In the carbon cycle there are four major areas where carbon resides, forests, oceans, the soil, and the atmosphere. These areas are referred to as carbon sinks because they absorb more carbon than they expel. The carbon cycle operates by absorbing carbon from living things into the atmosphere or soil. It then moves into the oceans and other water bodies where it is reintroduced to living things. This cycle continues naturally keeping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the earth from freezing. The problem arises when humans burn coal and oil this puts large amounts of extra carbon into the atmosphere. This extra carbon often resides in the atmosphere causing more heat to be trapped inside of it, this heats the earth more than normal causing a global warming effect. The more coal and oil are burnt for fuel the worse this problem becomes. Companies have now begun to build carbon sinks in order to mitigate the carbon pollution they create. While in the eyes of many people this can appear to be a good things for companies to do, it can actually be quite negative. The building of mitigated carbon sinks is negative because companies then believe they can produce more and more carbon emissions as long as the build carbon sinks to mitigate the pollution. The mitigated carbon sinks however are not well developed and cannot recycle carbon like natural ones. Also most mitigate carbon sinks are planted in a plantation style which does not mimic nature and thus does not mimic the natural processes that occur. This vicious cycle of pollute and mitigate is a very negative way to deal with climate change and in the long run could cause more damage than the original pollution.
Instead of mitigating companies should look for new methods of producing energy and ways to reduce their need to clear land. Energy production such as wind, solar, and wave power production can help reduce the need to mitigate carbon sinks. Better land use techniques for farming and development will also lessen the need to destroy forests, mangroves, and bogs which are important natural carbon sinks. New technology such as carbon capture can also be used. This process involves separating CO2 from burn fuels which is then sent back to the oil field, where the oil was drawn from, for storage. This helps to reduce the excess carbon form entering the carbon cycle and to reduce global warming. The importance of the carbon cycle and carbon sinks often go unnoticed but if they continue to be disrupted from burning of fossil fuels they could be the cause of the largest global climate change the world has ever seen.
I agree on how the practice of building carbon sinks can discourage companies from decreasing their emissions, very much like the process of buying offsets that everyday citizens can do. I've heard of celebrities buying offsets for their use of private jets, but is it really necessary that they fly in a private jet in the first place? However in terms of people buying offsets, I think they are a positive thing in situations that are almost unavoidable without extreme inconvenience, such as how some companies that only sell products online make it an option to offset the shipping. With larger companies though I think it is a harmful practice.
ReplyDeleteAlso, although the practice of carbon capture would be effective in decreasing carbon emissions, it does not address all of the problems associated with coal. The mining of coal can be extremely detrimental to the environment and the surrounding communities, and also coal is a finite source of energy. I feel energy companies should invest their resources in renewable sources instead of carbon capture.
I find it quite amusing that companies are spending large amounts of money, energy, and resources in building these mitigated carbon sinks, when all they continue to do is emit toxins; even at higher rates than before.
ReplyDeleteI believe however that these built carbon sinks could help mitigate carbon emissions and amount of carbon in the atmosphere if there were strict laws and regulations put in place along with them. Companies should only be able to build a carbon sink if they the right land to do it; meaning that the area in which it would be built would best mimic natural sinks. Also, there should limits as to how much is allowed to be emitted by the companies to make sure that the carbon sink actually provides benefit and is not being wasted.
Had there not been the peer presure or requirements to develop these carbon sinks, these forested areas would probibly not have been grown. My question then becomes, had carbon sinks not been an option would the company or celebrity have gone ahead and increased their emmissions anyway? To the carbon capture statement, I have always said that if CO2 did not "dissapear" into the air and we had to find places to put it, Nuclear would be a lot more popular.
ReplyDeleteI think that in the process of eliminating one environment issue, few other issues are being created. The carbon is stored in areas with a small possibility of leakage. However, if it does leak, it can cause a lot of problems to the environment. When it is liquidized and stored under the earth’s surface, a leak could mix with ground water and make it very toxic and dangerous for human consumption. When the gas is stored below the ocean floor, leakage increases the carbon content and can be fatal to the organisms in the lower layers of the ocean. These problems replace oxygen near the earth’s surface, killing many plants and animals and aiding to greenhouse gas emissions, ultimately leading to the problem that’s responsible for the solution.
ReplyDelete