The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle.
Ok lets play this game. The fact is that H20 is not a pollutant. It's a molecule that sustains life and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle.
The point they made is that more CO2 is not necessarily a bad thing. It's not my place as a non-specialist to judge how likely global warming really is (so I'm not judging) but I do wonder if it's really a bad thing. I mean, everything I know tells me making the earth a bit warmer and richer in CO2 is a good thing. And there is a distinct lack of credible apocalyptic scenarios... most I've seen say basically "there will be losers", i.e. there will be countries where the climate change will make things hotter and more arid. But for me, in central/eastern europe, warmer winters would be great...
Ok, here's the issue. We don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing.
The problem: If it's a good thing... whatever. If it's a bad thing... Mass Death. Seriously, that's not an exaggeration. Any slight imbalance and we're talking catastrophe. Unless you don't think natural disasters matter much.
We're not saving the environment we're saving our goddamn selves. The environment isn't even a thing. But humans are, and we need a stable environment to get on with our lives.
I strongly subscribe to the idea that extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence. Your reasoning also suggests that LCH should be shut down and dismantled immediately, because of the prospect of destroying the Earth or ending the Universe. Also that I should be a believer, because even if the chance is slight, spending an eternity in hell is not an option.
In order to take the "Mass Death" scenario seriously I want to see some credible indication that our environment actually is that fragile. What I do know (and again, I'm not a specialist) is that most catastrophes that actually happened in the distant past would be expensive for our civilization, but not "catastrophic". Worst case scenario would be something like making a 20 degree belt around the equator a desert, while at the same time making Norther Europe/Asia/America greener (or the other way around). Bad? Depends who you ask. Definitely catastrophic for the equator countries, but not for the humanity as a whole.
Yeah, that's the most retarded passage in the whole article. And that says something.
Maybe people are not aware that most things are toxic in concentrations higher than natural, including, for example, oxygen. And even if elevated CO2 caused humans to walk around in a blissful high, it would have nothing to do with its impact on climate...
Poop is not a pollutant. It's a substance that sustains life and is a key component of the biosphere's life cycle.
Thus, there's no point in controlling it, or making sure it doesn't accumulate.
(The next time a person in Congress tries the "CO2 is natural etc" gambit, I'd love someone to stand up and ask if that person has stopped wiping their ass.)
Plus, CO2 apparently has an odor (metallic) at high concentration, and our exhalations aren't particularly high - just 4-5% more CO2 than the air we inhaled. Three basic fact fails in one sentence.
Ok lets play this game. The fact is that H20 is not a pollutant. It's a molecule that sustains life and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle.
Bring on the ice age!!