Do you consider CO2 as an air pollutant?

1. 86

   RJ Schwartzposted 7 years ago

   Do you consider CO2 as an air pollutant?
   
   According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. is among the cleanest nations on the planet,  with the cleanest air in the world, significantly cleaner in fact than the air in Germany, Italy, Switzerland, the UK, Japan, Austria and France.  Rather than follow the time-tested practice used by the World Health Organization, which measures levels of disease-causing pollutants that get into people’s lungs, some of the activist sites which push for a global-warming agenda have injected C02 into their formulas which distorts these metrics.  So what's your take?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 50

   bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years ago

   
   
   Ralph
   
   This is another instance of trying to TAX, yet another thing. This time it is a TAX on the US as well as causing us to stop generating energy, and then buy it from the polluters that the Paris Accord subsidizes.
   
   CO2 is part of our air. It is one step short of a TAX on our breathing to consider CO2 as the problem.
   
   I always try to relate these Draconian measures to the ineptness of man. When did man or humans do something good by tampering with nature. After 1000s of years and modern technology they only have a crude understanding of weather and climate. This is evident in their weather predictions. While for the most part they it the bulk of the normal weather OK, but when the conditions are complex they only make an educated guess.
   
   Compare it to curing major diseases. The last major disease that was actually cured was Polio in the 1950s. Not surprising before the FDA got control. And even today, Polio is still a major disease somewhere around the world.
   
   The point is that we don't really know the real causes of cancer or heart disease. Look at the track record for the medical community in the basic food groups, and the avoidance of whole eggs. Statin drugs have not been proven to treat or be the cause of heart attacks.
   
   In this instance, CO2 and Disease are not well understood by the scientists, yet they keep making desperate changes to our daily lives, and fail.
   
   This is what I suspect is the case with CO2. There are many other variables in the world like Methane, Chem Trails, destructive wars, traffic congestion. So it would be difficult to isolate the real culprit.
   
   We are also deluged by one scientific study after another in the medical field. They do limited case studies on  people and then claim they understood the problem. Do they really? Look back over time and just look at the food pyramid.
   
   They failed, and continue to fail. Yet, when money and taxes are involved they allow Smoking to continue with each new generation.
   
   They also use Polling to determine that 97% of the scientists in the world Agree that Climate Change is Real. How many of them were actually polled, and what questions were they asked, and by whom?
   
   Climate Change has been real since before man, we have volcanoes spewing stuff in the air causing Dimming not Warming.
   
   As for CO2, leave it alone and let nature right itself. And reducing CO2, even if it was the problem, IT wouldn't reverse anything, would it?

   replyreport
   1. 83

      gregasposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      IF anything, they are ruining our planet by cutting down trees, that actually make our breathable air, and building more buildings for the excess population that nobody worries about and that actually create the Co2. This is throwing the planet out.

      replyreport
   2. 50

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Greg, good point on the trees. Ca has more than a half of year as a dry season. During that time we have massive destructive polluting fires. Gov Brown does nothing. In the rain, the mud slides. Both affect the environment. Thx

      replyreport
3. 78

   jackclee lmposted 7 years ago

   CO2, according to the EPA is not a pollutant. It is a gas that is necessary for all life, as the carbon cycle that we all learned in grade school. By confusing climate change with the environment protection, the left has co opted this issue. The talking point is "even if they are wrong about climate change...you have nothing to loose but a cleaner environment..."

   replyreport
   1. 82

      ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The largest greenhouse gas is water vapor, so I don't understand this debate on CO2 as if it matters what CO2 is.

      replyreport
   2. 50

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Jack, we actually have $3 Trillion to lose, plus the loss of jobs, and our ability to generate our own energy. So, they are talking hot air.

      replyreport
   3. 78

      jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Totally agree. If climate change is a real problem, they should not use environment protection as a bargaining chip.

      replyreport
4. 0

   ValKarasposted 7 years ago

   Leaving the ever present battle of the experts on the side, and using what appears a simple logic---we are exhaling CO2, so it couldn't be toxic to us, otherwise we would go sick before exhaling it. We are not talking about carbon monoxide which is deadly. Carbon dioxide is an important part of the brain chemistry balancing our intake of oxygen, because too much of it is not good for us.
   
   Plants inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen benefitting us. Modern plant nurseries are pumping in CO2 for an added vitality of the plants. Rain forests that are producing a hell of a lot of oxygen also benefit from it.
   
   It is my somewhat satirical guess that scientists are just kicking the crap back and forth, each fighting for their careers---just like those ever confused nutritionists are constantly fighting over which diet is the most natural and beneficial for humans. Both sides allegedly using top shelf technology in their experiments, both facing the same factual evidence---but deriving opposite conclusions.
   
   They make me laugh, and I know it is not scientific enough to convince you about the true reality of CO2---but at the end of the day, nature is smarter than us, and it always balances itself. There are constant fluctuations in the contents of atmosphere at any given location on Earth; and there are other factors that are much more threatening to our well being than an excess of CO2.
   For example, in my layman estimate, 99% of people getting sick and aging prematurely become so because of their poor stress management---and guess what---worrying about CO2 is just royally adding to that stress. Along with this pandemic of political paranoia presently going on.
   
   Our worrying has become a self-perpetuating mechanism of an addiction quality, and, just like any addiction---it makes us crave for more and more reasons to be worried---so we keep inventing them with the help of careerists in the fields of science who are playing on our fear just like the news media are.
   
   So, some of you, please, get yourselves a paper bag and breathe into it for a while, inhaling back that CO2 that you exhaled---it helps to activate your parasympathetic nervous system and calm you down. Amen.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Tripler in  2005 gave newborn baby carbon dioxide instead of oxygen for more than 40 minutes who nearly suffocated and suffers with permanent brain damage. 
      
      What you just said make no sense at all.

      replyreport
   2. 50

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      In 2006, Al Gore predicted that in 2016 the Earth would be in an emergency condition. That doesn't make any sense. And what we should worry about is man trying to correct a problem that doesn't exist. How does Paris Accord reverse anything?

      replyreport
   3. 0

      ValKarasposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Ptosis---You are talking about an excessive use of CO2, and anything in excess will hurt, especially babies. Breathing into a paper bag FOR A FEW MOMENTS is the well known remedy for panic attacks and hyperventilating. Never heard of it?

      replyreport
5. 83

   tsmogposted 7 years ago

   In the balance of nature, natural CO2 is not a pollutant, IMHO. It is a natural element of air. But, too much means something is out-of-balance. Then with jest there is the adage, "Don't mess with Mother Nature".

   replyreport
   1. 78

      jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yes I agree but Mother nature is not constant either. It is changing continuously with or without humans.

      replyreport
   2. 50

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Mother nature is like an airplane, when it is put out of control, it tries to right itself. And the pilot can make things worse by making the wrong moves. Govt can't even fix the budget, or the debt, and that is something that can be done. Nature? NO

      replyreport
   3. 86

      RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The planet has long been able to correct things - the volcanic period produced millions of tones of CO2 but the earth somehow not only survived, but thrived.

      replyreport
6. 85

   Nathanvilleposted 7 years ago

   I don’t know why America misses the point, and wants to be insular from the rest of the world?
   
   I don’t know what you’re taught in USA schools, but in secondary school from the age of 11 in the UK it’s all elementary science.
   
   •    All life on earth is carbon based.
   
   •    All animal life breath in oxygen and breath out carbon dioxide.
   
   •    All plant life breath in carbon dioxide and breath out oxygen.
   
   •    When dead animal or plant life gets buried in the ground the carbon in their bodies gets trapped underground; and millions of years later (under the right conditions) become coal and oil, and gas (hydrocarbons).
   
   •    When we extract the coal, oil and gas from the ground and burn it the carbon in the fossil fuels combines with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide.
   
   The point is that levels of carbon dioxide and oxygen affect the health and wellbeing of all life on the planet and the climate. 
   
   Anyone who has done elementary science at school will know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and it’s levels in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has been increasing at an exponential rate.  So although climate change is a natural phenomenon, human activities on the earth on a large scale e.g. burning fossil fuels, cutting down the rain forests etc., all contribute to our impact on the climate.
   
   It’s in this context that carbon tax plays its role in discouraging the use of fossil fuels in preference to renewable energy.  China and Russia are currently hardest hit by the tax because they are developing countries who haven’t yet fully industrialised; and for them to build a fully integrated renewable energy infrastructure with built-in resilience is a steep hill to climb, although China is catching up fast.  The reason America is heavily hit by the tax is that it hasn’t taken renewable energy seriously enough, and is lagging well behind Europe. 
   
   Europe has been quietly moving towards a carbon free society for decades (long before the Paris agreement) e.g. Britain started closing down its coalfields on a large scale in the early 1990s, even though we still have over 200 years of coal left in the ground.  The British government has always put most of its carbon tax on the petal in cars (known as gas America), the carbon tax on petrol in the UK is 61%.  Consequently people in the UK are increasingly switching to 100% electric cars:-
   
   Are the UK and U.S. Heading in Different Directions When It Comes to Electric Cars: https://youtu.be/nmE6Kh6WWJI

   replyreport
   1. 78

      jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Do you really believe the little we can do to reduce carbon output will have any effect on our climate? What about all the natural phenomenon like the sunspots and super volcanos and asteroids.Do you know Methane and water vapor is also a greenhouse?

      replyreport
   2. 85

      Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I was a sceptic like you 10 years ago, but I’ve seen by what’s happened in Europe what can be achieved, and the social and economic benefits it brings; I suggest you read my HP article for more details, plus this vid:-  https://youtu.be/CNYcGFlbTqU

      replyreport
   3. 78

      jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Arthur, I don't think it is achievable (100% renewable energy). Please check with Australia and see what happened when they try. The ended with blackouts...Even with solar and wind, they are not so reliable. You still need a coal or gas power plant a

      replyreport
   4. 85

      Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I know about Australia but Scotland, Denmark and Germany are almost 100% renewable energy, and UK now burns just 2% coal, with last coal power station due to close in 2025.  This video show recent success in Europe: - https://youtu.be/z44Mq7mXoCE

      replyreport
   5. 0

      Hxprofposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      In Germany, total net production of energy by renewable sources was 33.9% in 2016. In the US, it was 12 percent.  One difference btwn the countries is that Germany is being forced.  The US federal government isn't allowed to force this.

      replyreport
   6. 85

      Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      No country in Europe is forced, its co-operation between neighbouring countries for mutual benefit and goals; one key being pan-European energy grid to transmit surplus energy across Europe to where and when it’s needed https://youtu.be/wMTtPmtOg_M

      replyreport
   7. 0

      Hxprofposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Arthur, I meant that the people of Germany are being force by their government to move to renewable sources. Many there favor it, but there are some who don't. My point is that the US federal government CAN'T force Americans to quit using fossil fuel

      replyreport
   8. 50

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      What is ironic is how Dubai generates energy, and gets fresh water.

      replyreport
   9. 85

      Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for the clarification Hxprof.

      replyreport
7. 83

   tamarawilhiteposted 7 years ago

   No, because if it were totally removed, plants would die.

   replyreport
8. 81

   Misfit Chickposted 7 years ago

   
   
   Why T-fans & conservatives, in general, are so adamantly against improving our environment whether 'global warming' actually exists or not will forever be lost on me - and this is yet another twisted question by you, Ralph. You sure are good at these. You should get yourself a job at a fake news site, LoL!
   
   The obvious answer, of course, is no - CO2 within normal parameters is not a pollutant - it becomes toxic in concentrated amounts. For instance, the Apollo 13 astronauts were in danger of dying from too much CO2 on their mission until ground control figured out how to make a usuable filter only out of items they had taken with them on the journey. Obviously, when CO2 is disproportionately out of balance, it has an affect on our environment and our health.
   
   The fact that America has the best air quality over those MUCH smaller countries is barely comparable when you consider that most pollution in EVERY country is concentrated in urban areas. I'm sure our wide open spaces does much to make us seem unharmed. Do the wide open spaces keep urban cities from becoming a pollution hazzard? Unfortunately, no.
   
   Guess what? Almost fifty percent of our population lives in urban areas where pollution exceeds dangerous levels and DIRECTLY effects people - especially the development of children, among other things. http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencen … story.html
   
   Have you seen the results of things like acid rain? Not interested in diminishing the harmful effects? Its a darn good thing so many others of us are.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      For your information, conservatives are big on environment protection. They just don't buy into the climate change due to human activity as the main cause. It is such a ruse to connect climate change to air quality. Co2 is a greenhouse gas but so are

      replyreport
   2. 86

      RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Insulting me won't change the facts Catherine - I love the environment, BUT I don't love watching politically motivated fake-science being used to funnel money into useless programs with no actual proof that the money goes to helping

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Hxprofposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Conservative ARE interested in clean water, air, etc.  We're not interested in supporting an entirely fabricated agenda of man made global warming, & destroying peoples' lives in the meantime.  We can make a gradual transition to practical renewa

      replyreport
   4. 85

      Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Ralph, in 2016 Europe achieved up to 90% from renewable energy; and lots new schemes in planning and development to exceed 100% in future; including manmade Dogger Island off coast of UK to feed 6 countries with energy https://youtu.be/lXBsGKA4NMo

      replyreport