Saving the planet by saving toilet water won't work

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Why are forests not green lungs of the planet and who benefits from tales of global warming? Interview with Yuri Shevchuk, chairman of the public environmental council under the governor of the Leningrad region, head of the North-Western public environmental organization "Green Cross".

Are forests so important for oxygen production?

In fact, land plants in the process of photosynthesis produce about as much oxygen as they then consume themselves. Most of O₂produce microscopic oceanic algae - phytoplankton, which produces ten times more oxygen than it needs. Another source is the dissociation of water molecules under the influence of solar radiation.

So even if all forests disappear from the surface of the planet, this will not affect the oxygen content in the atmosphere. After all, once there were no forests on Earth - and there was even more oxygen than now. The forest is very important for cleaning the air from dust, saturating it with phytoncides - substances of antimicrobial action. Forests provide shelter and food to many animals and birds, and give people aesthetic pleasure. But to call them "green lungs" is at least illiterate.

Will an individual contribute to a better ecology by planting a tree on his own?

I am not at all opposed to planting trees: no matter how useless this business is on a planetary scale, it is noble and at the local level it really improves the environment. But this is nothing more than a kind deed. Planting trees will not help against carbon dioxide emissions, because all the gas absorbed by the trees is returned to the atmosphere in the fall, with rotting foliage and fallen branches, and then, after the death of the tree, with the oxidation of the main trunk. That is, planting trees will, at best, leave the oxygen and carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere at the same levels. Or, on the contrary, it will increase the amount of CO₂- it depends on what tree species and in what climatic zones to plant.

Are resource savings and material recycling beneficial?

This is where the collision arises: for whom does society save water, electricity and fossil fuels when the executive and corporations manage the surplus? After all, the fact that we saved the resources of the communal economy did not make it easier for nature, except that our bill for housing and communal services decreased. We reduced the consumption of tap water - they gave the developers the opportunity to build another house. Because before the water supply networks could not pull it, but the tenants narrowed down - and it's done. Energy saving methods will also not entail a decrease in electricity generation, and this is precisely a real contribution to environmental protection. Half of the electricity in the Leningrad Region is supplied by a nuclear power plant. Do you think it will be closed if the requests are reduced? Rather, an aluminum smelter will be installed next to it "for the consumption of excess energy resources".

No matter how much waste paper we hand over, deforestation will not decrease. And the trees will be used, if not for paper, then for pellets. The same is with the recycled use of plastic: we do not reduce the production of primary plastic. They do not replace each other and are used to produce different goods. Perhaps only the secondary use of metals really serves the cause of nature protection, reducing the primary extraction of ore.

Is it so difficult to find alternative energy sources?

Today, heat pumps that use the natural heat of the earth's interior are widely used as an alternative source of heating in the world. This is a good solution for a detached house, which is supplied with electricity. If we need to heat an entire village, we can use the deeper layers of the Earth to generate heat.

For the Leningrad Region, a potential source of energy is the hogweed growing here, for the processing of which Russian scientists have already received a patent. The plant contains an average of 24% sugars, which is comparable to sugar cane, which has long been used in Brazil for the manufacture of motor fuel.

For boiler rooms, in addition to peat, fuel chips and wood pellets can be suitable, however, they are quite expensive. Now in the Kingiseppsky district of the Leningrad region, plants are being created for the production of biochar from felling residues and the same hogweed. Solar and wind energy is already being used in our region to illuminate bus stops.

One of the promising energy sources can be biogas generated during the decomposition of municipal solid waste. Unlike technologies for incineration of solid waste, the production and use of biogas is an environmentally friendly technology.

Are electric vehicles really doing less harm to the environment?

This is absolutely not the case. At the stage of production of one electric vehicle, the same amount of electricity is consumed as released when burning 10 thousand liters of gasoline. An ordinary middle-class car consumes this amount of fuel in its entire life. Further, batteries for electric vehicles are expensive and poisonous, most of them cannot last more than five years. Of course, they can be recycled, but this is a much more energy-intensive process than the primary production of materials.

Yes, EVs do not emit CO₂, but this is done by thermal power plants that supply electric vehicles with energy. It turns out that electric cars run on the same energy from burnt fossil fuels as conventional cars. For electric vehicles to truly become "clean", they must be powered by "clean" sources. At the current stage of development of science and technology, this is definitely impossible.

What is the real environmental damage from vehicles?

It is believed that cars are responsible for at least 80% of the air pollution in large cities. But these numbers are completely wrong. The statistics do not take into account emissions from domestic sources - for example, kitchen gas stoves, which are responsible for the emission of 21% of carbon monoxide and 3% of nitrogen oxides. Also ignored are carbon dioxide emissions from "biological sources" - humans, their pets, trees.

Moreover, we forget that humanity is responsible for only 25% of atmospheric air pollution. The remaining 75% is caused by natural causes such as volcanic eruptions, dust storms, forest fires, dust from space origin, etc. Thus, vehicle exhaust is not the biggest threat to the atmosphere.

Is it difficult to organize separate waste collection at the federal level?

Separate collection is a good method of preparing waste for recycling, but now it is only applicable in low-rise suburbs where the "middle class" lives. You can't sort garbage in one communal kitchen for eight families. You can't run into the yard from the fifteenth floor with different bags, it's easier to lower everything together into the garbage chute. But this is not the problem here: it is necessary to start disposing of waste with the creation of enterprises for the processing of secondary raw materials, and not with the purchase of multi-colored containers for selective waste collection. What is the point in them if one garbage truck comes to pick up the contents?

Is global warming happening and to what extent is man to blame for this?

Some researchers have come to the conclusion that the kingdom of ice will come in a couple of decades. Periods of warming on Earth are regularly replaced by periods of cooling ten times longer. And the current period of warming, contrary to the widespread stereotype, is already coming to an end.

The planet's climate is changing, but man is not involved in this. The so-called scientific underpinnings of the theory of global warming do not stand up to common sense. The alleged happening is blamed on carbon dioxide emissions from sources created by man. But the annual emission of carbon dioxide from the oceans is 100 times more than anthropogenic.

Who benefits from the spread of myths about "anthropogenic causes of warming"? I think to those who are helped by these myths to retain power. Those who in this way inspire the masses with the idea that the governments of their countries can control literally everything. After all, if a climatic catastrophe is caused by people, it means that it is in their power to prevent it. But in reality, all our attempts to change the planet's habits seem pathetic and futile.

That is, even the adoption of a single environmental policy by all states will not be beneficial?

It is unlikely that such a merger can happen at all, because environmentally important decisions, as a rule, hit economic interests. But it should be based on facts, not delusions. Now we hear, for example, that the melting of the sea ice will lead to an increase in the level of the World Ocean - and this, let me remind you, is a denial of Archimedes' law. As long as mankind is dominated by stereotypes, it is even more powerless than it really is.

It turns out that a person cannot help nature at all?

Don't become pessimistic. Yes, fighting inevitability is stupid, and saving the planet by saving water in the toilet will not work. But there are many things we can do based on our own understanding of good deeds. You can plant a tree in your garden or work in a shelter for homeless animals, feed the birds in the park in winter. It is the impossibility of correcting the situation in a global sense that tells us to act according to our conscience. In addition, there is nothing more left for us.

Wouldn't the realization of your powerlessness be a reason to stop any attempts to improve the world around you and become selfish?

You know, there are people who, in adolescence, realize the inevitability of death and decide that they will die young. But there are not very many of them, are there? So it is here. If you can't save humanity, start with yourself - just try to live according to your conscience.