All the oil that isn’t getting extracted, processed, or shipped out of the Persian Gulf is oil that isn’t getting burned. Even blowing up oil storage ultimately reduces emissions, because all that oil gets burned exactly once (which is what would have happened to it anyway) and then the tanks are unusable, which means less (or no) oil will ultimately pass through them to get burned afterwards.
Even blowing up oil storage ultimately reduces emissions, because all that oil gets burned exactly once (which is what would have happened to it anyway)
this might not be true, there’s no catalytic converter on a random oil fire. remediation will never make fossil fuels “clean” but they do cut back on… iirc NO₂ and some of the sulfur compounds
Fair, but my understanding was that those pollutants are highly toxic but not major contributors to global warming which I (perhaps mistakenly) view as a more relevant topic.
is the military operating a net reduction? usually militaries doing anything is a colossal disaster environmentally
All the oil that isn’t getting extracted, processed, or shipped out of the Persian Gulf is oil that isn’t getting burned. Even blowing up oil storage ultimately reduces emissions, because all that oil gets burned exactly once (which is what would have happened to it anyway) and then the tanks are unusable, which means less (or no) oil will ultimately pass through them to get burned afterwards.
this might not be true, there’s no catalytic converter on a random oil fire. remediation will never make fossil fuels “clean” but they do cut back on… iirc NO₂ and some of the sulfur compounds
Fair, but my understanding was that those pollutants are highly toxic but not major contributors to global warming which I (perhaps mistakenly) view as a more relevant topic.
Yeah the US military is the world’s largest polluter by a pretty wide margin.
I think in terms of CO2 emissions there is a net reduction though.
https://earthsgreatestenemy.com/