- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,110
- 47,261
- 2,180
Isn't that just semantic nonsense? There are levels below which any compound: lead, arsenic, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, chorofluorocarbons - even dioxin - are harmless. So why are THEY pollutants but not CO2?
If you're going to call CO2 a pollutant, then why not call H2O a pollutant? That would make just as much sense.
It doesn't matter what you want to call the material or the process, but adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere harms us. We need to drastically cut our GHG emissions and, if possible, reduce what's already there. Screw the semantics.
CO2 does not harm us in any way. In fact, it probably helps us. It makes plants grow faster. We don't need to do jack squat. The only thing curbing GHGs will do is vastly increase the price of electricity and raise our taxes by $trillions for zero benefit.
No one is directly adding water to the atmosphere. We are doing so indirectly by increased evaporation from increased temperatures.
CO2 is raising global temperatures. If you are unwilling to admit that, there is no point in talking to you at all.
So rather than support your claims you just stamp your foot and run home to mother.