Woodcutter wrote:
On the one hand I react to a comment that I find serious (CO2 would not be of primary importance) ...
No, this is not what I wrote (CO² would not be of primary importance)
I specify my thought:
- in the case of pollution, in my opinion, we speak almost only of CO² and not enough of the other polluting emissions (whether it is the car or heating); I regret that the green bonus is only based on CO² emissions, favoring Diesel, by chance (a specialty of French manufacturers!) ...
- CO² is of course serious (for the planet; let's be clear: it is not a "toxic" for humans, nor a carcinogen, etc ...; expected induced effects - like climate change, disappearance species, climate refugees, are important)
- and despite everything, it's not just CO²!
- I think the effects of other shows on the health human beings are - THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION - underestimated, poorly understood; these pollutants are dangerous for humans (the only source I spoke of is 30 deaths per year caused by transport-related pollution for France - what is it worth ???? This is a statement a person from AFSAT - French agency for occupational health or something like that).
My belief is that the alarming increase in allergies etc is not unrelated. It is only a conviction. Nothing scientific.
I don't neglect CO²: why do you think I have equipped myself with a pellet boiler (if CO² I didn't care)? To pollute more ?????
My action plan for CO² (essentially):
- solar water heater in 2002 (replacing the fuel boiler in summer)
- replacement of a fuel oil boiler that worked perfectly (2 to 500 l) with pellets (January 3000) (by the way, reduces the profitability of CESI!)
- change in eating habits (more organic, even if it is questionable; much less meat; more seasonal and local products; garden ...); since March 2007 (the garden, before)
- "downsizing" of cars: replacement of a ZX 1.9 D + a Xantia 1.9 TD (around 4000 l of diesel / year) by 2 C1 GPL (for daily traffic) + 1 C5 GPL (now reserved for trips with 4 or more). I go to 2 l gasoline equivalent for the same mileage. So a reduction of at least 800% of CO². Ongoing / started in May 30.
Excluding "food" (not quantifiable), the consumption of fossil energy, at constant standard of living, has gone from around 7 l of petroleum derivatives (diesel, fuel oil) to 000 l (LPG counted as "gasoline equivalent "). CO² in proportion.
On the particle side: the pellet boiler emits a little more than the fuel oil boiler, but the reduction was monumental on the side of the cars, so the overall assessment (even if it is not quantified) is largely positive.
Again, despite the profitability (it is not economically profitable at the current cost of pellets!), I chose the condensing pellet boiler (a rarity), which has a better performance and especially because of the condenser, emits fewer particles.
Listed NOx and CO, the balance sheet is also very positive, even if there too, I find it hard to quantify it. For NOx, I have partial data. For CO maybe too. I have to see if I find the emissions from the oil-fired boiler ... and I will make a quantitative assessment.
Here ... I also reduce electricity, but with less success (because quite small consumer) ... LED or compact fluorescent, washing machine and dishwasher on the solar water heater ...
All that, I alluded to it, because I have not forgotten what I lived in the bush in Africa ... And all that accelerated because I could have died in March 2007 if I never had the chance to live 35 km from a university hospital.
So I understand that the way in which I highlighted the C1 to "enrich" the reflection a little - and therefore "provoke" a little - beyond the only CO² may not be understood ... I admit it . I regret, however, that it elicits a somewhat abrupt reaction - let's stick to that qualifier.
