I’ve been talking with folks about carbon dioxide and global overheating. Several times, people have heard the news and said, “Oh shoot! I just replaced my gas furnace.” I wish I could head off these kinds of heating mistakes.
Here is what I’ve been sharing:
Eight hundred thousand years ago, there were about 1.5 trillion tons of carbon dioxide in the air around the globe. The air was about .019% carbon dioxide. (If we were talking about alcohol molecules in someone’s bloodstream, “.019%” is the same as “a BAC of .019”.) At that time, the stone age had been going on for over two million years.
In the following 14,000 years, the carbon dioxide levels rose to .026%. Carbon dioxide levels then fell to .017% and we had an ice age. During an ice age, places like Canada are covered with miles of ice and people survive further South. A place like what is now Mexico does not get covered in glaciers.
About 750 thousand years ago, carbon dioxide rose again, temperatures rose, and the glaciers receded. About 700 thousand years ago, carbon dioxide started falling again, temperatures fell, and another ice age started.
This 100,000-year cycle of rising and falling carbon dioxide continued for the next 700,000 years. Throughout that time, our ancestors survived and sometimes thrived. About 400,000 years ago people started tying sharpened rocks onto shafts, creating the first spears.
All our history and a lot of the pre-history we know happened in the last 100,000 years. About 70,000 years ago, someone invented the bow and arrow. About 40,000 years ago, artists created cave paintings. The earliest settlements found in the Pacific Northwest are from 13,000 years ago. Farming took off about 10,000 years ago, and writing about 3,000 years ago.
In 1800, James Watt invented a coal-fired steam engine that could run factories, and launched the coal industry. In 1870, John D. Rockefeller started the Standard Oil corporation, launching the oil industry. The natural gas industry started by 1940.
These three — coal, oil, and natural gas — are the major fossil fuels. All fossil fuels are mostly carbon and hydrogen. When someone burns them, the carbon atoms bond with oxygen to create carbon dioxide — the same stuff that stayed between .017% and .030% from 800,000 BCE to 1900.
There is a historical record of how much fossil fuel was burned. Almost all coal, oil, and gas burned from 1750 to the present was purchased. Taxes were collected and tax records were kept. It is just a task of chemistry and math to turn the history of fossil fuel taxes into a record how much carbon dioxide was released.
From 1750 to 2023, humans burned enough fossil fuel to release about 1.8 trillion tons of carbon dioxide. Back in 1750, there were about 2.2 trillion tons of carbon dioxide in the air. We have added another 1.8 trillion. About half of that carbon dioxide flew into the air and will stay there for centuries.
From 800,000 BCE to 1900, carbon dioxide levels stayed between .017% and .030%. Now it is up to .042%.
This history of carbon dioxide was created by scientists finding bubbles of ancient air and measuring how much they heat up with infrared (heat) radiation. From measurements of how much air heats up, scientists can calculate how much carbon dioxide the air contains. Infrared radiation rises from the surface of earth. This carbon dioxide history is a history of how much air was heated around the globe. We now have more carbon dioxide and that means hotter air.
Hotter air changes the weather. Hurricanes are grown by energy from the oceans. More heat is more ocean energy and we end up with faster hurricanes in new places with taller storm surges. Hot air absorbs more water. Hot air means longer and hotter droughts and more water in the sky to fall down when it rains, creating more flooding.
When I tell people about this, they sometimes get clarifications: “Natural gas is a fossil fuel?” “Yes.” “When I burn natural gas in my home furnace, I’m adding carbon dioxide into the air?” “Yes.”
“Oh shoot. I just replaced my gas furnace.”
Yes: “Oh shoot.” If your old gas furnace has worn out, you could get a heat pump. At that point, the heat pump is just an additional cost over what you would pay for a replacement furnace. If you just replaced your furnace, and now you replace your brand new furnace with a heat pump, whatever you spent on the furnace was wasted.
To avoid the risk of regrets later, if you are replacing a furnace, consider a heat pump.
What about…
Last month, I started this What-About section for odds and ends.
Environmental protection of electric vehicles
On average, American gasoline-powered vehicles get about 21 miles per gallon. A barrel of oil contains 135 kilos of oil and can be refined into 20 gallons of gasoline. An electric vehicle is expected to last about 300,000 miles. To drive a gasoline car 300,000 miles would require extracting 96,000 kilos of oil. That’s a lot of oil and there are a lot of gas vehicles, which is why the ecological devastation of oil extraction and transportation is so large. That is why we had the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon events.
Manufacturing an electric vehicle requires over a hundred more kilos of minerals than a gas car. The 96,000 kilos of oil that go into a gas vehicle swamp the difference in minerals. And the minerals that go into an electric vehicle can be recycled. The oil that goes into a gas-vehicle cannot. As electric vehicles get fully established, their ecological footprint will be smaller than gas vehicles.
If you have doubts about recycling, think about catalytic converters. The American recycling program for catalytic converters is running so well, people will come to your home to recycle your catalytic converter before you even ask them.
Collaboration
Washington State releases 100 million tons of greenhouse gases each year. That is 0.2% of the 50 billion tons of greenhouse gases that are released each year globally.
The government of Montana made an argument about this in a recent court case: the state government argued that Montana released about .1% of global greenhouse gases. They asked how Montana could be held responsible for stopping global overheating. The judge did not buy it.
Here is what is going on: Let’s say you belong to an organization that has 1,000 members. You are .1% of the organization. Your dues are only .1% of the funding for the organization. If you think like the Montana State government, you won’t pay your dues, because your dues are such a small part of the budget. If you did that, either you’re a freeloader when other people pitch in, or everyone else is like you, and the organization dies.
The way I was taught about this as a kid was my mom asking, “What if everyone tossed their gum wrapper on the ground?” Even though my gum wrapper would not by itself have worsened the neighborhood, I carried my gum wrapper home.
— Story, photos and graphics by Nick Maxwell
Nick Maxwell is a Climate Reality seminar leader in Edmonds, a Rewiring America local leader, and a climate protection educator at Climate Protection Northwest.
Thank you for this clear and cogent article. The Montana court’s decision in favor of the student plaintiffs, even if it loses on appeal, amounts to a bold statement about the importance of protecting our collective environment. But like Washington’s Climate Commitment Act, it may pose an unequal burden when anything is actually implemented. The gum wrapper analogy is not exactly apt, because tossing away litter is not the same as burning fossil fuel, which at least for the time being, is a necessity. While the Washington Climate Commitment’s goals are laudable, unfortunately, it has turned out to be a regressive tax, which harms lower and middle income people the most, due to higher gasoline and natural gas prices. The wealthiest just shrug this off, but to the blue collar worker who has to drive to work and heat their home, it is a real blow to the family’s economy. I’m not sure what the solution is, but meanwhile, I still see mile-long coal trains heading north on the BNSF tracks…
Once again Mr. Maxwell’s scholarship is agenda driven and incorrect at best. If you want to be helpful, sir, why don’t you discuss nuclear? Why don’t you acknowledge human adaptation? Why don’t you urge more technological research to develop better and more affordable alternatives? Mr. Barnes correctly points out that the average person who works for a living, or indeed is impoverished for whatever reason (location, hardship, choices) do not benefit from poor climate policy created by people who reap benefits of those policies in the form of kickbacks and subsidies. Do not be fooled by the author’s condescending history lessons and ridiculous graphs. Please, if you care about the environment for real, if you care about human flourishing, if you care about affordable energy which is the catalyst of technological advancement and lifting people from poverty, read books like False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet by Bjorn Lomborg. I don’t agree with several of his conclusions. I read as many perspectives as I can to make informed analysis. This book includes 25 pages of resource notes, studies, etc and more than 40 pages of bibliography. Please, do not be spoon fed. Research is available for all to see. Bad policy hurts good people.
Tamara,
I looked up Bjorn Lomborg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjørn_Lomborg
Mr. Lomborg is not a scientist. Lomberg’s first book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, was published in 2001. DCSD in the following quote is the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty. Under the heading “Formal Accusations of Scientific Dishonesty” is the following:
“In January 2003, the DCSD released a ruling that sent a mixed message, finding the book to be scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but Lomborg himself not guilty due to his lack of expertise in the fields in question.”
Lomberg’s views on climate change are opinions derived from the research of actual scientists. He’s made a career of capitalizing on his opinions. I have no interest in reading anything he has to say.
Mr. Maxwell’s articles are about personal changes to reduce the impact of climate change. Thus, I recommend Peter Klamus, a climate scientist’s Being the Change: Live Well And Spike a Climate Revolution. https://peterkalmus.net
Thank you, Joan. I will look into the book you recommend. I will do that rather than rely on wikipedia or google or the likes to derive my conclusions. The founder of wikipedia has said he regrets ever creating it because it has been taken over and used in ways he never intended.
The mantra of “trust the experts” has no validity for me. Lomberg, like any of us, is entitled to comb through published research and draw conclusions. Isn’t that what you are doing with wikipedia?
Don’t relay on someone else to tell you what to think about someone’s scholarship or conclusions. Not everyone can “do the science,” themselves but they can read reports and ask themselves and others questions. Anything less is sloppy.
Tamara,
I focus on personal action- what I can do to reduce my carbon footprint-because that’s all I can control. Personal actions are also the focus of this column.
I appreciate that you have strong opinions about the complex issues of climate change. You say “I read as many perspectives as I can to make informed analysis.” What does your analysis lead to? Criticizing Nick Maxwell for “condescending history lessons” (I found the history interesting) and calling others “sloppy” are just words. What actions do you take?
Your “informed analysis” won’t help the poor. The poorest among us, throughout the world, will always suffer the most. This is reality. Are you taking action to change that reality? If so, please share those actions. There are others on this thread who are concerned about the negative effects of climate change upon the poor.
Thank you, Joan Bloom!
Other helpful books:
The New Climate War by Michael Mann.
Electrify by Saul Griffith.
The Climate Book by Greta Thunberg.
No Miracles Needed by Mark Jacobson.
How the World Really Works by Vaclav Smil.
How to Avoid a Climate Disaster by Bill Gates.
The Mann book and the Griffith book are quite readable. The others are a tedious (if valuable) slog in parts. The Thunberg is actually a collection of articles by over 100 internationally recognized experts. It’s great to read something so comprehensive, and at the same time, it’s exhausting.
The Climate Commitment focal point is the new State religion, the new State God. Bow and tithe accordingly!!
…just sayin’
Mr Maxwell also says nothing about volcanic activity, occasional changes in the tilt of the earth relative to the sun and indeed fluctuations in the sun’s activity. Most importantly, he says nothing about the fact that China and India have no intentions going along with any first world climate cult agendas. Nuclear power generation makes the most long term sense but anyone suggesting that is “shown the door” by Mr. Maxwell et al.
I’m afraid you lose me with “Most importantly, he says nothing about the fact that China and India have no intentions going along with any first world climate cult agendas.” In the first place, if someone else is doing a bad thing, it’s not a license for me to do so too (and one might add that every bit helps). But using the phrase “cult agendas” completely undermines any rational argument by denying the legitimacy of the opposing view. It is never a good way to convince the other side by insulting or denigrating them.
Hey Nick,
Thanks for the article!
Wanted to expand on one point – when you replace a gas furnace with an electric heat pump, you get a healthier home and planet – and air conditioning! In the past, I’ve been a bit smug about telling my eastern Wa relatives and friends that we don’t need air conditioning on this side of the mountains. Unfortunately, those days are gone and excess heat is rapidly becoming a safety issue requiring summer cooling.
So, when you’re considering replacing that gas furnace, add up the cost it would take to replace the furnace and add air conditioning to get a true picture of the cost.
Good conversation starter, Nick!
Good point, Nancy!
Part of the issue about air conditioners is that we now get smoke seasons in some of our late summers. This year, the smoke warnings only got to orange on one day and were in the yellow for a week. Not great, but better air than you get in Beijing or Mexico City. (We have at times had the worst air in the world.) During those hot smoke seasons, you need to close your windows for health safety. If you don’t have an heat pump to cool your air, that can get uncomfortable.
What is clear is that we must transition to a clean electric economy as quickly as possible.
We must stop mning coal .
We must stop federal subsidies to the oil and gas industry.
We must put pressure on our major banks and insurance companies to stop funding and insuring new pipelines , LNG export facilities and new oil exploration.
Time is of the essence … we must get off of coal , gas and oil now.
We can do this, we have to do it.
It’s up to us.
Thank you for doing your part.
Your “solution,” Mr. Phelps, would stagnate technological development and starve and freeze out already suffering poor. Please read further. To date the climate change policies have done nothing to help the situation. Adaptation and money to prepare for disaster has saved more lives than things you’re suggesting. China has built and is building more and more coal plants. The best “solution” is to come up with real affordable, non subsidized energy that other countries can join. We need fossil fuels until we reach that point. Fortunately our innovations have made it cleaner with each generation of products. Jets are half as polluting with each generation. The catalytic converter cleaned up the smog in our lifetimes. You may not believe it is fast enough, but you are suggestion cutting the available and affordable energy the rest of the world will continue to use and will as a result truncate resources to finance advancement, leadership, and innovation. And more people die from not being able to heat their dwellings or cook what food they can get. Please broaden your research base.
These are righteous thoughts, however the power of the gas and oil conglomerate, coupled with their ability to influence Congress with money (think “Citizens United”) makes it difficult—if not impossible—to enact many ecological changes. Thus we as mere citizens are functionally hamstrung to some extent by our own government.
As a concerned person I foresee global warming causing the worldwide poor to suffer and die en masse. There is neither the money nor the inclination for many nations to change that. The fortunate ones will possibly save themselves with migration, but nations are already becoming uneasy and often angry with the immigrant influx, so I shudder to think what earth’s future holds.
Alvena Ferreira,
You are correct. Resisting the public relations of the fossil fuel industry is not easy. Their influence is wide and deep. You see their influence echoed here in MyEdmondsNews comments. Estimates are that they spend about a billion dollars a year persuading people to keep burning fossil fuels.
And at the same time, we are not on our own. Last year, Pope Francis said, “Now is the time for new courage in abandoning fossil fuels” (https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2022/september/documents/20220924-visita-assisi.html). This year, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres called for the nations of the world to ” leave oil, coal and gas in the ground where they belong” (https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/may-2023/guterres-calls-phasing-out-fossil-fuels-avoid-climate-%E2%80%98catastrophe%E2%80%99).
And nature itself is helping. Coal-fired and natural-gas power plants fail in heat waves (https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2021/06/30/old-clunkers-california-power-plants-break-down-during-heat-wave-1387507; https://ieefa.org/resources/may-heat-wave-exposes-myth-fossil-fuel-reliability-texas-coal-and-gas-fired-generators; https://phys.org/news/2020-01-climate-related-weather-conditions-disrupt-power.html)
And you are correct: Heat waves, failing glacial water sources, agricultural and fishery collapses, wildfires, and flooding will kill a lot of people over the next 50 years. They have been killing already. Every day sooner that we get to zero greenhouse gas emissions is a reduction in the number of deaths.
Wow Alvena , you sound like my sister.
We shudder to think.
And we know.
But we have to do what we can.
And we have to encourage others to do what they can .
Just for the sake of harm reduction.
And remain hopeful.
Be positive.
And be the change.
And I really thank you for your insightful comments.
Here’s the primary problem I see with heat pumps: all too often the electric energy used to power them comes from dirty source plants. My local plant uses natural gas to generate electricity. So while we can convert to heat pumps, we’re not sourcing the electric energy cleanly.
Top that off, states are leaning toward not reimbursing solar energy customers equally for their contribution to the electric grid. This disincentivizes customers from installing solar.
So when my central AC died recently, I installed a heat pump, however for those really cold days when heat pumps have problems dealing with the temps below 35 degrees, I have an automatic switchover for my natural gas furnace to kick on. Why not? Either I can burn it or my local electric plant will burn it—but if I burn it, I’ll stay warm.
Hi Alvena,
I appreciate your comments. Your comments are valuable and welcome here. I love that you got a heat pump. At the same time, I’m curious where you live. It is cool to think that someone outside of Washington is reading MyEdmondsNews. Welcome welcome!
NIck, I live in a mountain valley in western North Carolina in the Asheville area. There was a time when nobody installed air conditioners here, however the last several years have seen summer temps go into the low 90’s, so now most homes do have AC. We are equally concerned here with global warming and the devastation that nature serves up with it.
Thank you for reading MyEdmondsNews! And thank you for sharing what is going on where you live. Here in Washington State, people usually say that about 95% of our electricity comes from hydroelectric, and that is kind of true and kind of not true. If Washington State were not connected in an electric grid to other states, it would be the case that about 95% of our electricity comes from hydro. But Washington State is connected to the Western grid that we share with Wyoming. Wyoming electricity is almost all coal-powered. The result is that when someone in Edmonds puts in rooftop solar, they increase the supply to the Western grid and lower profits of coal plants in Wyoming. When someone charges up their EV in Edmonds, they increase electricity consumption, raising profits for Wyoming power plants. It’s not direct, and there are programs to buy only renewably-produced electricity, but it’s not entirely separate either.
As Lazard says, solar and wind are cheaper than coal or natural gas. Your electricity will also become carbon-dioxide free. When you get there, you will stop releasing carbon dioxide if you drive an EV and heat with a heat pump.
An additional point to make is that adding a heat pump to an existing home heating system does not necessarily mean elimination of the existing furnace. In some applications The heat pump may not be enough to heat the home on its own during certain outside lower temperatures requiring use of the furnace. The heat pump may also utilize the furnace blower to move air. While saving on gas and electricity the heat pump may require a furnace to effectively heat and cool the home. To move away from a gas furnace to electric may require a more expensive upgrade to electrical panel. Heat pumps are great in many ways and I would suggest contacting a heating and cooling specialist and asking lots of questions beforehand.
That’s exactly what I did—used my existing gas furnace (only a few years old), for heat on really cold days. Our winters are usually pretty mild here, so I don’t feel bad about occasional gas furnace use. My 125 amp electrical service was sufficient for the 2 ton heat pump for my 1250 sq ft home, so no electrical upgrade was needed.
It’s also vital to get an accurate load calculation for a heat pump—many things factor into the heat/cool load—the number of windows and if they’re double pane, the number of exterior doors, how many people live there(did you know it takes energy to cool a body?), insulation of the home, sun exposure…the list of considerations goes on and on.
Mike Murdock: Yes!
A great resource for finding a contractor is this page on the SNOPUD website: https://www.snopud.com/contractor-network/directory/category/heating/
In our home, our backup is electric resistance heating. It costs us about $1 a day when Edmonds gets below about 20 °F. Like most homes in Snohomish County, our house never had a gas hookup.
Nice article about cold weather heat pumps that do not require backup in Western Washington: https://www.consumerreports.org/heat-pumps/can-heat-pumps-actually-work-in-cold-climates-a4929629430/
As I was getting this column ready, I edited a section about renting. As a renter, you can get a heat pump to put in a window. Most window air conditioner manufacturers now provide window heat pumps that cool and heat as well.
You can ask about heat pumps when looking at rentals. Just asking is helpful. It lets landlords know that heat pumps provide a competitive advantage.
As far as choices about vehicles when your car dies, Edmunds.com currently lists 43 used electric vehicles within 50 miles of Edmonds for less than $10,000 (loan less than $200/month). There are 3 at $6,000.
Even when you feel trapped, you still have choices. You still have control over your life. If you feel out of control, reach out. Ask folks around you to help you think things through. There are a lot of religions and organizations in Edmonds. No need to try to go it alone.
nick- please write another column about heat pumps for home heating and water heater heat pumps next year when the large rebates are available. The Wash State Dept of Commerce is still designing the rebate program, which is funded from the Federal Infrastructure Spending bill passed in 2022
Great idea, Theresa.
Commerce will be ready by February. There is a chance they will be ready as early as November. Until they are ready, there is a lot of uncertainty about what is happening, so your idea of next year is a great idea.
Thanks!
Interesting article on the intersection of climate science and politics
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published
Eric,
This is an interesting article. Thanks so much for sharing it. Perhaps Nick could comment in a future column about the issues raised.
And until then, this is a very helpful resource for understanding what is happening: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo13179781.html
Mr. Maxwell – thanks for the article, but inasmuch as you say comments here are informed by fossil fuel agitprop, the same can be said for the contra comments here as well. I have assisted directly in the installation of perhaps 25+ GWs of renewable power and, yes, have worked on a great deal of fossil fuels (and biofuels) projects early in my career. I still work on various energy matters around the world. What have I learned about all this is that everything has costs and opportunities and that applies to renewables as well. For instance, natural gas delivered here locally is less carbon intensive than the electric power we use. Why? Look at the generation and transmission losses of electric power. Your “analysis” cribbed from various published sources don’t speak to that. Or the many birds killed by wind turbines or the poisons leaching into the soil from cheap Chinese solar panels or the landfilling of the turbine blades. Everything energy-wise involves trade-offs. Perhaps you can speak to that.
John Pierce, Thank you for commenting. It’s very helpful to have comments from people who have worked in the industry. Transmission losses are important: they are part of why I think that rooftop solar is a good idea in spite of being more expensive per kWh than utility scale solar. If you have data to share about transmission losses or anything else related to this topic, I would love to see it.
I’m curious about your use of the word, “agitprop”. I mentioned “public relations”. I was replying to Alvena Ferreira who referred to the “ability to influence congress”. You talk about “agitprop” (which is an unusual word). I would have expected someone from the industry to stick with “public relations”. Maybe “agitprop” is a better way to talk about this influence.
Thanks for chiming in!
To get away from typical spin, try the recent book Time to Think Small: How Nimble Environmental Technologies Can Solve the Planet’s Biggest Problems by Todd Myers.