyone types with conservative talking points sitting in front of them. Or, like me, they get on this internet totally trashed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...