|LPG Tanks Photo Bharat Tanks|
Continue reading and comment or take the poll below....
|Cooking Emissions India: Photo Barnes|
The second option that is commonly accepted by climate specialists is that burning biomass from resources that are renewed every year involves a balanced cycle. For example, as indicated previously ethanol comes from various biomass sources that are regrown every year and the greenhouse gases produced by burning it are in balance because presumably they are absorbed by the next years growth. Similarly CO2 from fuelwood burned from sustainable forests is not counted as a climate threat because of the balanced cycle of CO2 production and absorption. Thus, only fuelwood from non-sustainable production—which of course is very difficult to measure or document—should be considered as increasing greenhouse gases. This position links the burning of the fuel with the source of the fuel production.
The third possibility is that all biomass is potentially renewable and therefore should not count in the climate change debate. A cow eats biomass and produces dung and this dung falls to the ground and facilitates further biomass production. But what if this dung is burned in an inefficient a stove for cooking? I know this also is complicated by the fact that gases are emitted even when the dung sits in the field and it might be better to burn it in a digester. However, the general principle is that wood, dung and straw are all renewable energy and should not be counted as producing adverse climate emissions.
Anyway I really just want to find out what people think about how burning biomass energy as a household fuel fits into the climate change discussions. This is an important issue because it impacts the way carbon emissions are viewed for mitigating climate change. Please give comments or at least answer the attached poll on household energy and greenhouse gas emissions.