[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More:

******************************EXCERPTS*******************************************

Mike Jackson, James Lovelock has been trying to reframe the production of CO2 from living processes as "pollution" for some time.

His argument is that lower forms of life unknowingly and blindly "pollute", whereas we should recognise that the very act of our existence is pollution (and presumably should be curbed).

As the BBC repeats:

"When bacteria started releasing it as a waste gas, a billion or more years ago, it was the worst pollution incident in the history of the planet."

Link to audio here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00d43dw

Skip to Lovelock's contribution at 08:30.

We must ignore the specialisation and diversity that this event prompted of course; statis is the only option, change is always counterproductive and evil

Feb 29, 2012 at 12:00 PM | mrsean2k

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More from the comments to the BH article....on CO2 as a pollutant:

*******************************EXCERPT****************************

Richard Tol's greatest contribution to mankind? Concluding that CO2 is a pollutant.

Somehow I am convinced that Tol doesn't think himself as holding that hot potato.

New Zealand wants to reduce greenhouse gases because its sheep fart too much globe to take. Australia? Well, I don't know why they want their carbon tax. Britain wants to be a world leader in reducing emissions. Among all however, the United States has the stupidest reason to 'regulate CO2'. Carbon di-oxide is a pollutant

Feb 29, 2012 at 12:26 PM | Shub

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More from the comments....chasing the "CO2 is a pollutant":

************************************EXCERPT********************************************

Since William Norhaus depends for his defintion of "pollutant" on US law, does this not mean that elsewhere in the world, where there is no such definition, carbon dioxide is entirely innocent? Maybe another serious case for extradition?

Feb 29, 2012 at 12:59 PM | Mike Post

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More from the comments regarding CO2:

*****************************************EXCERPT*****************************

William Nordhaus is stepping deeper into chemistry than he realises. I could easily construct many more castles in the air that he would be uncomfortable with.

For example:The tortuous reasoning that CO2 is a pollutant can also be used to claim that oxygen (O2) is a pollutant. Ozone (O3) is synthesized from O2 in the atmosphere by sunlight. Ground level ozone is also produced. Ground level Ozone is, quite rightly, described as harmful to humans and other life forms at concentrations much lower than CO2. Photosynthesis by vegetation produces oxygen, which produces ozone. Ergo plants are harmful to the environment.

Unless, that is, William Nordhaus would like to describe sunlight as the pollutant. I really would enjoy seeing an attempt to paint the sun as being harmful to the environment.

Feb 29, 2012 at 3:40 PM | michael hart