4 ms·

What if you consider CO2 to be something you would prefer not to add to the atmosphere if avoidable? What exactly is a pollutant by your estimation?

ars 4y ago
Who's adding CO2? You substitute CO2 from oil, with CO2 from plastic. This actually reduces the total amount of CO2, because you don't need to pump extra oil out of the ground, which costs extra energy. > What exactly is a pollutant by your estimation? Something that doesn't belong there in any amount. If there's simply too much of it, but some amount is ok, that might be a problem, but that's not a pollutant. Otherwise a flood from a hurricane would be called "Water pollution", which I hope you can see is a pretty silly definition.
- braingenious 4y ago
  > Something that doesn't belong there in any amount. I have never heard this definition before! How do you in particular decide which compounds shouldn’t be in the atmosphere in any amount? It kind of seems like such a narrow definition of “pollutant” enables the justification of burning darn near anything short of man-made nuclear isotopes that don’t otherwise exist in nature. How does this definition serve a practical purpose? edit: To address your hurricane analogy, I am not a fan of hurricanes or their damage. I have had friends die in hurricanes. I agree that trying to argue an arbitrary definition of “pollution” to serve one’s pre-existing ideas or pedantic need to be Dictionary Emperor is silly and likely pointless at best, though.
  - ars 4y ago
    > I have never heard this definition before! Let's hear your definition then. > How do you in particular decide which compounds shouldn’t be in the atmosphere in any amount? Why is that hard? Nitrogen, Oxygen, CO2, Water, and some noble gasses. Other stuff might be there naturally (for example salt by the sea), but are pollutants.
    - braingenious 4y ago
      From dictionary.com: any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose. Can you link me to where you’ve found that “pollutant” is defined as a nearly infinite group of compounds but explicitly excludes CO2? This is the first time I’ve heard this.
      - ars 4y ago
        Where in the world are you getting this "nearly infinite" business? I never said anything like that, in fact I gave you a short list. Go back and read what I wrote, I feel like you skimmed it or something. And your dictionary definition is problematic because it doesn't define "unsuitable for a specific purpose". It's basically a circular definition. I will then ask you please define "unsuitable for a specific purpose" and we are back where we started.
        braingenious 4y ago
        You said that only nitrogen, oxygen, CO2 and “some noble gases” should be in the atmosphere. Everything else (such as salt) is a pollutant. How many compounds are there that are not nitrogen, oxygen, CO2 and “some noble gases”? In my estimation that is uncountable but maybe you have some hard numbers? edit: “Suitable purpose“ for me would be creating or maintaining an environment that sustains human life. Is your “checkmate” position something like “Hah! In my dictionary, ‘suitable purpose’ only relates to underwater welding, root beer production, and synthetic diamond formation!” I personally find moving goalposts to avoid talking about concrete things in concrete terms to be problematic, but I understand that if a person is quite jaded about the future of life on earth that it might seem that the only thing worth debating is semantics. Maybe avoiding boredom matters more than attempting to avert catastrophe.
        ars 4y ago
        > In my estimation that is uncountable And? There are uncountable pollutants - why is that an issue? None of those other things belong in the air, in any amount. > would be creating or maintaining an environment that sustains human life. So my small campfire where I burn plastic is perfectly fine then? After all the toxins released are minor and rapidly dissipate, so the environment still sustains human life. Your definition doesn't even acknowledge that you can sustain life, but everyone has asthma because of all the particulate matter in the air. By your definition there are no pollutants. Or at best you can only talk about them in bulk once they reach levels sufficient to kill, but never about individual releases. By my definition each individual release of something that doesn't belong in the air is pollution. I find my definition much more usable and useful.
chrischen 4y ago
CO2 is not unavoidable though. Every ounce of plastic burned is an ounce of some other fossil fuel not burned.
- otikik 4y ago
  That would be truth in a world where Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Hydro and Geothermal didn't exist.
  - chrischen 4y ago
    Those cannot replace all oil and natural gas burning, so you may as well get rid of the plastic first before burning those fossil fuels. If you think about it, it's still recycling, because you are reusing the waste plastic for energy.
- braingenious 4y ago
  Every ounce of plastic buried is an ounce of plastic not burned. Every ounce of plastic not made is an ounce of plastic not burned. There are lots of sentences that you can start with “Every ounce of plastic.” Which one of those informs the definition of a pollutant?
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > Which one of those informs the definition of a pollutant? All of them. Looking at this in rough terms: Burning emits gross CO2 but not net CO2. And burning doesn't take up all that landfill space. So burning is better than burial. Making nothing at all (and washing nothing too, because washing has a cost!) is the best option, but is not always an option. Making something else, or washing something, needs to be analyzed per situation.
    - braingenious 4y ago
      >Burning emits gross CO2 but not net CO2. And burning doesn't take up all that landfill space. So burning is better than burial. Wait, are you saying that the optimal place to store carbon is in the atmosphere?

ars 4y ago

Who's adding CO2? You substitute CO2 from oil, with CO2 from plastic. This actually reduces the total amount of CO2, because you don't need to pump extra oil out of the ground, which costs extra energy. > What exactly is a pollutant by your estimation? Something that doesn't belong there in any amount. If there's simply too much of it, but some amount is ok, that might be a problem, but that's not a pollutant. Otherwise a flood from a hurricane would be called "Water pollution", which I hope you can see is a pretty silly definition.

braingenious 4y ago
> Something that doesn't belong there in any amount. I have never heard this definition before! How do you in particular decide which compounds shouldn’t be in the atmosphere in any amount? It kind of seems like such a narrow definition of “pollutant” enables the justification of burning darn near anything short of man-made nuclear isotopes that don’t otherwise exist in nature. How does this definition serve a practical purpose? edit: To address your hurricane analogy, I am not a fan of hurricanes or their damage. I have had friends die in hurricanes. I agree that trying to argue an arbitrary definition of “pollution” to serve one’s pre-existing ideas or pedantic need to be Dictionary Emperor is silly and likely pointless at best, though.
- ars 4y ago
  > I have never heard this definition before! Let's hear your definition then. > How do you in particular decide which compounds shouldn’t be in the atmosphere in any amount? Why is that hard? Nitrogen, Oxygen, CO2, Water, and some noble gasses. Other stuff might be there naturally (for example salt by the sea), but are pollutants.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    From dictionary.com: any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose. Can you link me to where you’ve found that “pollutant” is defined as a nearly infinite group of compounds but explicitly excludes CO2? This is the first time I’ve heard this.
    - ars 4y ago
      Where in the world are you getting this "nearly infinite" business? I never said anything like that, in fact I gave you a short list. Go back and read what I wrote, I feel like you skimmed it or something. And your dictionary definition is problematic because it doesn't define "unsuitable for a specific purpose". It's basically a circular definition. I will then ask you please define "unsuitable for a specific purpose" and we are back where we started.
      - braingenious 4y ago
        You said that only nitrogen, oxygen, CO2 and “some noble gases” should be in the atmosphere. Everything else (such as salt) is a pollutant. How many compounds are there that are not nitrogen, oxygen, CO2 and “some noble gases”? In my estimation that is uncountable but maybe you have some hard numbers? edit: “Suitable purpose“ for me would be creating or maintaining an environment that sustains human life. Is your “checkmate” position something like “Hah! In my dictionary, ‘suitable purpose’ only relates to underwater welding, root beer production, and synthetic diamond formation!” I personally find moving goalposts to avoid talking about concrete things in concrete terms to be problematic, but I understand that if a person is quite jaded about the future of life on earth that it might seem that the only thing worth debating is semantics. Maybe avoiding boredom matters more than attempting to avert catastrophe.
        ars 4y ago
        > In my estimation that is uncountable And? There are uncountable pollutants - why is that an issue? None of those other things belong in the air, in any amount. > would be creating or maintaining an environment that sustains human life. So my small campfire where I burn plastic is perfectly fine then? After all the toxins released are minor and rapidly dissipate, so the environment still sustains human life. Your definition doesn't even acknowledge that you can sustain life, but everyone has asthma because of all the particulate matter in the air. By your definition there are no pollutants. Or at best you can only talk about them in bulk once they reach levels sufficient to kill, but never about individual releases. By my definition each individual release of something that doesn't belong in the air is pollution. I find my definition much more usable and useful.

chrischen 4y ago

CO2 is not unavoidable though. Every ounce of plastic burned is an ounce of some other fossil fuel not burned.

otikik 4y ago
That would be truth in a world where Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Hydro and Geothermal didn't exist.
- chrischen 4y ago
  Those cannot replace all oil and natural gas burning, so you may as well get rid of the plastic first before burning those fossil fuels. If you think about it, it's still recycling, because you are reusing the waste plastic for energy.
braingenious 4y ago
Every ounce of plastic buried is an ounce of plastic not burned. Every ounce of plastic not made is an ounce of plastic not burned. There are lots of sentences that you can start with “Every ounce of plastic.” Which one of those informs the definition of a pollutant?
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > Which one of those informs the definition of a pollutant? All of them. Looking at this in rough terms: Burning emits gross CO2 but not net CO2. And burning doesn't take up all that landfill space. So burning is better than burial. Making nothing at all (and washing nothing too, because washing has a cost!) is the best option, but is not always an option. Making something else, or washing something, needs to be analyzed per situation.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    >Burning emits gross CO2 but not net CO2. And burning doesn't take up all that landfill space. So burning is better than burial. Wait, are you saying that the optimal place to store carbon is in the atmosphere?