Letters
Apparently, the Sept. 2002 guest editorial, “Let’s Get
Serious About Carbon Dioxide Emissions Now,” by Charles
Stokes (p.7) struck a nerve with our readers. We were inun-
dated with letters. Since we have limited space, we have
decided to publish a handful of the letters that are represen-
tative of the responses we received.
A Taxing Solution to Global Warming
To the Editor:
Charles Stokes’ statement about putting the burden
where it belongs — on the consumer, as opposed to govern-
ments or industry, is “right on.” Carrying his ideas to the
next level make even more sense. I would propose:
• taxing all forms of energy at the source or point of production.
• taxing energy as a percentage of its commercial value
• reducing income tax dollar-for-dollar.
The amount of gas, oil and coal produced in and imported
into this country is already accounted for by our government,
so collecting taxes based on that information would not require
all that much new accounting. In the interest of fairness, I
would also include nuclear fuel in the list of fuels being taxed.
The fair market value of fuel is well determined by the
marketplace. Therefore, taxing as a percentage of the fair
market value should be the preferred approach. Btu taxes and
carbon taxes would add an unnecessary level of complexity.
The amount of the energy tax is a decision that needs to
be made by our society. I would propose 50%, implement-
ed as a 5% increase per year for 10 years. When oil was
$20/bbl, I calculated that a $10/bbl energy tax would gener-
ate money equal to half the money collected from U.S.
income tax. So, if I currently pay $20,000 in income tax,
that would be reduced to $10,000.
The flip side is that I would pay an additional $10,000 to
purchase fuel, goods and services. Since $10,000 is a lot of
money to me, I will be inclined to make intelligent choices
when purchasing a furnace or insulation for my home, a car
for transportation, or appliances like a washing machine
and refrigerator.
Exported goods, on average, should not go up in price.
The increase in energy tax should be offset by a reduction in
the corporate income tax.
As an engineer, I don’t need research grants for CO 2
abatement technology. I need return-on-investment (ROI) to
reduce CO 2 emissions. Reducing CO 2 emissions can be
done by improving the efficiency of chemical plant designs,
but not without an ROI.
Not to put down the good things that accountants do, but
would not our society be better served if half the tax accoun-
tants and half the IRS employees were gainfully employed
as chemical engineers, improving the energy efficiency of
our society?
James E. Clark, P.E.
Dow Chemical (ret. 1999)
Ludington, MI
8 www.cepmagazine.org December 2002 CEP
Facts Over Emotions
To the Editor:
I take exception to Charles Stokes’ guest editorial. How
dare he simply accept the argument that reduction in CO2
emissions is necessary? His rationale, that “arguing against
the perceived CO2 threat is no longer politically acceptable
in the civilized world” is not worthy of a scientific profes-
sion that purports to deal with facts instead of perceptions
and political acceptability — these were never a part of the
chemical engineering curriculum when I went to school.
His argument rests on the fallacy that one can prove a
negative. The statement, “We cannot prove that man-made
CO2 emissions will not cause climate change in the future”
is a spurious argument. This statement takes the view that
since it is impossible to prove that X will not influence Y
sometime in the future, we may as well change X in the way
we feel it may have a beneficial effect on Y. This argument
cedes the debate to those who have the force of emotion on
their side, rather than the force of facts. Once emotion rules,
facts will never stand a chance.
It is too bad that Stokes feels the U.S. is an embarrass-
ment in regards to this matter. Does he really believe that if
the U.S. were to accept some obligation, the U.S. would not
be the object of disdain from the developing world? The
fact is that only developed wealthy countries can afford to
place environmental protection high on their to-do lists.
This is the most generous nation in the history of the world
when it comes to assisting other countries in economic
development, medical assistance, disaster relief and world
peace. If those great acts are overlooked and the world
judges the U.S. by its reluctance to do something about a
perceived problem without proof, then addressing that
issue will only leave them searching for something else to
complain about.
To add insult to injury, he states that “we may decide
that reducing CO 2 for the benefit of the climate was not
critical… We would then have solved the wrong problem
but have gotten the right answer.” What would that “wrong
problem” be? If CO2 emissions actually have little to no
effect on the long-term climate, then he has placed a tax
burden on the nation for no good cause — except, of
course, to fill the coffers of government so they can waste
money on consultants.
Keith Dackson, Ph.D.
East Aurora, NY
ChEs, Put Your Skills to Work
To the Editor:
Charles Stokes’ guest editorial brings up an important
matter when he says, “Lets Get Serious about Carbon
Dioxide Emissions Now.” Research on the best methods to
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions points to the pro-
posed sequestering and storage of carbon dioxide in stack
gases. But the most practical starting point is the implemen-

tation of established technologies. We have demonstrated
know-how in designing energy-efficient power plants, elec-
tric motors and appliances. We have also designed cars that
boast 40–80 mpg, which could replace many of the gas-guz-
zling SUVs and light trucks.
As the world’s economic leader, our nation should be insti-
tuting the financial incentives, rules and regulations that would
position us at the forefront of this vital long run global activity.
John Burton
Washington, NJ
Don’t Avoid the Argument
To the Editor:
While I largely agree with Charles A. Stokes’ proposal in
“Let’s Get Serious About CO2 Emissions Now,” I am puz-
zled that he “sidestep[s] the argument over whether it is nec-
essary to reduce CO2 emissions because they contribute to
global warming and simply accept[s] that the argument is
over because arguing against the perceived CO2 threat is no
longer politically acceptable in the civilized world.”
Why avoid an essentially technical argument and con-
cede it merely because of political considerations?
I find it rather astonishing and ironic that the significance
of anthropogenic CO2 emissions has been a topic largely
avoided by the chemical engineering community. Knowing
their magnitude can tell us whether they pose an actual
threat or merely a perceived one.
In preindustrial times (circa 1750), the atmospheric CO2
concentration was about 280 ppmv (parts per million by vol-
ume); today, it is about 370 ppmv. In terms of mass, these
respective concentrations represent about 2,200 and 2,900 Gt
(gigatonne = 1012 kg) of atmospheric CO2; therefore, about
700 Gt have been added over the past 250 years of increasing
industrial activity, an increase of more than 30%.
The quantity of anthropogenic CO2 emitted during this
period can be estimated by integrating the function charac-
terizing annual worldwide CO2 emissions. This function,
derived from 1980–2000 data for annual worldwide CO2
emissions from fossil-fuel consumption and flaring (see
http://www.eia.doe.gov), has a pre-exponential factor of
about 18.4 Gt and an annual growth rate of about 1.3%.
Integrating from 1750 to 2002 yields a value of about 1,800
Gt for cumulative worldwide CO2 emissions. Thus, industri-
al activities since 1750 have released a quantity of CO 2
equal to about 80% of the preindustrial quantity of atmo-
spheric CO 2 (~2,200 Gt), and about 40% (~700 Gt) has
remained in the atmosphere.
Clearly, our large mass-transfer experiment — removing
energy-rich carbonaceous material from long-term storage,
extracting its energy, and discarding the waste CO2 into the
atmosphere — has not resulted in a small perturbation to
preindustrial conditions. If the above result had been only
1%, then the environment would seem able to process our
CO2 emissions at our rates of atmospheric disposal, and the
likelihood of anthropogenic climate change would indeed
We look forward to getting letters from you.
Please send them to cepedit@aiche.org
seem quite remote. The fact that ~40% has remained strong-
ly suggests that our rates of atmospheric disposal have
exceeded the CO2-processing capacity of the environment.
While this does not prove that anthropogenic CO2 emis-
sions pose an environmental threat, given our knowledge
about these emissions, atmospheric CO2, and large-scale
environmental changes, it is irrational to believe that these
emissions produce no significant environmental effects,
have not done so, and will not do so. Magnitude, mecha-
nisms and modifications are there.
Looking ahead, we currently have known fossil-fuel
reserves of about 140 Gt of crude oil, 100 Gt of natural gas,
and 980 Gt of various ranks of coal (see
http://www.eia.doe.gov). These reserves represent about
2,600 Gt of future CO2 emissions — a value quite sensitive
to the assumed carbon content of the coal reserves — and
constitute about 90% of today’s ~2,900 Gt of atmospheric
CO2. If 40% of this reserve CO2 ends up in the atmosphere,
the atmosphere will then contain about 3,900 Gt of CO2 at
about 500 ppmv, and based on the exponential function, this
should occur around 2070. Because more reserves will be
found, these figures represent minimum values.
In summary, “sidestepping” and “simply accepting” are
not necessary. The magnitude of anthropogenic CO2 emis-
sions is demonstrably significant, and between the resulting
accumulation of atmospheric CO 2 and climate change,
mechanisms exist that should produce the environmental
modifications already in evidence.
In conclusion, Stokes is correct that we should “get seri-
ous about CO2 emissions now,” and his proposal has much
merit. Yet, his apparent reluctance to agree that anthro-
pogenic CO 2 emissions pose a real threat strikes me as
rather curious. Such a position, as I have observed, is usual-
ly maintained by those who fear the logical consequences of
such agreement. It seems to me that some intellectual hon-
esty is needed here to distinguish and to separate analysis
from response.
David L. Wagger, Ph.D.
Bethesda, MD
Corrections
In the article, “Designing Plate-and-Frame Heat
Exchangers,” by Graham Polley and Christopher Haslego
(Sept. 2002, pp. 32–37), there is an error in the calculations
used to determine the overall heat-transfer coefficient of a
heat exchanger (U). In Step 5 (p. 34), the value of x/k for 5-
mm thick stainless steel should be 0.000189 h-ft2-°F/Btu
and not 0.00189. The error has no bearing on the U value
calculated in the example. U is correctly computed as 49
Btu/h-ft2-°F. The online version of the article is correct and
can be downloaded from www.cepmagazine.org. Thanks to
Kimberly Chong for finding the mistake.
The website listed for the Stainless Valve Co. in the Aug.
2002 issue (p. 30) was changed after the issue went to press.
It is now www.stainlessvalveco.com.
CEP December 2002 www.cepmagazine.org 9