Forget carbon; what's your nitrogen footprint?
Don't have enough to worry about yet? With the attention of the world firmly focused on CFL bulbs, electric cars and the importance of reducing our carbon output, scientists are now warning that "reactive nitrogen" (nitrogen bonded with another element) could be an even bigger threat to the planet.
James Galloway, environmental sciences professor at the U of Virginia and one of the authors of two papers on the subject in the journal Science, says that the accumulation of reactive nitrogen is a little-publicized problem that needs to be addressed as urgently as carbon pollution.
Nitrogen alone is inert and harmless. Reactive nitrogen can be natural or manmade, and is essential for life, which is why it's a principal component in most chemical fertilizers. However, in larger quantities, it can cause problems, and humans are creating more and more of it each year. The most important source is nitrogen fertilizer - widely credited with massive marine "dead zones" in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere - but it also comes from the burning of biomass and fossil fuels.
Besides wiping out marine life, reactive nitrogen also contributes to smog, climate change and depletion of the ozone layer. And now you know.
The race for the world's first "green" island
Tommy Lee's green makeover_thumbnail.jpg)
Transportation Alternatives: Designing a "post-automobile" street
_thumbnail.jpg "Green superheroes")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-17-2008 @ 2:43PM
John said...
They will warn us of anything to get their grant money...
I'm not feeling too interested in the nitrogen crises. I'll wait for a more interesting crisis next week.
Reply
5-18-2008 @ 12:39AM
GreenGear said...
This is a really bad story... Nitrogen makes up 80% of the atmosphere, and is one of the most inert gases after the noble gases. It is often used in chemical reactions to control temperature, so its inertness is desirable. Granted there is nitrogen in ammonia, which is poisonous. However there is also oxygen molecules in sulfur dioxide, and nitrous oxides, known pollutants. So why aren't they advocating that we eliminate oxygen from the atmosphere?... This is just poor wording, and highlights how writers who know very little about science, should not be attempting to report it to the masses. Remember, 80% of every breath you take is "threat to the planet".
Reply
5-18-2008 @ 7:06AM
Patrick Metzger said...
You're right GreenGear; it was poorly worded. I've changed the post to reflect the science more accurately.
Reply
5-18-2008 @ 12:58PM
Kelly MacKenzie said...
Thank you, Patrick. I apologize for being a bit abrupt about it. As a chemical engineer with an interest in green energy, I often find butchered science (much worse than this exists...) at the hands of article writers... along with poor analogies, and down-right idiotic ideas for energy generation and conservation (i.e. generation from humans walking). It's enough to drive me nuts.
Reply
5-18-2008 @ 1:49PM
Patrick Metzger said...
Kelly;
Lazy writing drives me crazy too and I don't want to be part of the problem. Feel free to call me on it anytime - although I'll try not to give you a chance.
Reply