4 ms·

CO2 is not pollution no matter how many times this lie is perpetuated. CO2 is what we breathe out and it’s what plants breathe in.

tmh88j 7y ago
>CO2 is what we breathe out and it’s what plants breathe in. Regardless of the effects of CO2, that's quite possibly the most inaccurate and unscientific argument I've ever heard on this subject. Humans breathing has never caused an excessive amount of CO2, so drawing any relation of our byproducts to the effects of CO2 generated from manufacturing, energy and transportation industries is absurd. "human excrements have a net null effect on global warming, as they are offset by carbon fixation in photosynthesis. As a result, they do not contribute to increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101102131108.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101102131108.h...
- drukenemo 7y ago
  The word pollution was mentioned. You may say concentration of CO2 contributes to warming, but it’s not pollution. Pollution: “the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment.”
  - tmh88j 7y ago
    No, you're attempting change the subject to argue semantics instead of addressing my response to your claim that "CO2 is what we breathe out and it’s what plants breathe in" has any significance in the overall CO2 volume produced. Do you acknowledge that humans exhaling produces a fraction of the CO2 generated by manufacturing, energy and travel industries? If not, why? Here's the link to the study from my previous comment. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101102131108.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101102131108.h... To humor you, I'll also show why your attempt at a second argument to be incorrect, regarding what constitutes pollution >Pollution: “the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment.” I'll just assume you have a misunderstanding what pollution is rather than you purposely omitting details. Pollution can be literally anything introduced that changes the environment: "Pollution can take the form of chemical substances or energy, such as noise, heat or light"[1]. Were you aware of light pollution[2] and noise pollution[3]? We've already established that there is an imbalance of CO2 voume created by many large industries. If noise and light can have polluting affects, why can't CO2? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_pollution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_pollution

tmh88j 7y ago

>CO2 is what we breathe out and it’s what plants breathe in. Regardless of the effects of CO2, that's quite possibly the most inaccurate and unscientific argument I've ever heard on this subject. Humans breathing has never caused an excessive amount of CO2, so drawing any relation of our byproducts to the effects of CO2 generated from manufacturing, energy and transportation industries is absurd. "human excrements have a net null effect on global warming, as they are offset by carbon fixation in photosynthesis. As a result, they do not contribute to increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101102131108.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101102131108.h...

drukenemo 7y ago
The word pollution was mentioned. You may say concentration of CO2 contributes to warming, but it’s not pollution. Pollution: “the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment.”
- tmh88j 7y ago
  No, you're attempting change the subject to argue semantics instead of addressing my response to your claim that "CO2 is what we breathe out and it’s what plants breathe in" has any significance in the overall CO2 volume produced. Do you acknowledge that humans exhaling produces a fraction of the CO2 generated by manufacturing, energy and travel industries? If not, why? Here's the link to the study from my previous comment. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101102131108.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101102131108.h... To humor you, I'll also show why your attempt at a second argument to be incorrect, regarding what constitutes pollution >Pollution: “the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment.” I'll just assume you have a misunderstanding what pollution is rather than you purposely omitting details. Pollution can be literally anything introduced that changes the environment: "Pollution can take the form of chemical substances or energy, such as noise, heat or light"[1]. Were you aware of light pollution[2] and noise pollution[3]? We've already established that there is an imbalance of CO2 voume created by many large industries. If noise and light can have polluting affects, why can't CO2? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_pollution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_pollution