Debunking the Debunker: Epic Derailing of a Climate Change Denier
#2 – Myth: More pollution is generated manufacturing solar panels than can ever be offset by solar energy.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant… in naturally occurring amounts. Millennia of evolution have formed a delicate balance between CO2 naturally emitted (by natural forces such as volcanoes) and CO2 naturally consumed (by trees and other plants, for example). What Mother Nature doesn’t account for is oil and coal extracted from a dormant existence within the earth, to be combusted in coal-fired power plants and released through toxic automobile exhausts.
Plus, there are the billions of acres of deforested land that once absorbed much of that CO2. Estimates of man-made CO2 emissions from deforestation (logging or slash-and-burn) range from 12 to 25% of the total. 
Compounding the issue is the fact that plant life extracts CO2 from the atmosphere and inserts oxygen. A burnt or logged tree no longer processes carbon dioxide, but rather emits the CO2 it once absorbed. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, some 13 million hectares of forest are lost each year (2006 numbers). 1.6 billion tons (1.45 billion metric tons) of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere each year through deforestation.
Now, let’s take volcanoes, which our debunker highlights for their sulfur dioxide emissions as part of diversionary tactic away from CO2. He discards volcanoes as “not a pollutant” due most likely to lack of any real argument against their dangerous effects in high concentrations. It is estimated that volcanoes release 130-230 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year—just shy of 16% of the total emissions from deforestation alone. Volcanoes are hardly an arguing point for minimizing anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, as scientists have known for decades that they contribute immensely to toxic air quality.
Furthermore, choosing sulfur dioxide as a means to mitigate the pollutive effect of coal plants is misleading because, using limestone beds, sulfur can be removed from coal prior to combustion, thus greatly reducing the formation of sulfur dioxide. They have yet to develop a feasible way to capture carbon dioxide, hence the dismissive response of our debunker.
Posted on August 17th in Solar Information by Dan.
August 18th, 2010 at 9:25 am
I am pro-solar, pro-wind, pro-renewables, pro-energy efficiency, pro-recycling and I am pro-Rush , pro-America . 100% against the enemy fraud King oumgbama, Pelosi, Reid, communism and izlamic supremacy.
I drive a hybrid, a bicycle (when possible) and I am energy efficient to the max. So there ! Another myth busted.
By ignorantly painting the world black and white, you paint yourself into a corner.
BTW, I am not a republican nor a real blind idiot democrat.
August 18th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
We’re not trying to paint the issue B&W at all…just this one example of a single conservative closing his/her eyes to the world. In no way are we saying that all conservatives think or act this way. I am very happy that you’re pro-renewable energy. Despite anyone’s beliefs on climate change, it just makes sense to move toward alternative energy. It cuts down on pollution in the air we all breathe, it reduces our dependency on foreign oil and that finicky group OPEC, takes money that trickles down to extremists in that region away, and is a safer option (no heading miles offshore for drilling or fear of being trapped in a cave with no escape)! Thanks for your input, always appreciated.
August 20th, 2010 at 9:59 am
I posed this comment to the conservative’s blog:
Those pennies you pay per watt of electricity? Those are artificially low. Those prices are kept down by some 70 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel industries. Most of that money goes to oil, to keep gas prices artificially low (and oil companies profits artificially high).
The subsidies for green energy are minuscule compared to the money this country is hemorrhaging into burning more hydrocarbons. Which is completely unnecessary since we can get all the power we need free from the sun.
August 23rd, 2010 at 3:56 pm
How anyone can proudly state they’re “pro-Rush” is beyond me….
September 6th, 2010 at 9:36 am
This is definitely a sensitive and passionate topic. But for the original article at hand, Taylen’s myth debunkings don’t require global warming to be a reality. They don’t require that we are adding and must offset any percentage of emissions. Preparing against such things is just a nice—nay, _awesome_—side effect of using a cleaner energy.
Forget names, forget political lines, forget any sort of labels. If the end result is power _and_ a cleaner place to live and breathe, even by 1.5% or .75% or 98% or .001%, I’d say we’re doing something right. A lot of somethings.
I posted a longer comment at ol’ no-name’s, but this is the gist of it.
September 6th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Glad to see the troops rally! Thanks for your help in debunking, fellow solar advocates! Ken, you have an excellent point. The cheap fossil fuels is only because government is footing most of the bill to keep it cheap for everyone. Nim, you nailed the gist of the story. Despite your beliefs on global warming, why not use an energy source that won’t run out until the sun goes out (at which point it won’t matter because it’s taking Earth with it)!