Skip to content

Even the tiniest amount of pollution is too much

In both cases, the authors’ intent is to persuade the reader that a very small concentration of something cannot possibly have any effect. And of course, it would follow from this armchair theory that all of the science on the matter, reaching back to Joseph Fourier in 1824 (discoverer of the greenhouse effect) is meaningless.
B01-Bedford-Evan
Evan Bedford: federal election candidate.

“CO2 (concentration in the atmosphere) is less than a mere four 100ths of a per cent! As a decimal, it is 0.038 per cent.”— Advocate columnist Michelle Stirling Anosh

“Big Al (Gore) also failed to explain that CO2 represents about 0.03 per cent of the total atmosphere . . . ” — Advocate columnist Jim Sutherland

In both cases, the authors’ intent is to persuade the reader that a very small concentration of something cannot possibly have any effect. And of course, it would follow from this armchair theory that all of the science on the matter, reaching back to Joseph Fourier in 1824 (discoverer of the greenhouse effect) is meaningless.

It’s amusing to see how the ideologically motivated can say that on the one hand, CO2 is unimportant (as above), but on the other, that CO2 is extremely important (as the coal industry has pointed out in ads, emphasizing its vital role in plant photosynthesis . . . so let’s keep on burning several billion tons of coal per year). So, at a concentration of only 0.038 per cent, it is vital for plants, but at that same concentration it has no meaningful effect on the thermal properties of our atmosphere?

So much for pretzel logic. But what about other things in low concentrations? Surely 0.08 per cent alcohol in a driver’s bloodstream is nothing to worry about.

And a paltry level of 0.001 per cent of arsenic in our drinking water (actually 1,000 times higher than Health Canada guidelines) should be fine, shouldn’t it?

Still on the topic of drinking water, what about the optical properties of ink in it? Surely, if the armchair logic was correct, a 0.038 per cent solution of ink in water would be practically invisible. To find out, go to YouTube and type in “ink” and “CO2”. It shows Dan Miller (former systems engineer for Hughes Aircraft) comparing a 0.0038 per cent ink solution in water with various other concentrations representing the CO2 in our atmosphere in the historic past and in the likely future (he had to dilute the ink first by 10 times, since the water in each case turned out to be far too dark to do an easy comparison).

OK, so that’s fine for ink in water, but what about CO2 in the atmosphere?

Again, go to YouTube and type in “CO2” and “experiment”. The first video shows the operation of the simple equipment available in most university labs that is used to quantify the amount of heat trapping possible with various concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Those other greenhouse gases would, of course, include the most important greenhouse gas, which is water vapour.

But even water does its duty in very small concentrations. In fact, if all of the water vapour in the atmosphere were to instantly fall as rain, the global puddle would only be about an inch (2.5 cm) deep.

Considering that the troposphere (where all the water vapour resides) is about 10 miles (16 km) deep, this gives a concentration that is significantly smaller than even that of the much maligned CO2 molecule.

A final example of large effects coming from small concentrations of atmospheric molecules relates to stratospheric ozone.

This is a vital molecule that absorbs 97 per cent to 99 per cent of the sun’s harmful ultra-violet rays, which would otherwise destroy much of life on earth. Its concentration in the stratosphere is less than 0.0008 per cent, and back in the 1980s, the global community went to a lot of effort to ban certain types of aerosol sprays which harmed the ozone.

So, given that 0.0008 per cent is a much smaller percentage than 0.038 per cent, why didn’t we hear from our armchair theorists back then?

Of course, the answer is that it was much easier to give up certain types of aerosol propellants than it is to consider crazy notions like carpooling and public transit.

In other words, it is often much more convenient to ignore the science and embrace the ideology.

Evan Bedford is a local environmentalist. Direct comments, questions and suggestions to wyddfa23@telus.net. Visit the Energy and Ecology website at www.evanbedford.com