co2 emissions

[rdv]

All we hear these days concerns the need to cut co2 emissions to reduce global warming. In 1992 new cars had to be fitted with cats. (in the UK) so they now produce co2 instead of co. How is this beneficial to the environment?

[Coldicote]

I'm not a scientist, but understand that exhaust passing through a 'cat' produces less harmful gases and chemicals. In pre-cat days it was not unusual to hear of people dying as a result of carbonMONOXIDE poisoning.

[Bev2007]

There are lots of different greenhouse gases, and they vary in how damaging they are. Its quite complex and Im not an expert but greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, CFCs, water vapour, methane, sulphur dioxode, there are many more.
We need some to keep the earth habitable, but too many traps radiation and the environment warms up (thats the theory anyway) which is why we're enocuraged to reduce emissions.
Now some greenhouse gases are more potent than others, and CO2 although abundant is less potent than, say CO (ie cats) and methane (which is why the government will pay you to burn methane, turning it into CO2).

I think we are encouraged to cut CO2 emissions because its one of the things most under our control by, for example, being more energy efficient so less fossil fuel is burned producing electricity.

[jake-the-peg]

The reason for catalytic converters was nothing to do with global warming but because CO and others are dangerous to human health.

CO is the gas that kills you if your boiler goes wrong in some dodgy holiday resort.

CO2 is the lesser of 2 evils

[rdv]

Bev,
the media never mention carbon monoxide when global warming is an issue, is it really worse than co2 for the environment. I know its fatal when inhaled in quite small volumes but people were not dying en masse pre 1992 before cats.

[jake-the-peg]

Carbon monoxide is primary component in smog. and accelerates the production of it in sunlight.

Not only were people dying en-mass prior to 1992, they are dying en mass now!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/905016.stm

[Bev2007]

Apparantly CO is not considered a greenhouse gas as it oxidises to CO2 in the atmosphere, so I stand corrected on that.
If you look at "Criticisms of catalytic converters" on this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_convert er you will see your perspective is perfectly valid. As is Jake when he says they were introduced to reduce local toxicity levels.

[rdv]

Thanks Bev, thats an interesting article. It does appear to confirm my initial thoughts, cats are not really helping much as far as the environment is concerned. I should also point out that huge amounts of energy are used in the production and reclamation of these ceramic and platinum devices.

[jake-the-peg]

You have to distinguish between the wider environment and global warming.

We didn't start using cats to stop global warming any more than we took lead out of petrol to.

As for the energy and pollution in extracting platinum, all mining is nasty but cats have saved more lives than they've cost - maybe not if you live in the country but if you're bringing up kids in inner London it's a different story

[Bev2007]

rdv you sound like a materials scientist? I was polymers in a former life....

[Phil7]

Let's not forget that human activity related CO2 is not causing significant global warming. The levels are too small and the data show that CO2 follows temperature rise, not vice versa.

Spread the word - Don't believe the propaganda. :+)