Quote:
Originally Posted by jlhredshift
I agree, to a point, and in my prior post I said:
"Now, it is the production of these things that causes the emissions into the atmosphere."
The energy used has to be allocated to the entire production run of course, not just one toy. However, I was particularily pointing out the amount of wood products that we all have and are preserving in homes. Also, the cars contain substantial amounts of plastic and the production of those parts,through technology, has become very efficient; i.e. lower cost, and we produce more pounds of plastic than we use pounds of fuel in their production; neither of which is all carbon of course. If it was one for one we wouldn't be able to afford anything.
Now my ultimate concern is that as we lock up the carbon in the plastic and fail to develop a new non-polluting energy source, that at some point we will start burning the plastic to provide energy.
|
I only addressed the issues that come into play in regard to producing one toy to keep it simple. A whole production run does not mean that less energy is used; it requires a finite amount of energy to melt the plastic; making more doesn't lower the melting point of the plastic. Efficiency, in this sense, applies only to the levels of production, not the overall energy consumed. In other words, increased production does not necessarily correlate to increased energy efficiency -- and it might mean you use more.
In addition, in order for that object to get into your house, it has to be transported to a store, and you have to drive somewhere to buy it. That amount of fuel alone probably uses up more carbon than is stored within the things that were transported. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the amount of carbon locked inside of a semi-truck carrying a load of tree trunks is far less than the carbon released in to the atmosphere while that wood is being transported to the paper mill.
As far as not being able to afford anything: you have to remember that energy is very very cheap; it is the low cost of energy that keeps prices for our products low.
And yes, cars contain much more plastic than metal, but the same things that apply to the production of the toy apply to the plastic parts in cars. And yes, we are very efficient at producing these parts. . . but efficiency in production often comes at a sacrifice in energy costs. I just don't see how we could be sequestering carbon just by producing things, that is, not with our current energy sources.
As far as your last sentence goes, I too have thought of that, and it really really scares me. It would be a disaster if all of the carbon currently locked up in consumer goods were suddenly released at once.