Climate Activists Are Wrong About Which Energy Source Reduces Air Pollution
By Steve Goreham
Originally published in the Washington Examiner.
Today’s media are filled with concerns about air pollution. But few people know which energy source has produced the greatest modern reduction in air pollution. The answer isn’t wind or solar energy.
During the 1950s, my grandfather had a coal furnace in his basement, like many homes in Chicago. Five days after a winter snowfall, the snow was covered with a visible black film of dust from coal furnaces. Our younger generation does not know the original reason for “spring cleaning.” Every spring, homeowners would wash their inside walls to remove coal dust.
It was the rising use of gas fuel, primarily natural gas along with propane, that produced the greatest reduction in air pollution in the United States and across the world. Gas furnaces and stoves have replaced wood in businesses and homes in developed nations. And natural gas power plants have replaced coal-fired plants to generate electricity, with gas becoming the leading fuel for industry.
Natural gas and propane are clean-burning fuels that emit no harmful pollutants when burned. When gas heating is substituted for coal or wood heating, indoor particulate pollution is reduced by 1,000 times.
Today, 70% of US homes use natural gas or propane, a percentage that has been rising for decades. Gas fuels have also become the leading heating and cooking source in Europe, providing 83% of heat energy in the Netherlands and 78% in the United Kingdom. But there are still 70 million wood stoves in Europe.
The World Health Organization estimates that 2 billion people in developing nations still cook using open fires or inefficient stoves fueled by kerosene, biomass (wood, charcoal, animal dung, or crop waste), and coal. These fuels generate harmful indoor air pollution. Indoor air pollution is estimated to cause more than 3 million deaths annually in poor nations. Emerging nations need gas fuels to boost health and well-being.
The great news is that gas fuels are increasingly used in developing nations, reducing illness and death from cooking. For example, in 2016 Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched a program to provide liquid petroleum gas (LPG) to 200 million people, making India the second largest LPG importer. About 70 percent of US propane production is exported as the key component of LPG, mostly to Eastern Asia.
Gas became the primary fuel for generating electricity in developed nations over the last three decades. Natural gas rose from 12.6% of US electricity generation in 1990 to 43.1% in 2023. By 2022, gas had become the leading fuel for electric power in Italy (48%), Netherlands (59%), and the UK (36%).
The combination of rising gas use to generate electricity, the use of scrubbers on coal plants, and the reduction in vehicle pollution has produced vastly improved air quality in recent decades. The Environmental Protection Agency reports that US ambient air pollution declined by 78% from 1970 to 2020.
Despite the benefits of reduced indoor and outdoor pollution from rising gas use, gas fuels are under attack. Driven by the ideology of Climatism, the fear of human-caused climate change, advocates for net-zero energy policies demand the elimination of gas to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
But carbon dioxide is an odorless, harmless, invisible gas. It doesn’t cause smoke or smog. Increased levels of atmospheric CO2 boost plant growth. Carbon dioxide should not be called a pollutant.
Nevertheless, US President Joe Biden, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and other leaders have called for a net-zero electric grid by 2035. Twenty-three US states now have net-zero electricity targets by 2050. Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Switzerland, totaling about half of Europe’s electricity, have pledged to eliminate CO2-emitting power plants by 2035.
A war rages in Europe over the elimination of gas appliances. The governments of Germany, Netherlands, and the UK seek to force homeowners to spend thousands of euros or pounds to switch from gas appliances to electric heat pumps to reduce CO2 emissions. Amsterdam recently announced that it would become “aardgasvrij,” or gas-free, by 2040. But conservative gains in European Union elections this month reflect a popular backlash against efforts to eliminate gas fuels and force acceptance of net-zero policies.
In the US, cities and counties in six states, California, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, Oregon, and Washington, along with Washington D.C., enacted statutes banning natural gas in new construction. New York passed the All-Electric Buildings Act in 2023, a state-wide ban prohibiting gas appliances in new one- to six-story buildings by 2026. But 20 other US states have passed laws preventing local governments from passing ordinances that ban gas fuels.
Despite misguided government efforts to eliminate gas, consumption of natural gas and other gas fuels continues to rise. World natural gas consumption has doubled since 1995.
Green energy advocates have it exactly wrong. Adoption of gas fuels did more to reduce air pollution over the last 60 years than any other energy source. Gas consumption will continue to rise for decades to come.
Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy and the author of the bestselling book Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The real culprit in air pollution is a combination of particulate matter (PM) and sulphates. The most significant improvements in air quality have resulted from stopping using high-sulphur coal. The introduction of ultra-low-sulphur diesel has probably also helped.
I think there’s someone named Milloy(?) who might have something to say about particulates.
Pick your poison, dirty air, or cooler air.
Sulfur emissions and particulate matter reduce the amount of sunlight that strikes the Earth cooling it down. Sulfur compounds seed clouds that block sunlight and particulate matter also blocks sunlight.
‘Cutting pollution from the shipping industry accidentally increased global warming, study suggests’
“A reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions may have caused “80% of the measured increase in planetary heat uptake since 2020.”
Most countries have been reducing sulfur emissions as well for decades.
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/climate-change/cutting-pollution-from-the-shipping-industry-accidentally-increased-global-warming-study-suggests
‘Pollution Paradox: How Cleaning Up Smog Drives Ocean Warming’
“New research indicates that the decline in smog particles from China’s air cleanups caused the recent extreme heat waves in the Pacific”.
Most countries have also been reducing smog as well.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/aerosols-warming-climate-change
I went from college to San Bernardino, CA in 1980 to start my professional career. The air was particularly bad that year because of massive brush fires in the Inland Empire, augmenting the already horrific smog problem. Then, after years of unsuccessful attempts to seal their coke ovens, Kaiser Steel in Fontana closed down. The improvement in air quality was instantaneous and dramatic over all of the Inland Empire and LA Basin. The property is now the home of California Steel Industries, which operates a strip hot rolling mill. 40 ton slabs of steel are put into an oven and heated to 2,400 F, then lifted out on an elevator platform, and shot down the mill line – a very impressive sight. The heat source is natural gas, and the mill burns 12,500 MMBtu per day. But you’d never know it was there, because the only thing you ever see coming out of the furnace stack is water vapor, and that is only on very cold days.
G’Day Michael,
“…the already horrific smog problem.”
In the 1970’s, worked in Colton, lived in Calimesa. My favorite ‘poetic’ quote, “I shot an arrow into the air — and it stuck there”. (Wadsworth)
Greens only say that renewables remove more pollution because they’re in Denial of the truth of FF
I am from the Netherlands and raised on natural gas. They now want to get off gas entirely while sitting on the biggest gas reserves in Europe. It boggles my mind. I live in Ireland now, cook on a kerosine Aga and have a coal burner. Every few years i have to repaint the entire interior due to coaldust.
But, even though the dutch are goiñg electric f just about everything, the production plants are still gas fired. They stopped state gas production on land but still use off shore gas. Those companies are owned by russian oligarchs and NL gets none of the profits. So, technically its not OUR gas. Funny, innit!? That is what a real transition means: higher prices and less efficiency. Throw in wind and solar everything gets worse. My dutch friends and relations think im crazy. Oh, and ‘far right’. They just throw that in. They have no idea how much they are manipulated and think they have figured everything out individually. That’s how real fascism works. Its not the bad guys taking over by force but by making the majority believe in a cause. To sum up: Hitler got elected..We have the devil Co2 to battle against. Wind and solar are the redemptive forces. We save the planet..
Thanks for your comment. This article by Steve Goreham is well written and clear and raises the most important issues in defence of the use of natural gas.
I would like to add that there are some Dutch that have bravely taken the lead in showing the foolishness of the climate alarmism. I would single out Professor Guus Berkhout and the Clintel Foundation who have the most succinct (kort en bondig) statement of why there is no climate emergency. Over 1900 (many engineers and scientists) from over 60 countries have endorsed this statement. Notice how the alarmist “climate scientists” refuse to engage in a serious discussion with Clintel on the points of contention or disagreement. The alarmists are the real obscurantists, the misusers and distorters of science .
One of my children is running a major upgrade project in Groningen with Gasunie. While they are debottlenecking to improve efficiency, at the same time they have massive woke investments in sequestration of CO2, “Green Gas” and hydrogen.
On the plus side, my young grandson is currently effectively a Dutch boy.
In order to mitigate the tremor factor they couldve chosen to pump Co2 back into the holes where the gas came out of. Im not a technical expert but i think they can still do this to remain pressure. They wont yet but will revisit their gas closures in a few years time, as they should. Its like sitting on gold with the lock firmly in place.
Anyway, i think maybe 1 severe winter might force the issue. Due to El Nino we had a few mild ones..
THe problem with using wells to store CO2 is that it is very dangerous. If the well cap breaks, or there is a sudden leak, then large amounts of CO2 will escape in a rush.
Because it was stored under pressure, when it returns to atmospheric pressure, it will get cold.
The cold CO2 will form a ground hugging layer that will suffocate everything within miles of the leak.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster
You are wrong here. Your brain dead “green advocates” redefined CO2 as the most dangerous pollutant. It is the cause of global boiling according to the UN and most western governments.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-worst-climate-pollution-is-carbon-dioxide/
The advocates do not even realise that the only way developed countries can reduce CO2 pollution is to pay China to produce the pollution for them. Globally the CO2 pollution is directly linked to prosperity so the only way it can be reduced is by lowering consumption.
“Globally the CO2 pollution is directly linked to prosperity so the only way it can be reduced is by lowering consumption”.
The aim was always lowering consumption. Linked to our original sin of being on the planet as a disruptor of Nature the aim is to lower human impact ie, less people.
There are 2 ways to do this: by western suicide, changing the system to a marxist style control and command one, coupled with re- distribution of wealth to poorer countries while at the same time restrict their production methods by insisting on Green energy. In a nutshell: authoritarianism by stealth, ie like China. And 2: by disrupting the global trade system, cut supply lines, actual terrorism and hope f a global implosion w conflict to reduce population. Ive visited several websites where a significant amount of people seem to want an endtimes scenario. A death cult.
The balance they are talking about is human suffering and death. They take that as a mea culpa.
In Marx, uber environmentalism is used as a tool to get to Utopia. Co2 is the Devil. Ergo…fill in the blanks.
It’s interesting that computing, and AI’s demand for energy in particular, is staggering. Several years ago, a new NOAA supercomputer was built in Wyoming to use less expensive (mostly coal generated) electricity.
Rick, you seem to have missed a paragraph:
“But carbon dioxide is an odorless, harmless, invisible gas. It doesn’t cause smoke or smog. Increased levels of atmospheric CO2 boost plant growth. Carbon dioxide should not be called a pollutant.”
All animals, including humans, release CO2 with every breath and plants release CO2 at night.
And dormant trees release CO2 from their roots during the Winter, when photosynthesis is shut down.
Well, the eco-marxists know that, and their policies are designed to get rid of those sources of CO2.
No I didn’t.
US EPA define carbon dioxide as pollution. They have not been completely successful in getting the courts to agree with them but they keep trying. So EPA’s various efforts to regulate CO2 emissions have achieved mixed results.
California actually regulates carbon dioxide emissions (pollution) from motor vehicles. They do not use the term pollution but regulating an emission of a particular gas implies pollution control measures.
My comment was because of what I saw was a disconnect between your quoting the final paragraph of Steve Goreham’s article – which is supported by real measurements – and then your comment which began “You are wrong here. . . . ”
As a language person, you seem to me to be contradicting yourself. Are you supporting the view of Scientific America or rejecting the EPA’s view on carbon dioxide as pollution? And as far as the view that “CO2 sticks around in the atmosphere for decades to centuries, wreaking climate havoc” I believe this is questionable and not conclusively supported by science.
China, India, Russia, etc., are laughing while the West is shooting itself in the foot with Net Zero.
It will be a cold day in Hell, before these nations, more than 50% of the world population, with oodles of resources, will agree to the West’s “rules-based” CO2 BS, which the West would like to use to impose self-serving command/control of the world.
That is one of the big factors leading to the rapid expansion of BRICS+, which basically is anti “rules-based” whatever.
CO2 is a life-giving gas. The world has been in a CO2 drought for millions of years. Right now, it is near the lowest level it has ever been in the last 600 million years.
.
From:
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
Urban Heat Archipelagos
UHAs, as on the US East Coast, from Portland, Maine, to Norfolk, Virginia, significantly contribute to local warming. That area used to be forested.
Many large solar systems in the US Southwest add up to a heat archipelago, plus the very hot PV panels have very low efficiencies at high temperatures
Adaptation, such as increasing the width and height of dikes and capacities of culvert and storm sewer systems; planting billions of trees each year; rebuilding rain forests, etc., is required.
Because, huge quantities of solar energy are collected in the Tropics to warm the planet each day, preservation of the world’s rain forest belt is vital for the future well-being of the earth.
That should have priority over expensive, uneconomical, wind/solar/battery/EV/heat pump, etc., measures, implemented mostly in temperate zones.
.
https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12390020087?profile=RESIZE_710x
.
Important Role of CO2 for Flora and Fauna Growth
Plants require require at least 1000 to 1200 ppm of CO2, as proven in greenhouses
Many plants have become extinct, along with the fauna they supported, due to a lack of CO2
As a result, many areas of the world became arid and deserts.
Current CO2 needs to at least double or triple
Earth temperature increased about 1.2 C since 1900, due to many causes, such as fossil CO2, flora CO2, and permafrost methane which converts to CO2.
.
CO2 emissions of fossil fuels are a blessing.
CO2 ppm increased from 1979 to 2023 was 421 – 336 = 85, greening increase about 15%, per NASA.
CO2 ppm increased from 1900 to 2023 was 421 – 296 = 125, greening increase about 22%
Increased greening: 1) Produces oxygen by photosynthesis; 2) Forms a filter in the upper atmosphere that absorbs harmful UV radiation, with wavelengths below 240 nm; 3) Increases world fauna; 4) Increases crop yields per acre; 5) Reduces world desert areas
.
Energy-related CO2 was 37.55 Gt, or 4.8 ppm in 2023, about 68% of total human CO2. One CO2 ppm = 7.821 Gt
Total human was 4.8/0.68 = 7.06 ppm. See summary URL.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
To atmosphere was CO2 was 421.08 ppm, end 2023 – 418.53, end 2022 = 2.55 ppm; natural increase is assumed zero; to oceans 3.5 ppm (assumed); to other sinks 1.01 ppm
.
Mauna Loa curve shows an annual variation of about 9 ppm during a year, due to: 1) seasonal absorption by photosynthesis, 6CO2 (from the air) + 6H2O (from the ground) + sunlight → C6H12O6 (glucose for flora energy) + 6O2 (to the air), and 2) ongoing decay.
We need more biomass (plant more trees) that uses CO2 to produce O2. See URL
.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-study-2001-2020-global-greening-is-an-indisputable-fact-andhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-not-pollution-it-s-the-currency-of-life
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/summary-of-world-co2eq-emissions-all-sources-and-energy-related
https://issuu.com/johna.shanahan/docs/co2_pitch_4-3-24_baeuerle_english
.
Oceans Absorb CO2
Sea water has 3.5% salt, NaCl, by weight.
CO2 molecules continuously move from the air into sea water, per Henry’s Law
CO2 and NaCl form many compounds that contain C, O, H, Cl, Ca
They sustain flora (plankton, kelp, coral) and fauna in the oceans.
At the surface, seawater pH 8.1, and CO2 421 ppm, the % presence of [CO2], [HCO3−], and [CO3 2−] is 0.5, 89, and 10.5; “Free” CO2 molecules at the surface, is only 0.5%; CO2 out-migration is minimal, given the conditions.
The oceans are a major sink of CO2 (human + natural) in the atmosphere
https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/14-4_feely.pdf
.
https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12401907497?profile=RESIZE_710x
Don’t oceans also release CO2 or absorb less when they warm?
Yes, and also precipitate carbonates.
Hopefully, CO2 ppm will continue to increase to have more greening, and oceans will continue to absorb CO2, to provide glucose to sea fauna, such as near-surface plankton.
Net Zero is the opposite of what should be happening, which is an INCREASE in CO2
What did he get wrong?
He wasn’t implying that Green Advocates said that gas use was the reason for the huge drop in air pollution – certainly, they would completely ignore that fact.
And certainly the author isn’t wrong in asserting that the increasing use of clean burning natural gas has led to dramatically better air quality.
And it is certainly very plausible that the cleaner air, first from pollution controls starting in the late 60s/early 70s, and later from gas supplanting coal burning, led to less reflection of the Sun’s rays, leading some ares to warm up.
“”Climate Activists Are Wrong About Everything””
Every time.
They are repeating what the UN/IPCC is telling them.
Wait till they learn that boarding an airplane is what is keeping the planet from descending back into the LIA.
Sorry but this graph isn’t labelled clearly. Is the red line the passenger miles and the other something to do with temperature?
Doesn’t prove one causes the other, just both followed the same path.
Something to deflate a certain ‘Username’…
The world’s consumption of fossil fuels climbed to a record high last year
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/20/fossil-fuel-use-reaches-global-record-despite-clean-energy-growth
True to form, the Graun tries to muddy the waters by using units the layman will never understand…
“Juliet Davenport, the president of the Energy Institute, said the report had revealed “another year of highs in our energy-hungry world” including a record high consumption of fossil fuels, which rose by 1.5% to 505 exajoules.”
Roughly speaking, 1 barrel of oil holds ~6120000000 joules…..
Still no substitute for nuclear when it comes to low pollution.
From the article: “In the US, cities and counties in six states, California, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, Oregon, and Washington, along with Washington D.C., enacted statutes banning natural gas in new construction. New York passed the All-Electric Buildings Act in 2023, a state-wide ban prohibiting gas appliances in new one- to six-story buildings by 2026. But 20 other US states have passed laws preventing local governments from passing ordinances that ban gas fuels.”
In Oklahoma, the natural gas companies pay people if they buy natural gas appliances.
I think Oklahoma is one of the States that passed a law preventing local governments from banning natural gas. Some of our college towns are infested with radical leftists who might just try to ban natural gas, so the legislature wanted to nip that in the bud.
Two-thirds of Republicans under the age of thirty have also been conned into supporting the so-called “Climate Change” agenda.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change
The greens don’t really care about the quality of the air. All of the shouting and stamping of feet and blocking of whatever and destruction of everything is about…control and power. Period.
Funded by those who already have more power due to their extreme financial assets they throw their pretend tantrums to further the elites search for complete power over the citizens of the planet. That is all they care about.
In my medium-sized city the bus lines were converted from diesel to compressed natural gas. The table we have in the backyard, very close to the roads, used to get covered with soot from the diesel exhaust. Not anymore.
What on Earth is Lead (Pb) doing on that graph?
Quick summary, because it has killed a handful of people while its toxicity from massive doses was studied and then regulated. We have a class of regulators whose aims for whatever reasons are the exploitation of tragedy because pure, better people do that.
The actual US death count with Pb on death certificates is under 20, most from distilling illegal moonshine. There is inadequate data about Pb harm at low doses. From a start about the 1960s, lead has been steadily demonised by the regulatory people who are paid to sensationalise. Pb poisoning is no longer directly measured on a patient-by-patient basis, so much as statistically. If your blood test is over a regulated level, you have been made sick by Lead. There are no clear medical symptoms, so problems of the mind are invoked. Lead affects IQ!
How one measures IQ is imprecisely. How one links low IQ with Lead is imprecisely. Yet society has been led by a ring in the nose to take hugely expensive steps like banning leaded gasoline.
It is part of the story of the LNT dose/harm link, for Linear No Threshold, with a line drawn to zero dose from the known harm of the gross dose. It is exploited unscientifically by the regulatory industry for just about every conceivable substance that can enter the body, with Lead now claimed to have no safe dose.
Time for a neutral, high level review of Lead and the LNT exploitation by power and money.
Geoff S
A colleague of mine got very serious lead poisoning due to a plumber using leaded solder in his new pipes. The effects on his nervous system were to kill the peripheral autonomic nerves that maintain blood pressure, gut function, ect.
Lead poisoning is still around, and just because there are few death certificates listing it, does not mean it is a trivial problem.;
If it only kills a couple of people per year, then on a national scale, it is a trivial problem.
That it is a tragedy for the people involved is a given and I hope the plumber involved was prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
We try to make life as safe as possible, however spending money on things that impact only a few people means that there is less money available to spend on those things that impact a lot of people.
Fran,
I made a mistake, That figure for US death certificates is annual, not total.
There is no argument that lead is deadly at high concentrations like these. Cases are documented, body damage is observed, medical cause of death is lodged, a medical name is given to main condition.
With this matter of intelligence of children, there is a large gap between the dose your friend was unfortunate to receive and the doses said to be affecting youngsters in particular. A scientist friend researching Lead in the early days found estimates of the weight of soil ingested each year by youngsters to vary over 2 orders of magnitude. On such rubbery figures, experts have refined the numbers to 3 decimal places of regulatory safety. Laughable.
This was Dr Allen Christophers, a senior Aussie medical scientist, who was a global go-to. He noted a prolem that is still to be solved – the reverse causation effec, whereby children who were born with low IQ were more likely to ingest stuff like soil contaminated by decaying Lead paint. Authors like Nedlema have written many papers going to extreme conclusions to keep this dead beast of Lead Poisoning alive.
There are reasons to say that it IS a trivial problem – at low doses.
Geoff S
I see that they are still trying to push the claim that PM2.5 is a health hazard.
In the UK, the incoming Labour government is committed to a zero emissions electricity grid by 2030. It is a curious aspect of the British press that this is seen in many quarters as a strength over the Conservative’s 2035.