NewScientist newsletter:
=======================


Legal cannabis production in Colorado emits more greenhouse gases than the state’s coal mining industry, researchers analysing the sector’s energy use have found.

The production and use of cannabis for medical or recreational reasons is now legal in several US states, which has led to a booming industry.

Hailey Summers and her colleagues at Colorado State University have quantified and analysed the greenhouse gas emissions produced by cannabis growers.

They found that emissions varied widely by state, from 2.3 to 5.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per kilogram of dried flower produced.

In Colorado, the emissions add up to around 2.6 megatonnes of CO2e, which is more than that from the state’s coal mining at 1.8 megatonnes of CO2e.

“The emissions that come from growing 1 ounce, depending on where it’s grown in the US, is about the same as burning 7 to 16 gallons of gasoline,” says Summers.

Most US cannabis is grown indoors, as some states don’t allow outdoor growing and the crops are also at risk of theft. This means that the majority of cannabis production emissions come from climate-control systems and high-powered lights that take the place of the sun.
Read more: US teens may be finding it harder to buy cannabis after legalisation

“One of the challenges associated with this is that the profit margins are so huge that you don’t have to be making super energy-conscious decisions,” says team member Jason Quinn.

The team suggests that moving to growing cannabis outdoors in greenhouses could lower the energy requirements and reduce emissions. The current indoor set-ups could also be made more energy efficient by switching to LED bulbs and retrofitting the climate-control systems. Making the change in Colorado would save 2.1 megatonnes of CO2e, or 1.3 per cent of the state’s total emissions.

The carbon footprint of the cannabis industry is even larger than this study indicates, says Evan Mills, formerly at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, as the team didn’t look at emissions associated with storage and processing.

Illegal cannabis production is also likely to be more highly emitting, he says. “The energy profile of black-market production is distinctly different in that it frequently involves on-site diesel generators, which are often less efficient and more polluting per kilowatt-hour than grid-purchased electricity.”

Journal reference: Nature Sustainability, DOI: 10.1038/s41893-021-00691-w

LINK

Oh, the horror...

History is littered with examples of Unintended Consequences, largely due to lack of foresight....Ironic, NOT Unexpected, and Kinda' Funny all at the same time!

Move along, nothing here to see.

Wait'll they find out about the additional carbon footprint of all the marijuana that's being burned in Colorado.

(Not to mention the increased emissions from the rise in pizza deliveries and Dorito shipments.)

I hate all media for bullshit stories like this. First of all, coal is not hated by the left for the carbon produced mining it, its hated for the carbon produced while burning it....a number that was conveniently left out of the total to drive a narrative to fire up the pro coal anti weed conservatives. Propaganda goes both ways and is intended to do one one thing, drive clicks and revenue.

Good to understand that the article is about the mining rather than the burning (although RogueJSK did address the latter ), but if the Left hates only the burning and not the mining, then like so many issues, they’re ignoring an inescapable fact: The burning cannot occur without the mining, and there would be no reason for the mining without the burning. The two are inseparably linked; hate the one, we must hate the other.

I’m glad. I want the Left to show their hypocrisy.

quote:

US teens may be finding it harder to buy cannabis after legalisation

Not with Biden's porous border, they won't.

I can only smile. I have a relative who is very pro cannabis (for good health) and very pro electric cars (to save the planet).

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Good to understand that the article is about the mining rather than the burning (although RogueJSK did address the latter ), but if the Left hates only the burning and not the mining, then like so many issues, they’re ignoring an inescapable fact: The burning cannot occur without the mining, and there would be no reason for the mining without the burning. The two are inseparably linked; hate the one, we must hate the other.

I believe the coal numbers typically account for both mining and burning, you know the left is going to inflate the number as much as possible. That doesn’t excuse the fact that the author here is intentionally ignoring the burning aspect to conflate the carbon emissions of coal and cannabis.

As the story is shared via word of mouth the thesis will be condensed to “cannabis causes more CO2 than coal” as we have already seen in this thread. It’s pure propaganda meant to manipulate and antagonize conservatives in order to drive clicks and revenue.

By glomming onto this bullshit narrative people are being the sheep they constantly vilify. Not to mention, they are lending credence to the notion that his carbon footprint nonsense is consequential in the first place by uttering the words in a series way.

I don’t think I believe this article. When I drove through Colorado on a road trip two years ago I saw MASSIVE fields full of pot plants growing out in the open. Now their growing season is going to be cut short by the climate sure but there are still farms out there in Colorado growing the devils weed the old fashioned way. The one I drove through was so huge you could smell it even with the cabin filter on.

quote:

As the story is shared via word of mouth the thesis will be condensed to “cannabis causes more CO2 than coal” as we have already seen in this thread. It’s pure propaganda meant to manipulate and antagonize conservatives in order to drive clicks and revenue.

Nothing of the sort will happen from this article.

The environmental left doesn't really care about carbon coming from anything they feel is acceptable, solar, wind, lithium mining, battery disposal, increased carbon from increased electric production needed for e-cars, or dope growing.,

The folks that love, demand, want, have to have, medicinally or just want legal pot want legal pot and don't care what it takes to make, bag, fertilize, grow, house, package, and retail it.

Austin huh?

quote:

Originally posted by stickman428:
I don’t think I believe this article. When I drove through Colorado on a road trip two years ago I saw MASSIVE fields full of pot plants growing out in the open. Now their growing season is going to be cut short by the climate sure but there are still farms out there in Colorado growing the devils weed the old fashioned way. The one I drove through was so huge you could smell it even with the cabin filter on.

That is hemp. There are different regulations involving THC producing cannabis. You won't see huge fields of that growing unsupervised.

Dave's not here, man.

quote:

Originally posted by stickman428:
I don’t think I believe this article. When I drove through Colorado on a road trip two years ago I saw MASSIVE fields full of pot plants growing out in the open. Now their growing season is going to be cut short by the climate sure but there are still farms out there in Colorado growing the devils weed the old fashioned way. The one I drove through was so huge you could smell it even with the cabin filter on.

(laughs)

yeah, no.

There are no such open fields of legal weed grows in Colorado.

As said, that's just hemp you saw.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
Austin huh?

You have a point you want to make?

quote:

Originally posted by TXJIM:
I hate all media for bullshit stories like this. First of all, coal is not hated by the left for the carbon produced mining it, its hated for the carbon produced while burning it....a number that was conveniently left out of the total to drive a narrative to fire up the pro coal anti weed conservatives. Propaganda goes both ways and is intended to do one one thing, drive clicks and revenue.

Also conveniently left out of the story are the increased costs to social programs in Colorado associated with legalization of pot. Personally, I don't give a damn about the topic, but there's data left out on both sides of the discussion.