How Much CO2 Would a Nuclear War Emit?
by Brian Merchant, Brooklyn, New York 
on 01. 4.09
Image courtesy of Wired
The smallest possible regional nuclear war would unleash around 700 million tons of carbon dioxide—about as much as a country like England emits every year. The stat comes from a new paper called "Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security" by Marc Z. Jacobson, a professor of environmental engineering at Stanford. The piece led the British newspaper the Guardian to wonder about the potential carbon footprint of nuclear war. And thus, we head to (hopefully) hypothetical alley to take a look at some of the possible results of a nuclear conflict.
The Carbon Footprint of Nuclear War
The 700 million tons (690, to be accurate) of carbon emitted comes from the smallest possible projected conflict—"using just a thousandth of the weaponry of a full-scale nuclear war."
The small nuclear war would also send around 313 million tons of soot into the atmosphere and would probably kill around 17 million people, according to the Guardian.
And how does one calculate the carbon footprint of nuclear war? Good question. According to the Guardian, it goes something like this: He calculated the emissions by totaling up
...the burn rate and carbon content of the fabric of our cities. Materials have the following carbon contents: plastics, 38–92%; tires and other rubbers, 59–91%; synthetic fibers, 63–86%; woody biomass, 41–45%; charcoal, 71%; asphalt, 80%; steel, 0.05–2%. We approximate roughly the carbon content of all combustible material in a city as 40–60%.
Okay, fine. Even the smallest nuclear conflict would be one hell of a mess. So why the hypothetical in the first place?
The purpose of the paper is to compare the total human and environmental costs of a wide range of different power sources, from solar and wind to nuclear and biofuels. One of the side-effects of nuclear power, the report argues, is an increased risk of nuclear war: "Because the production of nuclear weapons material is occurring only in countries that have developed civilian nuclear energy programs, the risk of a limited nuclear exchange between countries or the detonation of a nuclear device by terrorists has increased due to the dissemination of nuclear energy facilities worldwide.
Needless to say, Jacobson is no vocal proponent of nuclear power. It also should be noted that the primary focus of the paper is not this doomsday scenario, but a more general look at climate change, energy, and pollution.
More on Nuclear War and Power:
Regional Nuclear War Could Create the Mother of all Ozone Holes ...
Bush Administration Plans to Bring Back Nuclear Testing
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Eat a Vegetarian Diet, Reduce Your Carbon Footprint by a Ton
- Why Do Some States Have Significantly Lower Carbon Emissions Than Others?
- Does Recycling Really Make a Difference?
- Reduce Your Carbon Footprint by Half in Three Steps
- We Love 5min.com for Simple DIY Solutions
- Green Glossary: Carbon Sink
Check your units. Try your Guardian article. 700 tons? DB
Never mind the millions of people a Nuclear war would kill, the important thing to consider is: HOW MUCH CO2 WOULD IT EMIT?
Are we really stooping to this level? Incredible.
Making nuclear power carry the costs of potential nuclear war seems like a stretch to me, but to make a fair comparison of energy sources, shouldn't you include the worst case scenario costs for each and every energy source? If you insist on including the impact of a nuclear war in the environmental cost of nuclear power, then you should include the impact of (for example) tectonic tampering in the environmental cost of geothermal energy, the impact of (for example) weather modification in the environmental cost of wind energy, etc.
It's easy to focus on nuclear war, because we've seen it firsthand, and thus can calculate its effects. But remember it was once the stuff of science fiction (like intentional geologic and weather modification are now). It would be naive (and dangerous) to assume that the technologies and capabilities that derive from our mastery of alternative energy sources won't ultimately also be used to very destructive ends.
how much CO2 was emmited from all those nuclear tests, let alone the radiation
This isn't sequestered, fossil CO2 that has been tied up for 70 million years. This CO2 in our wood, tires, charcoal, etc. is all part of our ambient carbon cucle and will be released in the nea future if not tomorrow, A-bomb or not.
This article conclusively demonstrates environmentalism has crossed the line into utter gibbering insanity.
Thank you TreeHugger for a cheery story to start the year on! Having said that, I guess it's a change from credit crunch news...
According to the Guardian article. it's 313 million tons of soot. Not 313.
Is this question a bit like worrying about lead poisoning after you've been shot?
mpkrack said:
"Is this question a bit like worrying about lead poisoning after you've been shot?"
That's a funny thing, you know? Because if the shooting isn't fatal, and the doctors determine that it's best to leave the bullet inside you (which, they often do!), that is entirely a possibility.
I know for absolute certain that there's at least one accidental shooting where exactly that happened, and the victim actually died of lead poisoning years later.
Now, if say, India and Pakistan were to nuke each other (smallest possible regional conflict without further involvement between NATO and Russia), then the environmental effects would indeed be something for the rest of the world to worry about. And that would include the CO2 emissions from the burning of many cities.
But, as the article points out, that conflict would only result in the UK's normal annual CO2 emissions. Which is mighty telling, isn't it?
It sort of makes you wonder if it would also result in the same amount of lead, mercury, arsenic, cyanide, and PCB emissions as the UK produces in one year. Which would also be mighty telling. Like that the UK basically incinerates an entire country every year.
How CO2 would be saved by the decreased numbers of emissions from all the dead people who can't create future generations of carbon emitters.
As far as that logic goes, global nuclear war is about the most green thing to occur in the long run. Why the hate, this sounds like a great long term investment to me?
Anti-nuke sentiment has gone far enough.
Willy Bio: It doesn't matter what type of thought exercise you claim it to be. The mere fact that we are researching the amount of Co2 emitted by a nuclear weapon reinforces the fact that we are apathetic towards disarming nuclear weapons and preventing a nuclear war. Never mind the radiation, the destruction of entire ecosystems and birth defects, not to mention the millions of people that would parish. Clearly, Co2 is the most important consideration when deciding whether or not to use nuclear weapons. A more effective argument to disarm nuclear weapons would be the value of a human life. NOT THE AMOUNT OF Co2 EMITTED. WAKE UP.
Chris is being a "horses behind" and he knows it. In his horse-behind logic, this one study by this one man means all of humanity has shifted its gaze upon C02 as the main problem with a nuclear exchange. Of course, we all know what comes out of a horse's behind.
Thats Horse Shit!!! Freedom requires War!!!
I rather be a fat elephat than a dumb jackass!!!
if there was a nuclear war, why would you worry about the carbon output? What about nuclear fallout or the more serious affects?