The Elements of Pollution

We currently in the world are in throws of an idea that the only thing that really is pollution is CO2 and that what we are doing is correct for reducing this so that the world does not heat up and become unliveable. But there are other things that constitute pollution, there is still a doubt that CO2 may cause all of this and may just be one part or a symptom of the world getting hotter.

But what of pollution, how is it calculated and referred to. One part of the problem is perspective. Anything new is an addition pollutant, whatever its source or method of action. Anything that has been produced in the past is gone. The pollution in its manufacture is old news and an irrelevance, apart from the problem of replacing or disposing of it. So, any pollution in making it is past and already happened, so is 0. Anything new is an additional item in the world, so is always a positive figure.

A diesel car that has been produced is the same as an electric car that has been produced, both 0% pollution.

We then come to the pollution in its continued use and its disposal. Electricity is very clean in this respect, removing any subsidies being the most efficient methods used in its generation. Fossil fuels and so-called biomass being burning things to generate heat and or electricity. Environmentalists use an opinionated accounting system to work out green and dirty CO2, but 1Kg of CO2 is 1Kg of CO2 and is just dependent on the quantities released. Renewables such as wood taking 20 years to absorb CO2 and releasing the full load in minutes, but if one dirty process releases 1 tonne of CO2 and 1 tonne of green CO2 then you’re still releasing the same as 2 tonnes of dirty CO2 or 2 tonnes of green CO2. There is more than one green biomass system that takes existing old forest trees, transports them half way around the world using different systems, then burns them within a few days. The trees are replanted but will take 20 years to extract the CO2 that they released. The system is counted as zero emissions and renewables, but only to environmental quacks who haven’t a clue.

Petrol and diesel are systems embedded in our society, so in most cases they will take time to replace, but with standards that are already pretty fake science, the equivalences are often based on phoney figures, often being calculated on percentages past the sensor rather than total output of noxious or global warming chemicals. So, a car that does 60 miles to the gallon can be seen as dirtier than one that does 15 miles to the gallon of fuel. Only in the car and government world can this ‘science’ be classed as true. Unless there are some massive amounts of really noxious compounds from a malfunctioning engine., nobody in the chemistry or physics world will doubt this as false. But in today’s society saying so can lose your tenure.

So, everything in the past can’t be avoided and is not part of the equation. Only things that happen in the future, such as building a new item to replace a worn out one, or one that its production and use is less than the ongoing use of the old one.

With an existing car you need to balance just its ongoing use and maintenance and the full extra pollution from a new vehicles production and use and the scrapping of the old one.

Basically, you can’t unmake the pollution of the past with a new vehicle. There is talk of vehicles taking pollution out of the air, but in nearly every case the extra equipment to do this and the energy needed far outstrips the minute amounts taken out. They are usually theoretical devices that cost thousands of times the pollution they have in fact saved to prove the point, most of the pollution from doing this not included in any of the systems calculations. They work in pure theory and subjective statistics, not objective.

The first thing we need to do is have objective rather than subjective calculations. If a calculation deliberately leaves out something it is simply not valid. It is a fake, so we need to calculate the full environmental costs of using or creating something new, not just the fake figures of ‘it is calculated from here.’ ‘At the tailpipe’ is a favourite among those whose intent is to deceive and lie to win their argument.

In most cases it comes down to energy. Large scale energy usually being better than smaller scale, so in most cases electricity will win out being quite easily convertible.

This ratio equivalence tends to carry over into resources required, so twice the resources needs twice the energy and produces twice the pollution.

But when it comes to use, there are so many interconnected and interdependent systems that the very rough figure of price tends to define the total energy and pollution created. Something twice the price overall needing twice the cumulative energy and polluting about twice the amount. So, if a car costs 50p a mile to run it will need about twice the cumulative energy and produce twice the cumulative pollution as one that costs 25p a mile.

For a new item you need to work out the pollution in its production, cost of running and maintenance over its lifetime, what is necessary to switch over, and the disposal of that item. For an old item you just need to work out its pollution from maintenance and cost of running over the same period, ignoring its production, but adding the cost of its disposal at the end.

Sadly, many things these days are manufactured as disposable or consumable rather than continually maintainable ones, cars, computers, mobile phones, most consumer items, all being of this sort. Many, if they go wrong are cheaper to throw away than repair, as they are designed to throw away rather than being designed to be fixed, durability and modularity being discarded simply by price and intention, manufacturers building things that are only interchangeable with their own specialities, each using this to try to ‘lock’ a customer or supplier into their supply chains.