[Sherman Logan]

The latter proposition is an outright fraud because carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; our lungs always contain a far higher concentration than the air around any coal-fired power plant.

Actually, the argument is that reducing carbon release by moving away from burning fossil fuels will have the neat side effect of also reducing "real" pollution. This is an accurate statement.

However, the argument is so often poorly worded by pols and media that someone unfamiliar with the science could easily get the impression that the carbon dioxide itself is the pollutant being reduced.

In truth, some of the reporters and politicians probably aren't clear on the science themselves.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Of ourse they aren’t. Reporters are ‘generalists’ at best. The knowledgeable “science beat” reporter is a rare critter.

[Winged Hussar]

“Actually, the argument is that reducing carbon release by moving away from burning fossil fuels will have the neat side effect of also reducing “real” pollution. This is an accurate statement.”

Fossil fuel power plants are already required to scrub “real” pollutants like sulfur and nitrogen oxides from their emissions. The technology to remove carbon dioxide is largely separate and would be a costly add-on.