Even though I suppose I’m an engineer of some description, I still consider myself to be more of a scientist than the average bloke in the street.\u00a0 I feel sort of entitled to think this having sat through 2 years of the most mind-numbingly boring A-level chemistry lessons which would have made watching paint dry seem like an adrenaline sport.<\/p>\n
At any rate, I consider myself clued up enough to spot glaring errors in Guardian<\/a><\/em> articles on the environment:\u00a0<\/p>\n Yesterday the holiday company Airtours launched what it claims is Britain’s first round the world package holiday: a 23-day whistlestop tour of 10 countries at a cost of \u00a34,499. Scheduled to take off from Manchester airport on February 27 next year, the Airbus will carry 329 passengers, three pilots, 10 cabin crew, 10 holiday reps and a doctor.<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n As environmentalists were quick to point out, they will also emit a staggering 2,289 tonnes of carbon – equivalent to the weight of 286 double-decker buses.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Sorry?\u00a0 They’ll emit carbon?\u00a0 As in soot?\u00a0 Product of unburnt fuel?\u00a0 I never knew aeroplane engines burned so rich.\u00a0 Maybe they should get under the engine cowlings and play with the mixture screw a bit.<\/p>\n Or maybe they are on about carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas they are all so worried about, too much of which is going to cause the earth to heat up a bit.\u00a0 Sitting on Sakhalin Island watching the thermometer plumb to minus six this morning I fail to see what the problem is.\u00a0 But whatever my meteorological preferences, the terms\u00a0“carbon” and “carbon dioxide” are not interchangeable any more than “hydrogen” and “water” are.\u00a0<\/p>\n Not only are they very different substances, but the\u00a0manner in which these terms are used are completely arse about face.\u00a0\u00a0Contrary to the article quoted,\u00a0no carbon is emitted during an aeroplane flight (a miniscule quantity\u00a0of partially burned fuel notwithstanding).\u00a0 The carbon is locked inside the fuel\u00a0combined with other elements, chiefly hydrogen.\u00a0 When the fuel is burned, the carbon and hydrogen separate and\u00a0join with the oxygen in the air to form carbon dioxide and water respectively.\u00a0 Carbon as a substance on its own doesn’t come into it.<\/p>\n So all this talk of “carbon credits”, “carbon sinks”,\u00a0and\u00a0“weights of carbon\u00a0emitted” leaves me all rather confused.\u00a0 If people are going to able to sell carbon credits, then the Yanks must be laughing all the way to the bank because they have greater coal reserves than anyone else.\u00a0 And when\u00a0environmentalists talk of aircraft emitting 2,289 tonnes of carbon, are they talking about large piles of graphite or are they talking about carbon dioxide gas?\u00a0 Because if they cannot manage to get even the basic terminology right, why should we bother listening to anything else they say?<\/p>\n (via J.F.Beck<\/a>)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Even though I suppose I’m an engineer of some description, I still consider myself to be more of a scientist than the average bloke in the street.\u00a0 I feel sort of entitled to think this having sat through 2 years … Continue reading