About Greenhouse Gases

The greatest things in the world are brought about by other things which we count as nothing: little causes we overlook but which at length accumulate.

Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, Notebook A, 1765–70

A greenhouse gas is so defined because it traps solar heat, thereby warming the planet. In our oversimplified carbon ideologies, we often spoke as if there were only one such substance. Specifically, when we expressed our worries about “burning carbon,” we tended to mean that ubiquitous carbon dioxide, which may practically be considered a signature not only of respiration, volcanism, fertilization, cement-making and chemical engineering—but most relevantly here, of combustion—for it certainly found its way up from all of our smokestacks, no matter which fossil fuels we burned:

COMPARATIVE CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS OF POWER PLANTS, 2014,

in multiples of those released by natural gas facilities

All levels expressed in [grams of CO2 given off per kilowatt-hour generated]. 1 kWh = 56.88 BTUs.

The Cirebon figures may display spurious precision, given that the others must be rounded approximation.

1

Natural gas [400 g CO2 / kWh]. [Another source claims baldly: “Combustion of natural gas emits about half the CO2 that coal generates at equivalent heat output.”]

1.5–1.75

Oil [600–700].

2.14–2.19

“New technology” Cirebon coal power plant, Kanci Kulon, Indonesia [856–76].

2.5

“Old technology” coal [1,000].

Sources: Charleston Gazette, 2014; Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 1994; with calculations by WTV.

These figures go far to show why coal was not the wisest energy source, back in the days when we were alive.

They also imply that if we had to burn carbon, natural gas would have been our best choice. And indeed, in the ringing words of one syndicated columnist: Natural gas emits about half as much carbon as coal and can transition us to truly clean power.—What she wrote might have even been true—in a leak-proof world.

Carbon Ideologies has already mentioned methane and nitrous oxide. Let us call back to mind the first of these.

Like CO2, methane (CH4) contains only one carbon atom per molecule. All the same, its ability to effect global warming was 20 times worse than carbon dioxide’s—or 21—or 33—or even 86 times worse! (Interested parties uttered whichever numbers suited them.)* It was natural gas’s most common component—and our natural gas pipelines were notorious for ineffective seals. On occasion we used to simply burn the methane in “remote” gas wells because the pipeline gathering systems needed for such gas tend[ed] to be prohibitively expensive. That was better than letting it leak, but still harmfully careless. As a leading carbon ideologue confessed:

The flaring of about 1 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas, or about 30% of production, is happening right now in the Bakken Shale play, one in which my company is invested. We’re flaring natural gas in certain areas of the Bakken because there’s no way to capture the gas through a pipeline, and the Bakken oil can’t be produced without flaring that gas. We’re wasting that resource . . . It’s been estimated that Bakken flaring wastes more than $1 billion per year in natural gas production values.

And to those few of us who did not care about production values (you from the future won’t count) he admitted:

Purposeful venting or flaring of natural gas for lack of market is wasteful and puts huge volumes of methane into the atmosphere. According to the International Energy Agency, flaring and venting of methane amounts to the emission of 1.1 billion metric tons of CO2-equivalent per year . . .

So that was unnerving. Meanwhile, nitrous oxide caused its own difficulties. Considering the trio en bloc, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded:

Concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O now substantially exceed the highest concentrations recorded in ice cores during the past 800,000 years. The mean rates of increase in atmospheric concentrations over the past century are, with very high confidence, unprecedented in the last 22,000 years.

But treating them as the root cause of our doom was an only moderately unwarranted simplification.

Yes, carbon dioxide was by volume the worst. In 2007, that gas made up 87.9% of all German greenhouse emissions. In 2013, it comprised 93.1% of Japan’s contribution to climate change.* At that period, in the course of each hour it warmed the Earth by half a BTU per square foot.* A dozen burning match tips in a day—who would feel such trivial heat? In the course of a century, to be sure, its steady, inconspicuous power (which climatologists called its radiative forcing) might alter our future, but I was pushing 60; I’d soon be dead. As for you, reader, you must have begun to sweat . . .

As you remember,* carbon dioxide concentrations had been increasing ever since 1750. As they rose, CO2’s radiative forcing power likewise strengthened. By 2100, it might be 3 or 5 times worse than it was in 2011; thus two of several climatologists’ scenarios. Of course there was no immediate danger; we carbon ideologues of all stripes went on uttering our jackdaw cries without much inconveniencing each other.

Let this 100-year effect of CO2, as exerted by a given quantity (a ton, or 100 tons), be called its global warming potential. And let it be quantified as 1.

The global warming potentials of other greenhouse gases might be lesser or greater than 1. As carbon dioxide’s absolute forcing ability grew, the GWPs of those rival climate change agents, being relative, proportionately decreased. However, were their absolute forcing strength to increase in consequence of their own rising concentrations or due to chemical interactions, then scientists would adjust their GWPs upward. (Thomas à Kempis, circa 1413: Carefully observe the impulses of nature and grace, for these are opposed to one another . . .)

Thus inconstant, arbitrarily defined and subject to wide calculation and projection uncertainties, the GWP nonetheless remained a useful simplication that any of us could comprehend, had we bothered to.

When I first encountered the shockingly high GWPs of methane, the halocarbons, nitrogen trifluoride and the rest of them, it seemed as if I had just perceived a legion of new enemies.

Reviewing this chapter, Dr. Pieter Tans at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration wrote me:

CO2* is easily the most important [greenhouse gas] that needs to be tackled. It is very unfortunate that the I[ntergovernmental] P[anel on] C[limate] C[hange] came up with the 100-year time horizon. [See next table, beginning here.] They might have done that with the idea that in 100 years future generations would be so technically advanced that they could “undo” the CO2 already emitted. Or perhaps, the responsibility of our generation for the future of our planet and its ecosystems does not go beyond 100 years. The problem is that the residence time of the additional CO2 emitted in the combined “atmosphere plus oceans” system is thousands of years. Therefore there will be plenty of time for slow feedbacks to come into play, such as ice cap melting, permafrost melting in the Arctic, to name a few.

Yes, carbon dioxide was the worst, so far. Maybe Dr. Tans would be proven right a century from now, and it would continue to be the worst.—Methane and nitrous oxide were identifiably harmful—but too many of the most dangerous compounds we released into our atmosphere had names, purposes and concentrations known only to specialists.* What made their effects still more obscure was that (like all greenhouse gases) they operated one way in the short term and still another over their entire chemical lifetimes. As usual, we took their good qualities on faith, that being less tiring for us and for the entities that made and sold such substances.

Our refrigerators contained chemicals with ominous global warming potentials. They obviously had nothing to do with “burning carbon,” so we wasted scant anxiety on them. Besides, they excelled at arresting food decay! A compressor, powered (through cord, outlet, transformers and wires) by fossil fuels or nuclear heat in some inconspicuous generating station, readied these unseen chemicals to absorb heat, after which they were permitted to expand, which automatically cooled them, which sucked away heat from our food, and then it was back to step one again, all courtesy of electricity on demand!

Once upon a time, ammonia used to chill our milk and butter for us. In H. P. Lovecraft’s horror tale “Cool Air,” it could even keep a dead man alive. But that “environmentally benign refrigerant”* stank; besides, it was corrosive and poisonous; so our engineers invented chlorofluorocarbons of all sorts—so many that we distinguished them with hyphenated numbers—for instance, CFC-12, which by the last decade of the 20th century took pride of place in “the vast majority” of refrigerators in the world.* The trade name for the whole group was “Freon,” and so until the basic patent ran out they were known as “the Freons.”* They announced themselves as elegantly as did certain actresses with their custom-blended “signature perfumes”—for thanks to their chlorine atoms, the slightest wisp of them would burn with a deep green flame.—Oh, what excellent work they did, and in such a fine cause! The Freons are colourless, odourless, nonflammable, noncorrosive gases or liquids of low toxicity, enthused my 1976 Britannica, and one scientific survey lumped them all wistfully together as an almost perfect industrial chemical. How prudent, that “almost”!—An illustrated guide to product manufacturing explained that as gases in the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) group, which includes freon, waft upward into the stratosphere . . . they gradually decompose, releasing chlorine atoms, which in turn can destroy 10,000 ozone atoms apiece, drastically decreasing our protection from skin-cancer-causing ultraviolet rays and injuring food crops. The Americans, who in those days still believed in climate change because they were not called upon to do anything about it, calculated that at the 1976 emissions rate, CFCs would make global warming 10% worse. So all of us together phased out the CFCs, replacing them with hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HFCs), which “have zero O[zone] D[epletion] P[otentials]s and low-to-moderate G[lobal] W[arming] P[otential]s.” But some people’s definition of “low-to-moderate” was not mine. Please make up your own mind when you see the next table.

(Wouldn’t you have liked it if the industry had weighed in? Through an intermediary—just in case I was on some blacklist—I “reached out,” as we used to say, to seven large American refrigerator manufacturers, politely inquiring how harmful to “some ecosystem somewhere” their products might be. Six companies never replied; as for the seventh, that industrious intermediary, who was also my friend, contacted its “media company,” then reported: Got her on the phone, she said no, client wouldn’t want to participate, 5-27-16.—Anyhow, wasn’t it better not to know? Thus I consoled myself, wishing I weren’t writing Carbon Ideologies. It was an especially warm July day—108° Fahrenheit, with more of the same scheduled for tomorrow—so I opened the fridge and drank a nice cold beer.)

Refrigerators transported by dhow for sale, Dubai

The CFCs contained chlorine, fluorine and carbon. The HCFCs (and their kindred HFCs) contained hydrogen in addition, which rendered them less susceptible to shedding predatory chlorine atoms. HCFC-22, for instance, did less than five percent of the damage to the ozone layer that CFC 12 does.—Molecule for molecule, they were all variously worse than carbon dioxide:

COMPARATIVE ONE-CENTURY GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS,

in multiples of carbon dioxide’s

(Time Frame: Within 100 Years After Release*)

Each numerical header [such as 1 for carbon dioxide] is the actual GWP. All figures over 10 rounded up to nearest whole digit. After nitrous oxide, all levels rounded to 2 significant digits.*

According to the IPCC, uncertainties for very long GWPs may reach +/− 35%.

• = Targeted [in Kyoto Accords and annexes] for tracking and reduction. The Kyoto Protocol Gases were carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, HFCs, PFCs and sulfur hexafluoride. Nitrogen trifluoride was later added to the list.*

+ = “Precursors.” These substances cause warming more indirectly than directly, by affecting the production or aggregation [in clouds] of other greenhouse gases. Among these is ozone, which I have not tabulated here due to its complexities of generation and altitude dependence.

<1

Ammonia [?].

“The use of ammonia, which is considered an environmentally benign refrigerant, will continue to play an ever increasing role.” [Of course CO2 is released during the manufacture of synthetic ammonia from fossil fuels.] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserted that this chemical might actually exert a cooling effect.

Atmospheric lifetime: <1 year.

1

• Carbon dioxide.

The favorite villain of most carbon ideologues.

Atmospheric lifetime: Once thought to be 120 years. We were dreaming. Dr. Pieter Tans to WTV: “Over 2000 years, the cumulative amount of heat retained in the Earth system [from CO2] is about 8 times larger than if we count only the first 100 years . . . I have taken into account that approx. 83% of the current CO2* emissions eventually end up dissolved in the oceans, leaving only 17% in the atmosphere after 2000 years. That number is based on well understood ocean carbonate chemistry. However, the transfer to the oceans occurs very slowly, and I have not estimated how long it takes for dissolution of calcium carbonate minerals to neutralize the added carbonic acid. Estimates are that it may take 3000–7000 years. In other words the factor 8 that I mentioned could still be larger. On the other hand, carbonic acid is another word for dissolved CO2, and neutralization means that the oceans can hold the extra carbon while atmospheric CO2 is back to preindustrial chemical equilibrium values of 280 ppm.”

2–3

Water vapor.

Contributes to warming only in the upper atmosphere. “Currently, water vapour has the largest greenhouse effect . . . However, other greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, are necessary to sustain the presence of water vapour in the atmosphere.”

Atmospheric lifetime: 10 days.

3

Propane*.

A component of natural gas.

Atmospheric lifetime: <1 year.

3

Isobutane.*

A component of natural gas.

Atmospheric lifetime: <1 year.

3

N-butane.*

A component of natural gas.

Atmospheric lifetime: <1 year.

3–7.6

+ Carbon monoxide.

A common emission from incomplete fossil fuel combustion. Between 1969 and 1980, U.S. exhaust emission standards reduced its per-mile concentrations by nearly 12/13. Many European emissions factors (EFs) also fell. [Average EF of German aircraft kerosene, “all flight phases (LTO and cruising flight), 1992–2015”: 1 pound CO given off for every 108.69 pounds of fuel burned.] According to Japan Tobacco Inc., 1 cigarette emits 0.055 grams [1/8,246 lb]. Considered both a greenhouse gas and a “precursor” whose indirect effect is to increase levels of other GHGs. Concentrations vary by continent. GWP range is global average, including direct and indirect aerosol effects.

Atmospheric lifetime: [?]

21–25 or higher (86 over the first 20 years)

• Methane, which is CH4.

The primary constituent of natural gas. Also an automotive tailpipe pollutant. Released by garbage, flooded ricefields, manure, etc.

Atmospheric lifetime: 12 years. Or, if you prefer, “the atmospheric lifetime of methane has increased 25–30% during the past 150 years to a current value of 7.9 years, implying gradually decreasing oxidizing capacity” of our planet, thanks to sulfur dioxide pollution.

77–93

• HCFC-123, which is CHCl2CF3.

A hydrochlorofluorocarbon used as refrigerant and also as a “blowing agent” to polymerize,* for instance, the foam insulation in refrigerators. A substitute for CFC-11.

Atmospheric lifetime: 1.3 to 2 years. But over 20 years its GWP is a horrendous 273.

80–238. [In subsequent tables I use the IPCC 2013 value of 159. But the true number might be negative.]

• + Nitrogen oxides, collectively abbreviated “NOx.”

A group of chemicals similar to nitrous oxide, and similarly derived from soils, fuel combustion, etc. Considered both greenhouse gases and [especially nitrogen dioxide] “precursors.” “NOx . . . emission control has both a cooling (through reducing of tropospheric ozone) and a warming effect (due to its impact on methane lifetime and aerosol production).” In other words, leave it to the experts. Concentrations vary by latitude. GWP range is global average, including direct and indirect aerosol effects.

Atmospheric lifetime: [?]

124–140

• HFC-152a, which is CH3CHF2.

A hydrofluorocarbon used for refrigeration and for dusting computer keyboards. “Quite toxic.”

Atmospheric lifetime: 1.4 to 2 years. But over 20 years its GWP is 437.

264–310

• Nitrous oxide, which is N2O. In subsequent tables I use the IPCC 2013 value of 264. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency called it “approximately 300 times more powerful than CO2.”

[Not the same as the various nitrogen oxides—see above—which are also greenhouse gases.*] “Generated by the action of microbes on nitrogen that leaches or runs off as nitrate from synthetic fertilizers, organic fertilizers, . . . etc.” A widespread decay product of aerated manure, sewage, compost, etc. “Increasing mainly as a result of agricultural intensification to meet the food demand for a growing human population.” Sometimes used as a commercial refrigerant. Laughing gas. Ca. 2007, 10% of global emissions derived from anesthetic use. Released during the production of nitric acid (for fertilizers) and adipic acid (for nylon).* Ammonium nitrate explosives give it off. Employed in semiconductor manufacture. Also, as it happens, a component of automotive smog. (In 1979, traveling at 60 mph on “freeways and surface arterials,” American cars emitted 3.59 grams of it per mile; American trucks gave off 13.52.) “Responsible for immune system impairment, exacerbation of asthma and chronic respiratory diseases: reduced lung function and cardiovascular disease.” “The increase, at least since the early 1950s, is dominated by emissions from soils treated with synthetic and organic (manure) nitrogen fertilizer . . .” Average rate of rise: 0.75 ppb per year.

Atmospheric lifetime: 114 years. Another source gives 131 years.

549–1,500

• HCFC-22.

A replacement for the dreadful CFC-12. Not only a refrigerant but also a “feedstock for . . . synthetic polymers.”* Ca. 2013 this chemical caused the most warming of any HCFC. In 2014, according to the U.S. EPA, “ozone depleting substance substitute emissions and emissions of HFC-23 during the production of HCFC-22 were the primary contributors to aggregate hydrofluorocarbon . . . emissions.” At time of writing, this compound was the main driver of the increase in all HCFC emissions.

Atmospheric lifetime: 12 years. Over 20 years its GWP is 5,160.

650–3,800

• 507 series, HFCs 32/125, hydrofluorocarbons.

Sometimes used as a commercial refrigerant.

Atmospheric lifetime: 4.9 to 29 years. Over 20 years the GWP of HFC-125 is 6,350.

1,300–1,430

• HFC-134a.

Another replacement for CFC-12. Widely in use in air conditioners at time of writing, although in Germany it was wisely replaced by isobutane. In Japan, “HFCs,” possibly including this one, were “emitted from manufacturing, accidents, and disposals of automatic vending machines.” Sometimes found in metered-dose medical inhalers.* Between 2005 and 2011, atmospheric concentrations more than doubled, to 62.7 parts per trillion. At time of writing, this compound caused the most global warming of any HFC. “The largest emissions occur in North America, Europe and East Asia.”

Atmospheric lifetime: 14 years. Over 20 years its GWP is 3,830.

1,600–2,310

• HCFC-142b.

A hydrochlorofluorocarbon which “can be used as alternative feedstocks for vinylidene fluoride manufacture.”

Atmospheric lifetime: 17.9 to 19 years. Over 20 years its GWP is 5,490.

4,000–4,750*

CFC-11, which is CCl3F.

This fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbon made up 63% of the 1986 CFC market. Used as a “blowing agent” and refrigerant. “Extremely desirable for use with centrifugal compressors.” “Whereas a typical refrigerator/freezer might use 6 oz. (170 g) of CFC-12 as refrigerant, it uses 2 lbs (0.91 kg) of CFC-11 in the blown foam.”—Substituted for by HCFC-123.

Atmospheric lifetime: 45 years. Over 20 years its GWP is 6,730.

4,800–6,130

CFC-113, which is CCl2FCClF2.

A fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbon used as a solvent in dry cleaning, and a low-viscosity cleaning agent in electronics manufacture and metal finishing. Substituted for by HCFC-225ca/cb.

Atmospheric lifetime: 85 to 90 years. Its 20-year GWP is 6,540.

6,630

• PFC-14, which is CF4.

See description of PFCs.

Atmospheric lifetime: 50,000 years.

7,000 to 10,300 [one source lumps them at 7,400]

• Various perfluorocarbons (PFCs).

Used to etch semiconductors. Also appear as uranium enrichment and aluminum smelting byproducts.

Atmospheric lifetime: 1,000 days to 50,000 years. The 500-year GWP of PFC-318 (life: 3,200 years) is 14,700.

7,100–10,900

CFC-12, aka R-12, which is CCl2F2 (sometimes called “freon,” although “Freon” was the trade name for a group of CFCs).

In the 1930s, “facing the problem of replacing methyl chloride and ammonia in household refrigerators, researchers found that dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12) was the best alternative as a safe, stable gas whose liquefied state had low compressibility. In addition, it was not flammable.” It was even odorless. Also used as an industrial refrigerant. Truck and trailer refrigerators employed it. A 1990s scientific survey alleged that an automobile air conditioner “contains about three pounds of freon [=CFC-12], compared to the few ounces used in home refrigerators.”—“Traditionally used in medium (-15° C) to high (15° C) temperature refrigeration, while HCFC-22 has been used for temperatures down to −35° C . . .” “Reacts vigorously with molten aluminum.” At one time CFC-12 was the third largest contributor to global warming. Replaced by HCFC-22 and HFC-134a, whose GWPs, as this table shows, were still many times worse than CO2’s.*

Atmospheric lifetime: 100 years.

8,700

• Perfluorocyclobutane, a PFC.

One of several unsalubrious PFCs. See perfluorocarbons, above.

Atmospheric lifetime: [?]

8,970

PFPMIE, or perfluoropolymethylisopropyl ether.

One of the PFPEs, “a family of perfluorinated fluids used mainly in industrial applications.”

Atmospheric lifetime: At least 800 years. The 20-year GWP was 4,692; the 500-year GWP was 31,694.

11,700–12,400

• HFC-23.

A refrigerant and a semiconductor etching gas. “For process-related reasons, production of HCFC-22 produces up to 3 % HFC-23 as a byproduct . . . [E]ven when the HFC-23 is subjected to further processing (for example, to produce refrigerants) or is collected and then broken down into other substances, some HFC-23 is always released into the atmosphere.” Ca. 2013, most releases came from East Asia, with “developed countries” emitting “less than 20% of the global total.”

Atmospheric lifetime: 222 years.

11,700–14,400

CFC-13, which is CClF3.

A fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbon sometimes used as a commercial refrigerant.

Atmospheric lifetime: 400 to 640 years. The 500-year GWP is 16,400.

16,100

Nitrogen trifluoride, which is NF3.

A byproduct of fluorocarbon production and semiconductor manufacture. Added to the Kyoto Protocol’s greenhouse list in 2012. From 1990 to 2013, Japanese emissions of this chemical increased 41 times.

Atmospheric lifetime: 500 years.

22,800–23,900

• Sulfur hexafluoride, or SF6.

An electrical insulator; common in switching systems [which have a minimum 40-year working life]. “Allows for more compact substations in dense urban areas.” Also “blown over molten magnesium metal to induce and stabilize the formation of a protective [oxidized] crust.” Sometimes employed to make semiconductors; frequently used in aluminum manufacture. Up through the 1990s it was pumped into high-end auto tires “for reasons of image” [my italics]. A cushion in sports shoes (since replaced by nitrogen). In Japan it made a fabulous “insulating medium in the radar . . . of . . . [the] Airborne Warning and Control System. When the plane ascends, SF6 is automatically released . . . into the atmosphere to maintain the appropriate pressure difference between the system and the outside air. When the plane descends, SF6 is automatically charged into the system from an SF6 container on board.”—“Used as a tracer gas” in certain British environmental studies since “it is currently the only viable way to measure emissions of methane from ruminant livestock individuals at pasture.” SF6 is another of the perfluorocarbons. “The most potent greenhouse gas the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . . . has evaluated.” In Germany, “since 1975, SF6 has been used to enhance the soundproofing properties of multi-pane windows. In such use, the gas is inserted into the spaces between the panes.”* This folly was banned in 2007–8, but the Germans increased its application in solar collector manufacture. In 2012, American SF6 emissions were 8.4 teragrams of CO2-equivalent, or about 0.13% of the national greenhouse total.

Atmospheric lifetime: 3,200 years. The 500-year GWP is 32,600.

Sources: Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology (1994); Encyclopaedia of Weather and Climate (2002); Environmental Science and Technology (2006); International Panel on Climate Change (2007) and (2013); U.S. Department of Transportation (1979); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2014); reviewed by Dr. Pieter Tans, NOPA, and Mr. Ben Coleman, Marshall University

I am sorry that I could not make my table simple, complete or accurate. There were already many other compounds in the air just then, such as that old warhorse carbon tetrachloride (merely 3,480 times worse than CO2, and an excellent feedstock for Freon)—indeed, so many substances that I never heard of them all!* So I could only point, not show.

How could the 100-year global warming potentials of a substance vary so much?—Because some computations were newer than others.—As for the confidence levels of plus or minus 35%, such were our best efforts in those days.—But why did CFC-113, whose atmospheric life* was about 90 years, do in 20 years more damage relative to CO2 than it did in a hundred?—Maybe it was how it decayed. By some such magic I explained all these matters to myself.

And why did I omit sulfur dioxide? It certainly deserved to be on the list:

There have . . . been two dozen times during the past 46,000 years when major volcanic eruptions occurred every year or two or even several times per year for decades. Each of these times was contemporaneous with very rapid global warming. Large volumes of SO2 erupted frequently to overdrive the oxidizing capacity of the atmosphere . . . These are the times of the greatest mass extinctions.

But since that warming agent deployed its own disputable peculiarities upon our planet, I packed it off to Volume II.* (Volatile organic compounds get their moment on II:352.)

In any event, back when we were alive, most of us rarely read tables such as this. To be sure, the well-meaning expert chemists who in their zeal to profitably please had unleashed CFCs and HCFCs now pored over their latest results, concluding optimistically: The structure of a molecule affects both its lifetime and radiative forcing. The results present herein may assist with the future design of molecules which have shorter lifetimes and lower radiative forcings but which still retain useful function. Most of these substances were unknown to us who had complacently benefitted from their use; the magnitude and duration of their warming seemed peculiar, abstract, improbable; considering such figures bred confusion and despair—and as for their actual present effects, in say, 2011, those were still so minute that we could pull our usual trick of making future generations pay.

In their long-lasting ability to harm us, the worst of these substances reminded me of nuclear waste. The 50,000-year activity of PFC-14, with its warming power 525,560 times worse than carbon dioxide’s in the first century alone (after that who could say?), how was one supposed to weigh that against the radiation emitted by, for instance, the “uranium legacy site” of Mailuu-Suu, Kyrgyzstan?* We etched semiconductors, sold and used them, then threw them “away,” at which point the PFC-14 that had served us had barely begun its climate change. Meanwhile the Soviets enriched their ore at Mailuu-Suu, then went out of business. Two investigators from the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded: The probability of landslides that potentially can destroy the tailings containment is high . . . Erosion of riverbanks and destruction of tailings containment is only a matter of time[;] consequently fortification of the riverbanks . . . [is] only a short-term solution. Fortunately, the site of TSF No 15 has the potential to become (after reconstruction) a safe disposal site sustainable over the time span of 200–1000 years recommended for final disposal of tailings. Only a thousand years! That would be over before we knew it! The . . . valley . . . appears . . . sufficiently spacious to be expanded to receive . . . possibly up to 1 million m3* [35.3 million cubic feet] . . . of additional tailings.—Now for the Strategic Action Plan for Complex Remediation of Uranium Legacy Sites in Mailuu-Suu:

But if there was no national strategy, there was also (I am proud to say) no immediate danger. The people of Mailuu-Suu breathed in radioactive dust, and got irradiated from the scrap metal they collected from their “legacy site” . . . while PFC-14 contributed its subtle mite to our atmosphere. I never heard anyone complaining!

Atmospheric concentrations of HFCs, PFCs and sulfur hexafluoride were rising steeply, but the entirety of their combined mischief had not yet accomplished 1% of the warming carried out by the so-called “well-mixed greenhouse gases”: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and the halocarbons.*

Between 1990 and 2012, HFC emissions in the EU-15 nations more than doubled. Between 2005 and 2011, nitrogen trifluoride levels had nearly doubled, but remained under one part per trillion. Sulfur hexafluoride emissions were at least twice the reported values, but so what?

By 2013 the HCFCs and CFCs made up 11% of our global warming brew. In Japan, hydrofluorocarbon emissions rose by 99.4% between 1990 and 2013, mostly due to increased deployment of refrigerators and air conditioners. But they still constituted a mere 2.3% of that country’s greenhouse gas pollution.

So it was with our human calamities, back when we were alive. Once upon a time, when World War I pushed against the creaking walls of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, a young officer-to-be told his friend: Each question branches out into more and more questions, and once you start, you get nowhere. One thing I’ve noticed, though, is that the more narrow-minded a person is, the more easily he’ll find a way through this maze. He’ll declare confidently, for instance: We’ll soon teach the Serbs their lesson, and that’ll be that.

As for our most effective carbon ideologues, how did they render the crooked straight?—By omitting.

Excluding agriculture from consideration certainly eased our worries. Forgetting about refrigerants was another path-straightener.*

And why fuss over such chemicals as nitrous oxide, which did not have a single atom of carbon in their molecules?—Besides, water vapor contributed more to global warming than other greenhouse gases—so my encyclopaedia said. That entry might have been out of date; but even so, why should you from the future blame us for water vapor? Above all, why ever ask what on earth the work was for?* That would have led nowhere, all right!

Carbon Ideologies now promises to bring you on a delightfully easier journey, in which precipices will be screened off behind simplifications, while our puttering narrative vehicle will be cushioned with consolations. For the most part this book will live up to its name, ignoring hordes of lesser known greenhouse gases. In 2014 the European Union put us straight: The most important energy-related gas is CO2 that makes up 78% of the total EU-15 GHG emissions. CH4 and N2O are each responsible for 1% of the total GHG emissions. And Dr. Tans of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration insisted in his letter to me:

[Many of] the other greenhouse gases . . . have much shorter residence times than CO2. My conclusion has to be that climate change is primarily about cumulative emissions of CO2. That has nothing to do with an ideology. We should of course try to lower emissions of non-CO2 GHGs but they are truly secondary on the expected time scales of climate change.

He had spent decades studying just such matters—his official title was “Chief, Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases Group”—and for a fact my heart would have felt easier if he’d erased every other greenhouse agent from our ledger of trivial gains and looming losses. However, the main lesson I, a trivially obtuse non-scientist, have taken from the history of climate change is that reality continually surprised us—because we always underestimated! Why shouldn’t some half-known gas be the one to actually finish us off? Having said so much, and with that longish preceding table paying off my conscience, I turned thankfully away from, for instance, perfluoropolymethylisopropyl ether. My maze of worries would become a broad, well-lit tunnel once I further limited my concerns—as this book will immediately do. Every now and then I may look over my shoulder at methane or at certain volatile organic compounds—but at least, thank God, this primer is nearly done with.—How shall I leave its wide web of problems? Naturally, with a table!—We knew that burning away rain forests and tilling the soil incurred costs quantifiable as follows:

COMPARATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, 2007,

in multiples of the figure for food production

1

Food production [14%].

1.21

Deforestation [17%].

4.93

Energy consumption [69%].

Total: 100%.

Source: Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems, 2014, with calculations by WTV.

Focusing on only 69% of the picture saves time and eases my digestion. Therefore, the remainder of Carbon Ideologies simply considers four fuels, as follows: