Influence of CO2 discharges from human respiration

[Christophe]

Hello everyone !

I would like to raise a point, certainly questionable by its nature (with regard to the measures to be taken), but which deserves to be mentioned ...

We reject ALL of the CO2 by our simple breathing: for simplicity, our body works like an engine, it burns carbonic compounds thanks to the oxygen we breathe to reject CO2.

I "had fun" calculating the CO2 emissions from the breathing of 6 billion people alone. At the rate of average figures of 0.3 grams of CO2 per minute (figure from a doctor friend, but to be confirmed ...) each of us rejects about 160 Kilo of CO2 just by breathing ... or 30% of the famous 500 kilos of "CO2 capital" per person per year.

Compared to CO2 releases from 70 Million barrels of oil equivalent consumed daily by humanity, our breathing accounts for about 15%.
Indeed, each of us therefore rejects 0.3 * 60 * 24 = 432 g CO2 per day. However, in a (modern) engine, when we consume 1g of fuel, we release 2 to 3 g of CO2. All those who consume (directly) less than 150 g of fuel per day "pollute" more by their breathing than by their displacement ... Obviously to be rigorous it is necessary to take into account the indirect rejections (electricity, food ...) ...

In short, this figure is NOT NEGLIGIBLE but I repeat it I would like to confirm these figures however NOBODY has ever mentioned it in any study on the greenhouse effect ... It is unacceptable! Obviously the "solutions" to this problem are not simple and relate more to ethics than technology ...

What do you think ?

ps: the 0.3 g / min correspond to the resting releases and do not include the CO2 releases from the same person's diet.

[Christophe]

Here is an answer element found on the forum climatization:

new "Recycled carbon"
Posted by Cassandre on 16 / 09 / 2003 to 14: 21: 53
The carbon of our breath comes from our diet. As long as the stock of live food plants for our future consumption, directly or via the animals, does not decrease, there is no increase in atmospheric C by respiration (id for that of animals in general).

I think this reasoning is valid ... provided you consume the food closest to the plants in the food chain

[Moira]

Two links to make econology happy :

http://www.inra.fr/sia2003/effet-serre-CO2.html
http://www.inra.fr/sia2003/effet-serre-CH4.html

Like what the human respiration is taken into account, as well as the methane resulting from the eructation of the ruminants. Of course, it is a documentation of popularization but I do not doubt that it is based on more serious studies!

[Woodcutter]

Hi, hi, hi I've never seen that !!!
I think that here I beat the record of unearthing ...

[...] In short, this figure is NOT NEGLIGEABLE but I repeat it I would like to confirm these figures nevertheless PERSON never mentioned it in any study on the greenhouse effect ... It is inadmissible! ...]

Well no, it's just ... normal!

As you have found afterwards, all the carbon comes from food, so it's a very short cycle that is not to be taken into account ...

[Polo]

Yes and then look for the little beast anyway! I find that GHG release studies are useful when dealing with a hazard or anomaly that can be changed. Animals also breathe and plants too so why not humans?
These figures are normal, unchangeable, why mensionner?
@+

[elephant]

Anyway, to solve this aspect of the problem, I reiterate my call to the civism that I already made on this site while saying to 4 or 5 billions of humans:

Die!

Me, I do what I can, but alcohol kills slowly!

[Polo]

try, for once, the car with alcohol, it works better! But take a car that does not pollute!

[gegyx]

Die!
Me, I do what I can, but alcohol kills slowly!

Good advice.
But I still have a priori that makes me hesitate.
Fan of the incineration of the bodies, rather than the burial under a marble, I note that the incinerators work with gas, with greenhouse effect.
Could we imagine a methane digester from the mass grave?

[abyssin3]

The problem of human breathing is a false problem (as for all animals). The source of human carbon comes directly (or indirectly through the length of the food chain) from plant biomass, which is the primary producer of carbon.
We breathe so 100% bio. EXCEPT if we had made oil steaks, as we wanted a while ago: it was to make biomass (bacterial) from the oil carbon, and feed the oxen with this biomass rather than with plant biomass. It did not last because of performance ...
And then it was even more profitable to give them animal meal to "recycle" the dead animals ...

[elephant]

geggyx said

A methane digester from the mass grave could be conceived

Well no, it would still CO2 by burning!

otherwise, it makes fertilizer!