Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

66 posts / 0 new
Last post
gtazman's picture
gtazman
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 48
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

I want to share some basic information just so everybody can get the facts straight and leave out the politics.

"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

 "CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet." - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction." - S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

"Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants' photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned." - Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo

"To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant." - Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University

"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product." - Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology

"I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land." - David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth." - Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany

"Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants." - Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A colourless, odourless gas produced by burning carbon and organic compounds and by respiration, and absorbed by plants in photosynthesis." - Compact Oxford English Dictionary

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A heavy colorless odorless atmospheric gas. Source: respiration, combustion. Use: during photosynthesis, in refrigeration, carbonated drinks, fire extinguishers." - Encarta Dictionary

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A heavy colorless gas that does not support combustion, dissolves in water to form carbonic acid, is formed especially in animal respiration and in the decay or combustion of animal and vegetable matter, is absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis, and is used in the carbonation of beverages." - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A colorless, odorless, incombustible gas, CO2, formed during respiration, combustion, and organic decomposition and used in food refrigeration, carbonated beverages, inert atmospheres, fire extinguishers, and aerosols." - The American Heritage Dictionary

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A colorless, odorless, incombustible gas that is produced naturally in breathing, combustion, and decomposition, and commercially for use in dry ice, fire extinguishers, and carbonated beverages." - Wordsmyth Dictionary

Carbon Dioxide


- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a natural part of Earth's Atmosphere (NASA)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen from 0.028% to 0.038% (380ppm) over the past 100 years (IPCC)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not toxic until 5% (50,000ppm) concentration (Source)
- Any detrimental effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) including chronic exposure to 3% (30,000ppm) are reversible (Source)
- OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% (5,000 ppm) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) (Source)

Article Link: http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html

SPM's picture
SPM
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 20 2009
Posts: 241
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

Yea, I agree. CO^2 is a natural gas.

The toxic chemicals we synthesize is what we should be afraid of.

RussB's picture
RussB
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 9 2008
Posts: 101
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant
gtazman wrote:

I want to share some basic information just so everybody can get the facts straight and leave out the politics.

 

Then why did you post this drivel?

Not a pollutant, hmm. And alcohol is not a poison? Then don't you go guzzle a liter of everclear and we'll confirm that it's not poisonous.

Then we'll also know if pumping ecocidal and genocidal levels of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is "polluting" or not.  

SPM's picture
SPM
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 20 2009
Posts: 241
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

Here is my argument RussB. All the CO^2 this planet contains or has pontential of releasing, is already stored on this planet. It would be released in natural ways without the prescence of humans. A large volcano eruption or asteriod impact could just as well release much more CO^2 than we are capable of releasing in our lifetimes. It is a natural process. I agree that we are speeding up the amount of CO^2 we are dumping into the atmosphere, but natural processes could do the same thing. Our timeline of human prescence on this planet is so small, we do not really know all the natural cycles of this planet.

It is commonly agreed upon by scientists and Nasa that the next natural cycle of the earth is going to be another ice age. It could take 10K years to develop, and we might have destroyed our planet by that time, but that is next in line.

The global warming argument is just speculation. Its based on a very limited space of time. Like Gore's hockey stick chart for the last 100 years. Look back million of years, a 100 year timeframe, doesnt stand in any scientific forum, nor should it.

More evidence is starting to be released that the earths temperature is more related to the sun and our planets travels through the galaxy, then the meddeling we are capable of.

Here are some links to scientific periodicals to support my claims.

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2002/F/20021925.html

http://www.worldweatherpost.com/2009/01/27/solar-activity-linked-to-temperature-changes-on-earth/

http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/12/sun-controls-earths-climate.html

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/global-warming-relief-may-come-from-the-sun.html

Evidence to support earth is actually cooling:

http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/59588_621.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=68277

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/942

http://acuf.org/issues/issue62/060624cul.asp

GregSchleich's picture
GregSchleich
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2009
Posts: 187
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant


gtazman wrote:

I want to share some basic information just so everybody can get the facts straight and leave out the politics.

"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

 


RussB wrote:

 

Then why did you post this drivel?

 

Russ

That first paragraph strikes me as anything but drivel. Probably none of us on this site are any more in favor of corporate industrial, environmental  exploitation than you are. It's just that we fear living in an Orwellian dystopia, even more than we fear droughts, floods, and famine. 

I'd be curious to know how you feel about the threat of terrorism. Do you feel it justifies the Patriot Act, suspending Habeas Corpus, warrantless wiretapping and other spying on citizens? Because if this bothers you, maybe you can understand why some of us also fear the government's response to global warming.

I have no doubt about the ravages of pollution, nor do I doubt that there are in fact angry, irrational people who want to do us harm. And I'm well aware, many scientists believe global warming could render the earth uninhabitable. But certainly, nuclear or biological weapons in the wrong hands could easily do the same thing. So what's the solution? Should we just submit to the safety of a police state and a strong central authority run by power elites who know what's best for us? 

I don't think so. It seems to me, these are the same people who have gotten us into this mess. I don't want to give them any more power than we have to.

Greg 

GregSchleich's picture
GregSchleich
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2009
Posts: 187
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

SPM

I'm open to your argument, but in defense of RussB, if he has to check out all those links first, we'll never hear from him again!

But thanks for putting them up. I appreciate your effort. There's a lot to look into here.

Greg 

SPM's picture
SPM
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 20 2009
Posts: 241
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

Hehe. I went overboard with the evidence, but its out there if you look for it. I was trying to prove a point.

Its upsetting to me because the information is out there if people look for it.  Instead we seek the advice from an interpretation by a MSM talking head and their advertisers.

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

I saw this thread come up, and read it through when there had only been 10 visits to it and just knew it was going to form into a giant steaming hot potato right from the start. This debate was dramatically covered in vast (and quite ugly) debate a few months ago, with sides placed and ego's bruised unrecogniseable.

For anyone who cares to, this is a link to the two deffinative threads, but, I warn you to go in with a hard-hat and steel toe-capped boots as a precaution!!! :-

Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/global-climate-change-it-worth-brushing/5895

Climate Code Red -Telling The Truth To Power

http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/climate-code-red-telling-truth-power/11268

...for all it matters here, I'm in the human cause camp...Foot in mouth...

Now I'm going to run for my life!!!

Best,

Paul

 

RussB's picture
RussB
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 9 2008
Posts: 101
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

SPM, I'm long past the point where I try to argue with those who refuse to understand simple science. I learned a long time ago that there's no point.

Do you believe in the theory of gravity? If so, why? Take the answer and apply it to the equally well established theory of AGW.  

GregSchleich wrote:

 

Russ

That first paragraph strikes me as anything but drivel. Probably none of us on this site are any more in favor of corporate industrial, environmental  exploitation than you are. It's just that we fear living in an Orwellian dystopia, even more than we fear droughts, floods, and famine. 

I'd be curious to know how you feel about the threat of terrorism. Do you feel it justifies the Patriot Act, suspending Habeas Corpus, warrantless wiretapping and other spying on citizens? Because if this bothers you, maybe you can understand why some of us also fear the government's response to global warming.

Nothing could be more of a dystopia than this cesspool and cinder that man's greed, depravity, and vandalism are turning this world into.

It's odd that you'd bring up terrorism in this context. Terrorism and the climate crisis of course go hand in hand as direct results of the West's fossil fuel gluttony. The correct way to deal with both is to stop living in such a sodomitic way. Peak Oil is soon going to put an end to the vile party anyway.

It's those who engage in this assault upon the climate, upon ecosystems, and upon the non-rich of the world, who are the ultimate terrorists, and without even an ideal to motivate them, but just gutter greed and hedonism. The world's poor are already suffering from climate change and will soon be suffering horrendously from famine, drought, desertification, expanded disease ranges, and more frequent and intense warfare as a direct result of climate change.

Believe me, "the government's response" to those who want to seal up mankind in a coffin and roll a stone over it is woefully short of what the response should be. Climate malefactors are criminals against humanity and the earth.

How would you deal with someone who was trying to set fire to your house and crops, and wanted to kill everyone you cared about? That's certainly how anyone from the 3rd world should view any dusgusting fat American who refuses to live within his means.

My god, the earth is already trashed, and the economy has been destroyed, and the world is wracked with America's wars...WHEN IS IT GOING TO BE ENOUGH FOR THESE PEOPLE ALREADY? WHEN WILL YOU HAVE DESTROYED ENOUGH?

"At long last, have you no sense of decency, sir?"

 

 

SPM's picture
SPM
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 20 2009
Posts: 241
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

I am not in dissagreement that we are destroying the planet. Far from it. I think we treat this planet like its entitled to us, when it's not. Its not ours, and we are supposed to take care of it.

My argument is against the CO^2. The CO^2 alone isn't enough to create all the problems. IMO, Its all the chemicals we created in the last 50 years. And we really have no idea of what the long term effects are on us, or this planet. Look at all the magical diseases and illnesses that have been 'found' in the last 50 years. Anyone think it has any correlation to our chemical bubble? Most of this stuff didn't exist 100 years ago.

When we run all our massive highways through the wilderness, how many animal species do we wipe out? Bats and Bees are dissapearing off the face of this earth faster than any other species and we can't begin to explain why. We are on the road to turning our planet into a big ball of dirt.

I think the next 50 years will be the "make it or break it" for the human race. Our time is running out.

I saw figures somewhere, I can't find it or I would reference it. At the human races current rate of reproduction. If you figured that each human filled the volume of a 1' x 1' x 3' rectangle. At 2% per year population growth, in 5000 years, the amount of volume we humans would fill, would be a sphere in the range of a few hundred million miles in diameter. The earth is a sphere that is only 8000 miles in diameter. I do not know the estimate of when the earths population will exceed its carry capacity, but I would venture to say that it will be sooner than later.

 

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

SPM,

Just thought I'd note that with peak oil in 2005 and our decline rate, the human species has over-stepped the earths carrying capacity by as much as 6 times already. I bandy this film around a lot but :-

The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 1 of 8)

Best,

Paul

(edit)

forgot to mention the amount of coal power stations coming online in China. Apparently the tally is about 1 being powered up every 4 months to compensate for demand, plus old nuclear and gas stations closing. Lots of CO2 added there. You'll find the info clearly in the 'Code Red' document DamnTheMatrix made in the thread I've linked in my post above...

That and the amonia gas being leached into the upper atmosphere as the Siberian ice-plains melt, which incidentally has an 11 year dispersal rate that far exceeds CO2...

 Just adding weight...Tongue out 

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

Geez Greg...  you know how to twist words about.  Sure, I'm not the least bit worried about ever being hurt by a terrorist.  Chances:  NIL.  But the chances of me being afflicted by too much Carbon in the atmosphere possibly has already occured.

We were flooded out twice in a week this month.  The wet season here used to be Jan/Feb/Mar.  It has distinctly shifted to Apr/May.  Everybody I speak to agrees with me.  And it's getting hotter.  We had a late Easter this year, and usually the cold weather arrives with Easter...  but it's still warm, over 30 degrees C just yesterday, and mid to high 20's predicted for the rest of the week....  All this has deferred my garlic planting, too hot, too wet.  In fact, if the wet season keeps moving more and more to winter, I won't be able to grow garlic at all....  Yeah I know, you'll think it's just a minor irritation.

You say " we fear living in an Orwellian dystopia, even more than we fear droughts, floods, and famine".  WRONG.

The steps needed to avert CO2 pollution are not negative, and so I fail to see why so many people are concerned....  like I said in another thread, it's not like we're asked to give up sex or something. 

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

My argument is against the CO2. The CO2 alone isn't enough to create
all the problems. IMO, Its all the chemicals we created in the last 50
years.

That makes sense.....  they were all created with fossil fuels, and the manufacturing process released CO2.

BTW, it is NOT CO^2.  ^2 implies "squared" like 2^2=4

In CO2, the 2 states there are 2, and only 2, Oxygen atoms.  The 2 should be a subscript rather than a superscript, but we can't do that in this text window.... 

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

"forgot to mention the amount of coal power stations coming online in
China. Apparently the tally is about 1 being powered up every 4 months"

Paul, I think it's more (or was) like 2 or 3 a WEEK!

Mike 

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

US moves to regulate carbon emissions

By Washington correspondent Kim Landers

The US Government has taken a step towards regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

In a shift of course for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
it has deemed that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases
endanger public health and welfare.

The EPA decision marks the first step towards imposing limits on
pollution linked to climate change, which would mean tighter rules for
cars and power plants.

But the EPA is cautioning that such regulations are expected to be part of a lengthy process and not issued anytime soon.

Farmer Brown's picture
Farmer Brown
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2008
Posts: 1503
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant
RussB wrote:

Terrorism and the climate crisis of course go hand in hand as direct results of the West's fossil fuel gluttony.

So you're equating premeditated indiscriminate acts of terror against innocent civilians to any westerner (or maybe you just hate Americans and not all Westerners, who knows) who happens to have grown up in a world with a functioning economy?  Super.  Lots of credibility there.

But it gets better:

RussB wrote:

It's those who engage in this assault upon the climate, upon
ecosystems, and upon the non-rich of the world, who are the ultimate
terrorists, and without even an ideal to motivate them, but just gutter
greed and hedonism.

Now you are calling me and millions of others "terrorists" for driving cars or doing anything else which happens to fit your definition of harming the environment. I dare say I don't think even Hamas, Al Qaeda, or Hezbollah are as extreme in their views as you are in yours.

But the true extent of your ignorance is revealed in the next comment:

RussB wrote:

How would you deal with someone who was trying to set fire to your
house and crops, and wanted to kill everyone you cared about? That's
certainly how anyone from the 3rd world should view any dusgusting fat
American who refuses to live within his means.

First of all, I dare you to find someone in the "3rd" world who wouldn't take an American house, car and job tomorrow and leave their country behind because of how it might affect the environment.  There may be other reasons, but that won't be one of them.  Those who hate us like terrorists do are religious extremist ideologues.  You actualy think they flew planes into the WTC because of global warming?  Why would they burn all that fuel up if they cared about the environment so much?  You'd think they would have used biodegradable exploding eggs or something.  Is it April Fool's day?

RussB, if this is how you really view the world, I seriously feel sorry for you.  It must be a pathetic humorless existence. 

SPM's picture
SPM
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 20 2009
Posts: 241
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

"That makes sense.....  they were all created with fossil fuels, and the manufacturing process released CO2. "

OK, thats great and all. Fossil fuels were used to synthesize natural elements and petroleum into more complex polymer chains, some that do damage to the enviroment. The fossil fuels themselves are what we derrive a lot of the chemicals from. No more gas, no more plastic. But it isnt the CO2 doing the damage. Which is what I stated. Although it appears to me that you are just picking apart what I say because you don't like some of it.

My apologies, I do a lot of higher order math to support my claims vs. other people who just base their opinion on someone elses opinion. Also, I am aware that Carbon Dioxide consists of one Carbon atom and two Oxygen atoms to form the molecule we know as Carbon Dioxide. I am seperating CO2 from everything else, since after all, thats the title of the thread.

I am also aware of what they 'now' classify CO2 as. But strangly its coming from the same people that give you the fuzzy numbers you report to distrust in other areas on this site. Are we picking and choosing what to believe and what not to believe.

Does this mean when I die, the CO2 my body releases through decomposition, my family is going to have to pay for? Are they going to start charging us for every breath we breathe out (maybe they will pro-rate it as a measure of how much oxygen I breathe in and CO2 out)? Are they going to charge us for composting in our backyards? How about when I pass gas? Methane is much more of a greenhouse gas than CO2. With 7 billion people, thats a lot of Methane if we all let go at the same time. The insanity will never end, and you provide you own examples why. Instead of moving ourselves into a sustainable energy model that needs no polution caps, we focus on capping emmisions from an energy model that is unsustainable. And were arguing about it all the way to our destruction.

I think we will destroy ourselves for other reasons, before CO2 becomes a major issue.

Why not focus on a Plasma Fusion Reactor, vs clean coal? A Plasma Fusion Reactor is a viable energy option if we step-up development. No emmisions. Instead we choose to let $1.5 trillion dissapear into the DOD budget, and then bitch about CO2.

This said, I do agree at some point the amount of CO2 we dump into the atmospere will affect us. If it isnt already. But inline with the title of the thread, CO2 by itself, is not a pollutant.

SPM's picture
SPM
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 20 2009
Posts: 241
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

VanityFox, thats a good video. Hopefully more people take the time to watch it. I really think we are going to have to make some tough choices in our lifetimes.

GregSchleich's picture
GregSchleich
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2009
Posts: 187
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant
Damnthematrix wrote:

Geez Greg...  you know how to twist words about.  Sure, I'm not the least bit worried about ever being hurt by a terrorist.  Chances:  NIL.  But the chances of me being afflicted by too much Carbon in the atmosphere possibly has already occured.

 

Mike 


I'm certainly not trying to twist words. For one thing, I was assuming an American perspective on terrorism, which I should have remembered not to do on this site. I'm glad you're not too worried about terrorism, out there on your farm in Australia, but you have to remember our perspective, too. Things are  very different here, post  9/11. I live in New York, out in the suburbs, but I'm in the city a lot. I can tell you, after the attack,  smoke from the smoldering wreckage was visible for months and it permeated everything, literally and symbolically. No one was not touched by this event. We all knew someone. 

Perhaps the shock was not as immediate for the rest of the country, but it was very easy to take this horrible event  and use it as an excuse for extraordinary governmental action. People were scared. And so now we're in Iraq, we're in Afghanistan, we torture people, we hold them indefinitely without due process, we spy on our own citizens, and so on. And you would be amazed how many people think this is a small price to pay for safety. Yet in almost 8 years, nothing has been done about port security, and our borders remain wide open. We're not safer, - just less free.

I'm not trying to twist words. To me, the opportunistic fear mongering looks the same. It all seems ominously familiar. I can't speak for Australia, but I see no reason to expect our government to conduct the war on global warming any differently than the war on terror.  They will use it to increase their power and control over their citizens while accomplishing nothing useful. As you know, Geithner, Summers and a bunch of Goldman Sachs and Citigroup cronies are in charge of the economy. Vilsack, the #1 Monsanto ally is running agriculture. There's no reason to think the  EPA and other agencies operate any differently. And so we'll get Cap and Trade, which will do nothing but provide yet another regressive tax, and yet another commodity market for Wall Street to game, even as it allows hypocrites like Al Gore to think they can buy carbon penance. And of course we'll continue ethanol and other "green energy" subsidies that run marginal or even negative EROEI. But we won't solve anything.


Damnthematrix wrote:

 

The steps needed to avert CO2 pollution are not negative, and so I fail to see why so many people are concerned....  like I said in another thread, it's not like we're asked to give up sex or something. 


 

Mike, I wish I could believe that. This is yet another argument I'd like to lose. But the steps you think we should take, and the steps our governments will likely actually take are very different. I may be able to learn something here from you, but my impression is that overpopulation is the real crux of the problem. I don't see how you solve that at all quickly with solutions that "are not negative." But the one thing governments could and should do that would actually have an impact, is the absolute last thing they will ever do - change the system of money.

So as long as we continue the credit money system with it's insatiable need for growth, we will be working hopelessly at cross purposes with resource and environmental conservation efforts. This will leave governments with no choice (maybe that's the idea) but to ever increasingly control and dictate the economy and our personal lives, while accomplishing nothing. This is where Orwell comes in. You say "it's not like we're being asked to give up sex or something."  Maybe not. But we will be asked to give up freedom - and more and more of it. And that matters a lot to me.

Peace

Greg  

 

 

 

 

  

GregSchleich's picture
GregSchleich
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2009
Posts: 187
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant
Damnthematrix wrote:

"forgot to mention the amount of coal power stations coming online inChina. Apparently the tally is about 1 being powered up every 4 months"

Paul, I think it's more (or was) like 2 or 3 a WEEK!

 

Mike and Paul

This brings up another thing that makes me think at least some of the more prominent environmentalists are really more interested in establishing a new power and control structure than they are in solving environmental problems. I watched Mark Lynas' terrifying National Geographic special, "Six Degrees" about the catastrophic effects of global warming. Towards the end, (or maybe it was actually an interview after the film) he talked about irreversible tipping points, and how we absolutely had to take drastic action within the next ten years or face possible annihilation.

But then he took a complete left turn. - Then he said something like, "but we can't expect India and China to participate. We've had our growth, now they should be allowed to have theirs."  ???????????!!!!! .... We're facing the end of the world, but we can't ask China and India to help?! I'm sorry, but this is a serious case of cognitive dissonance. How are we supposed to reconcile such  absurdity?

Greg  

 

 

Gadfly's picture
Gadfly
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 5 2008
Posts: 127
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

gtazman & GregSchleich,

You gentleman have made the most rational comments on this subject I have seen on this forum.  The good news is that I think all this silly CO2= Global warming business is within it's own death throes.  People are waking up to the fact that it's junk science.

 

MDR's picture
MDR
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 26 2009
Posts: 21
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

You all have got off topic so I will just put my 2 cents in irrelevent to what everyone is talking about

 Everything is relevant. Anything is bad in excess even to much water. One piece of cake isnt that bad but take an extra piece and drink a soda with it your going to start seeing the effects. Carbon dioxide is a natural necessary part of the enviorment but when your burning fossil fuels putting excess CO2 into the atmosphere it messes up the balance. In the end mother nature is going to regulate and its not going to be good for us. Either way the world will keep on spinning.

SPM's picture
SPM
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 20 2009
Posts: 241
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

I agree with MDR. Too much CO2 is bad, although some is necessary to sustain life, and that mother nature will have the last word. Same principal applies to 7 billion letting loose at the same time vs a few million here or there. Laughing

GregSchleich's picture
GregSchleich
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2009
Posts: 187
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant
MDR wrote:

You all have got off topic so I will just put my 2 cents in irrelevent to what everyone is talking about

MDR

None of us are off topic at all. You need to reread the 1st paragraph of the original post.

QUOTE 

"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT 

The sentence, "...if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream."  

That's the one that set me off. (I'm not sure I ever even got past that!) The completely unaccountable control freak government's dream. My Orwellian nightmare. That's what I've been talking about. And I'm sure we could argue about that one until the flatulent methane emitting cows come home! 

Peace

Greg 

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

Gadfly,

Have I to get a rolled up newspaper?

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

Hi SPM,

Really glad you watched Dr Albert Bartletts lecture, it puts a great deal in perspective.

I noticed you mentioned both plasma 'fusion reactors' and 'clean coal' power stations and wanted to add a couple of links.

On the subject of fusion reactors, Chris Martenson nailed your answer to that a while ago on this thread where he discussed 'time/scale/cost and rarity' in post#3, using an example of 'fast breeder reactors' :-

http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/population/5017

On 'clean coal', its a misnoma that doesn't exist. The idea that you can store the pollutants in the ground is possible (!!Undecided!!) but will again require 'time/scale/cost'. This was a friends brilliant piece of editing from last year :-

Letter to the future president

I'm sure that Mike (DamnTheMatrix) has a very good link in his computer to explain these in detail if he's pushed.

Mike,

Two Or Three A Week????!!!! Are They Completely Mad??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Yell

BestSmile...

Paul

RussB's picture
RussB
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 9 2008
Posts: 101
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant
Patrick Brown wrote:

So you're equating premeditated indiscriminate acts of terror against innocent civilians to any westerner (or maybe you just hate Americans and not all Westerners, who knows) who happens to have grown up in a world with a functioning economy?  Super.  Lots of credibility there.

You seem to have some difficulty using the English language. Whatever you think of these acts, they are clearly not "indiscriminate". It's rich, aggressive Westerners who are being targeted, not Hottentots or Eskimos.

As for a phrase like "innocent civilians", I'm unable to find any meaning in it at all. "Innocent" of what? Guilt or innocence can have meaning only with regard to specific actions. So I'm satisfied that a phrase like this is just meaningless political treacle. 

It is empirically false that we have a "functioning economy". It doesn't function for those who lack access to basic human rights like food and health care. Nor is it now functioning for the ever increasing number of people who are losing their jobs and finding little to no safety net to help absorb the impact. (You see, it's now no longer just the ghetto poor, who I can well believe you don't care about at all, who are hurting. Now it's those you would've always called "decent, hard-working" people, too.)

It of course never "functioned" in a free market manner, where the willing participants pay the full costs of their transaction, and all externalities are fully compensated. Greenhouse gas emissions are just the most extreme version of a private thug enriching himself and dumping his garbage on the lawn of a weaker neighbor.

The fact is, when the likes of you call this a "functioning economy", you of course mean it "functions" for a small elite. The only way you managed to con the people is by basing the economy on their consumer debt while their wages and social protections were steadily eroded. But if something's not sustainable, then it's not really "functioning"; it only has the temporary simulacrum of function.

The only thing that surprises me is how, even now as it all comes unwound, and the people are starting to see what a lie this whole society is based on, the right-wingers are still so brazen in trying to peddle such lies.

Well, I guess it doesn't surprise me. Given how feckless and cowardly the Democrats are, I guess if I were a mercenary I'd be thinking reality is against me, but there's no political opposition based on that reality, so there's still an empty space available to try to fill with the same old lies.   

 

Patrick Brown wrote:

Now you are calling me and millions of others "terrorists" for driving cars or doing anything else which happens to fit your definition of harming the environment. I dare say I don't think even Hamas, Al Qaeda, or Hezbollah are as extreme in their views as you are in yours.

I meant the big emitters, their political waterboys, and the professional deniers (and the pathetic bootlicks who are angling to become such mercenaries). As for voluntary hi-impact "consumers", I imagine most of them are more stupid, shallow, and conformist than consciously malevolent.   

Again, you seem to have trouble with the language. You're the one who must be either "ignorant" or lying, given how it's your argument which diverges from observed reality, both regarding climate change and the economy, and for that matter everything else which is happening in the world.

Are you being willfully dense when you intentionally misunderstand my conflation of terrorism and climate change as blowback? I obviously meant that just a the bulk of the carbon comes from burning fossil fuels, so all anti-American terrorism stems from America's physical presence in the Mideast and it's aggressive meddling in regional politics.

America is of course in the Mideast at all only because of its oil addiction.

Therefore, I reiterate, climate change and terrorism are both direct and calculable results of America's fossil fuel addiction.

(So much for the cowardly, passive-aggressive claims of "innocence".)

It is refreshing to see that you're honest about one thing: that most of those who admire America do so not because of any political ideal but because America's the place for material stuff. Thanks for sparing us the lying drivel about how they aspire to American-style "freedom". Again, as the evidence has proven, most of them, even when they come here, do not in fact admire or respect the good-civics melting-pot textbook version of the American polity. (Of course by now, very few who were born here respect that either. Even those who claim to do so prove by their actions that they really don't.)

"Terrorists are extremist ideologues". Yes, and they're engaged in a war with your kind of extremist ideologue. So there we have a perfect mirror image. Of course, the big difference is that global corporatism has been aggressively imperial and massively violent for so long, while those who would resist it have been able to mount only a modest counterattack. The physical and economic preponderance is still overwhelmingly lopsided. But the basic fanaticism and totalitarian will is by now the same on both sides. I agree with you there. (Of course, we can probably never know how many of those who resist American imperialism do so out of their own aggressive ideology, and how many just wanted to be left alone but felt forced into resistance, for the sake of their own culture and freedom.) 

[Now go ahead and deny that yours is an aggressive extreme ideology. That's the standard trick of the temporarily empowered ideology, to fraudulently represent itself as the natural baseline, and represent all dissent from it as inherently "extreme". Perhaps you're so brainwashed you even believe that. But in fact alternatives to the dominant empire are in not inherently any more extreme or irrational than the empire itself, and perhaps a lot less so.

For example my alternative: live within your means; pay for the things you want instead of stealing them and leaving messes for others to clean up; value spirit and the intellect over luxury material garbage. I find this to be a moderate, reasonable vision for life. To Patrick Brown, it's hideously "extreme", because it radically contradicts everything he covets.]

-Russ

 

  

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

"maybe you jumaybe you just hate Americans and not all Westerners, who knows) who
happens to have grown up in a world with a functioning economy?"

A what?  Did you write "functioning economy"?   And I thought we were all here because.... oh forget it!

Mike 

MDR's picture
MDR
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 26 2009
Posts: 21
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

Greg

 I retract my previous statment. I tend to speed read and missed your posts talking about the actual subject. It was late and I stopped reading the posts when you were talking about the meaning of terrorism for americans compared to other parts of the world. please forgive me

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3124
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

I'll just add a couple notes as this subject has been beaten to death elsewhere.  Whether CO2, a naturally occurring gas, is a pollutant is largely semantic.  As someone else pointed out, too much of a good thing can be very bad.  Although all life is dependent of water, if we are plunked down in the middle of the ocean, we are in a world of hurt. 

Whether we call CO2 a pollutant or not is beside the point.  It most assuredly is a greenhouse gas.  Nobody responsible argues otherwise.  Also, it is beyond question that atmospheric CO2 has increased rather dramatically in the last century or so.  These two facts alone should at least give you pause to think about possible repercussions.  Add to that the facts that atmospheric CO2 is actually increasing, ice is disappearing and sea levels are rising at the upper end of the ranges of the predictions made by the IPCC just two years ago.

None of this is made up by AGW alarmists, it's all based on solid science.  I noticed that in all the links provided above, there aren't any to http://realclimate.org the most authoritative storehouse of climate science on the web.  If you think you've stumbled upon some piece of science that disproves or places in question some aspect of global warming theory, I suggest you truth test it at realclimate.org.  The site has a good search engine and plenty of links to find out where the science is on most any related topic.

Have fun

doug

Farmer Brown's picture
Farmer Brown
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2008
Posts: 1503
Re: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant

By "functioning" economy I was referring to our economy over the past 250 years.  Yes, today it is in trouble, and Peak Oil will force every aspect of our economy and everything we do in our daily lives, to change.

However, I categorically repudiate Russ's direct claims that we as Westerners, because we have consumed oil and just about every other non-replaceable natural resource on the planet, are morally equivalent to terrorists who deliberately take the lives of others.

You really should read some history on the Middle East.  There were pirates in the 1800's (circa 1780-1810) who took hijacked and be-headed US merchant vessel crews.  Yes, for almost 30 years, Americans at sea were indiscriminantly hijacked, many killed, and others held for ransom.  Were we guilty of oil exploitation then?  Ironically, this forced us to build a Navy and allowed us to be unwittingly prepared just in time for the War of 1812 against England.  

Once we had the ability to defend our vessels, or attack port cities that supported piracy, the Barbary Pirates stopped.  Then there were relatively good relations between the west and the Middle East for the entire 19th century. 

Things really did not start to change until Europe and the US started directly supporting the creation of a Jewish state.  The Balfour Paper (which was written right around WWI) from England officially called for the creation of a Jewish homeland and is often cited as a key development in the creation of what would become Israel.  Everyone knows the basic history from that point on:  WWII, genocide, and the final official formation of Israel.  

You cannot examine the Middle East and Islamic terrorism without taking into account the Israel/Palestinian issue, and it is quite a complicated one.  You oversimplify and view the entire world through your hate-America glasses, and you put anyone who disagrees with you in a box labelled "right wing radical capitalist exploitator" I suppose.

I am not calling for a continuaton of a non-sustainable lifestyle, but I definitely do not consider myself inmoral for living the life I have or consider the US responsible for the misery you blame it for in other parts of the world.  We've made our mistakes, but the US has been and continues to be the brightest beacon of light for freedom and peace around the world.  I firmly believe that and if you do not, I suggest you read a little US history or do some real travelling.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments