Sorry, but that doesn't make the argument.
Carbon is essential for life, but spewing carbon out in a nice sooty cloud is not free from regulation.
And if you released countless tons of oxygen, you would be causing downwind corrosion--and it would be regulated.
Something being natural and essential does not preclude if from being a pollutant...other objections are demanded, if we are to fight this on a factual, not emotional, level.
You dear, are completely daft.
The point is that once the government can declare CO2 to be a pollutant, and has the power to regulate it, there is virtually no aspect of human activity over which it can be denied from exercising authority and control.
Gondring, you have your head firmly planted where the sun don’t shine. CO2 as you say is essential and natural. so how can it be a pollutant also? CO2 comprises less than 4% of the atmosphere, which is low by historical standards. more CO2 equals more luxuriant plant life. we need more, not less CO2 for better crop yields. you combine soot with CO2, as if they were the same. CO2 is colorless, and odorless. Geez!!
I just don't agree. Maybe we're just hashing semantics, but it seems to me that a substance that belongs there, is beneficial in the quantities that are present, and/or the quantities present are within the "normal" proportions that have been measurable over time... is not a "pollutant".
In my estimation a "pollutant" is something that does not belong there, or is in abnormal, artificially induced quantities that cause harm of some kind. I remain unconvinced that CO2 is causing any harm whatsoever.
I am increasingly persuaded that CO2 is an ~effect~ of climate change, not a cause. The oceans are a massive gas sink. As ocean temperatures rise, the solubility of CO2 in seawater goes down-- more gas is released into the atmosphere. When ocean temperatures decrease, more CO2 is dissolved into the water. I think the capacity of the world's oceans to alter the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes any effort on our part... moot.
If you think differently, I'm happy to listen.
OK. here are some facts.
Carbon Dioxide is an essential gas in the makeup of the atmosphere. Without it all life on Earth would die. It’s no more a “pollutant” than is Oxygen.
Another fact: 500 million years ago CO2 levels were likely 10 times higher than now. There were no SUVs 500 million years ago.
Gondring, *ANY* substance known to man, when misused, can cause discomfort or death. Does this mean all substances known to man are pollutants?
You are knee deep in a fallcious argument here!
Point well taken. This is an emotional topic, and to convert the "believers" so to speak, we do need to stay factual.
The data that I have seen suggests global warming is a function of the sun. When the sun heats up, it expands (hotter molecules take more space than cooler ones; this is why hot air rises). As the sun increases in size, ever so slightly, it cools. Then gravity takes over and pulls its molecules into a tighter sphere. The closer the sun's molecules are, the more fusion that occurs, creating more heat, and the cycle begins again.
Naturally, this cycle does not occur quickly. Some scientists think it takes between 1000 and 1500 years. Not too many scientists yet link this cycle to global warming yet, although sun spot theories are beginning to emerge. But I will remind you that in the year 1000 Leif Ericsson founded a colony on Greenland, where it thrived in an environment about 6 to 7 degrees warmer than it is now. Also, he founded Vinland, in present day, New Foundland. Vinland got its name because of the grapes that grew there in the warm weather.
Using the same logical argument, aggravated alimentation should also be regulated by the EPA and then all the Joe The Plumbers of the world would be at risk of their livliehoods, not just one political incorrect one that we see today.
Imagine how much CO2 could be reduced just in the transportation field, alone.