Random thought: Why are we communicating almost only on the release of CO2 and not of the burning of O2? It's easier to communicate that's O2 being reduced is

Random thought: Why are we communicating almost only on the release of CO2 and not of the burning of O2? It's easier to communicate that's O2 being reduced is problematic for human beings as our bodies perform worst even with slight reductions in O2 levels. O2 levels have a more direct impact on humans. Plus, O2 concentration levels are actually being reduced faster than CO2 levels are rising. CO2 is not a toxic gas by itself and climate sciences that show CO2 is bad for the planet are hard. It would seem easier to convince people burning O2 is harmful. It's true and easy to demonstrate. > Evidence from prehistoric times indicates that the oxygen content of pristine nature was above the 21% of total volume that it is today. It has decreased in recent times due mainly to the burning of coal in the middle of the last century. Currently the oxygen content of the Earth’s atmosphere dips to 19% over impacted areas, and it is down to 12 to 17% over the major cities. At these levels it is difficult for people to get sufficient oxygen to maintain bodily health: it takes a proper intake of oxygen to keep body cells and organs, and the entire immune system, functioning at full efficiency. At the levels we have reached today cancers and other degenerative diseases are likely to develop. And at 6 to 7% life can no longer be sustained. Ref: http://www.ebooks.com/113897/macroshift/laszlo-ervin-clarke-arthur-charles-other/ http://www.ebooks.com/113897/macroshift/laszlo-ervin-clarke-...