re: electronic or paper documents?energyresearchDecember 30 2013, 12:14:19 UTC
> Reply at originating web site: > KG is a measurement of mass. The statement source is the author. If you examine the other content on this website you will learn how it is derived, particularly http://www.fopap.org/drafting_a_standard.html >
The measure of mass is not being disputed, but the declaration "kg's" is inherently wrong, both poor English grammar and incorrect SI unit: there is no such measurement of mass as "kg's" and should be corrected accordingly.
The 'standard' web page that you cite states:
"...a standard aimed at one specific community and stage in the cycle - in this case printers - that requires a knowledge of the subsequent history of upstream processes (for example, the subsequent use of the land after the tree was felled) and a knowledge of downstream fates (for example, how the printed product is disposed of after use) runs the risk of being complex and unwieldy to calculate accurately and may therefore suffer from a poor uptake."
However, please be aware that such analyses is already recognised as complex and conducted with the research community "life cycle analysis". It is recommended that you perform a web (ironic :) ) search of "LCA" for paper printing, such as research already published for the European Life Cycle Analysis Database (e.g. http://www.lcaforum.ch/, or: http://www.fefco.org/technical-documents/lca-database).
> There is plenty of anecdotal evidence available elsewhere on the internet that the consumption of electronic data has a relatively high CO2 footprint, whether or not the comparison with paper in this article is accepted by you as valid. I therefore advise you to investigate this particular aspect further if you have a genuine interest. >
No doubt there is information elsewhere (much more easily available via internet than paper duplication; again, ironic!), but this article makes a flawed comparison for the reasons given in the previous post. As such, to declare a CO₂ emissions for paper based without a rigourous, robust comparisons model renders the conclusion of the article to be weak. Since the analysis of the weakness of the comparison has not been challenged, one can assume the rebuttal remains accepted.
Re: electronic or paper documents?energyresearchDecember 30 2013, 14:19:09 UTC
> Reply at original web site: > My key interest is in finding ways to reduce atmospheric CO2. >
Sceptics will rightfully ask, why? Whilst noone is seriously going to doubt that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are occurring, there exists a healthly scepticism about the climate change "models": higher temperatures = melting ice-caps = flooding ... etc. etc.. It could be argued that sustainable energy is more important than atmospheric CO₂ emissions, but that's another debate. The point: whilst business people, politicians, NGOs etc. want the debate to be decided so that they can push their agendas, the reality within the science community is that there is no clear evidence to support the assertion that reductions of atmospheric CO₂ emissions to a certain level is a laudable aim.
> No matter how one evaluates the merits and ease of use of the internet (which I agree is a very useful technological tool and I am not advocating its abolition by any means) it can never be a net absorber of CO2. The consumption of paper, which drives the planting of trees, however, can.
Conceivably, internet servers could be a "net absorber" if sustainable energy source is used for data centre cooling, power supply, etc., but it depends upon accepting the premise that net CO₂ absorption is laudable objective (see above! :) )
> > This statement, however, only has validity if paper continues to lock up carbon for a very long time after it is disposed of. It is my belief that is does. This belief is based upon evidence (http://www.fopap.org/carbon_assumption_blown.html) not wishful thinking on my part. >
Interesting study, but does not constitute sufficient justification per se for lignin landfill disposal to suddenly qualify for carbon emission reduction credits. You should subject your opinion to peer review within the LCA community.
> The human consumption of CO2 is not diminishing any time soon by the look of things (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131118193127.htm) so if we wish to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we need to find processes that effectively reduce it. Or, we can work by the assumption that Global Warming is not real. If this is the case then our discussion is not even necessary. >
Not entirely; we need sustainable energy for reasons other than pollutant emissions reductions.
> Neither am I persuaded that the incorrect grammatical use of an SI unit invalidates the argument. But I am happy to acknowledge its misuse accordingly.
Incorrect units of measurement is an entirely non-related, separate observation and glad that this is recognised.
> KG is a measurement of mass. The statement source is the author. If you examine the other content on this website you will learn how it is derived, particularly http://www.fopap.org/drafting_a_standard.html
>
The measure of mass is not being disputed, but the declaration "kg's" is inherently wrong, both poor English grammar and incorrect SI unit: there is no such measurement of mass as "kg's" and should be corrected accordingly.
The 'standard' web page that you cite states:
"...a standard aimed at one specific community and stage in the cycle - in this case printers - that requires a knowledge of the subsequent history of upstream processes (for example, the subsequent use of the land after the tree was felled) and a knowledge of downstream fates (for example, how the printed product is disposed of after use) runs the risk of being complex and unwieldy to calculate accurately and may therefore suffer from a poor uptake."
However, please be aware that such analyses is already recognised as complex and conducted with the research community "life cycle analysis". It is recommended that you perform a web (ironic :) ) search of "LCA" for paper printing, such as research already published for the European Life Cycle Analysis Database (e.g. http://www.lcaforum.ch/, or: http://www.fefco.org/technical-documents/lca-database).
> There is plenty of anecdotal evidence available elsewhere on the internet that the consumption of electronic data has a relatively high CO2 footprint, whether or not the comparison with paper in this article is accepted by you as valid. I therefore advise you to investigate this particular aspect further if you have a genuine interest.
>
No doubt there is information elsewhere (much more easily available via internet than paper duplication; again, ironic!), but this article makes a flawed comparison for the reasons given in the previous post. As such, to declare a CO₂ emissions for paper based without a rigourous, robust comparisons model renders the conclusion of the article to be weak. Since the analysis of the weakness of the comparison has not been challenged, one can assume the rebuttal remains accepted.
Reply
> My key interest is in finding ways to reduce atmospheric CO2.
>
Sceptics will rightfully ask, why? Whilst noone is seriously going to doubt that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are occurring, there exists a healthly scepticism about the climate change "models": higher temperatures = melting ice-caps = flooding ... etc. etc.. It could be argued that sustainable energy is more important than atmospheric CO₂ emissions, but that's another debate. The point: whilst business people, politicians, NGOs etc. want the debate to be decided so that they can push their agendas, the reality within the science community is that there is no clear evidence to support the assertion that reductions of atmospheric CO₂ emissions to a certain level is a laudable aim.
> No matter how one evaluates the merits and ease of use of the internet (which I agree is a very useful technological tool and I am not advocating its abolition by any means) it can never be a net absorber of CO2. The consumption of paper, which drives the planting of trees, however, can.
Conceivably, internet servers could be a "net absorber" if sustainable energy source is used for data centre cooling, power supply, etc., but it depends upon accepting the premise that net CO₂ absorption is laudable objective (see above! :) )
>
> This statement, however, only has validity if paper continues to lock up carbon for a very long time after it is disposed of. It is my belief that is does. This belief is based upon evidence (http://www.fopap.org/carbon_assumption_blown.html) not wishful thinking on my part.
>
Interesting study, but does not constitute sufficient justification per se for lignin landfill disposal to suddenly qualify for carbon emission reduction credits. You should subject your opinion to peer review within the LCA community.
> The human consumption of CO2 is not diminishing any time soon by the look of things (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131118193127.htm) so if we wish to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we need to find processes that effectively reduce it. Or, we can work by the assumption that Global Warming is not real. If this is the case then our discussion is not even necessary.
>
Not entirely; we need sustainable energy for reasons other than pollutant emissions reductions.
> Neither am I persuaded that the incorrect grammatical use of an SI unit invalidates the argument. But I am happy to acknowledge its misuse accordingly.
Incorrect units of measurement is an entirely non-related, separate observation and glad that this is recognised.
Reply
Leave a comment