Is carbon dioxide production considered a pollutant?.......If yes, Why? ... I thought trees breathed CO2?

Question

Incredible as it may seem, according to Kyoto, (and other radical environmentalists), CO2 is a "greenhouse gas", that’s a cause for global warming, and is therefore a pollutant. (CO is a poison, my point is that "environmentalist" have classified a natural gas needed for the survival of trees, (that produce oxygen, that we need to breathe), as a pollutant).

If this is confusing, I’m confused too.

You might try reading "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism" by Christopher C Horner

Answer 1

The dose counts, a lot.

Copper is an essential nutrient in small amounts. In large ones, it kills.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/1739/Contamination-Toxic-chemicals.html

"Pollutant" is actually a legal term. And the Supreme Court of the US has decided that, because of global warming, carbon dioxide is legally a pollutant.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i15/8515news4.html

Answer 2

1 – The book you were reading is not a scientific publication, it is a political / opinion bias

2 – The Kyoto protocol is not a radical environmentalist, it is a legal binding international treaty.

3 – The two words “Global Warming” and “Pollutant” exist since they are clearly two different things (which I do not like in a certain movie for example)
* A pollutant does harm to the health of living creatures
* A greenhouse gas has an effect called “radiative forcing”.
* CO2 is not in the list of pollutants. It can be breathed at a rate up to 15% without major damages for the health.

• Only SO2 has really an impact on both the health AND the climate as it creates acid rains and reduces the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface.
• Nitrous oxide has only a health effect (non absorption of B12 vitamin) at high concentration (you would need to live near the stack)

You might really want to seriously check what is written in your book and not accept all of its assumptions.

Answer 3

OK....

I will answer, not that you really want one....

CO2 is utilized by plants during photosynthesis. Most of the fixed carbon can ultimately be traced to CO2. This is part of the Carbon cycle.

Now here is where it gets tricky for those whom didn't learn science in school, want to believe humans can't alter the environment, free-market capitalist and/or general its-not-my-problem-people.

It is all about time scales. Geological time scales. I am guessing you didn't bother to learn this neither.

Through millions of years of evolution (oh my! I said evolution!) plants and animals have altered the atmosphere of the earth by reducing CO2 (that is photosynthesis) and releasing O2 (photosynthesis too). This created an oxygen rich environment which then allowed aerobic organism (utilize O2 as a terminal electron acceptor, aka, breath oxygen) to flourish.

Now, this caused all the elements of life (C, O, P, S, N, H etc) to come into a stable dynamic equilibrium. Some of the Carbon (and other elements) get buried and remove from the system, some get regenerated on short time scales (like seasonally) some over decades, some over thousands of years.

Now, some of this carbon got buried in the form of algae, plants and animals long long ago. And due to Biogeochemical processes, it became what we call petroleum.

With out the help of humans and their crazy inventions, this carbon would be buried for along long time until it got released in a volcanoes or during an earthquake or some other huge, rare event.

But what we have done is brought all this carbon back into circulation at a much faster rate and in larger quantities that the natural biogeochemical cycles would have.

Thus the term, excess carbon. This excess carbon, mostly in the form of CO2, is a pollutant.

Answer 4

What, precisely, is your question? sure, animals exhale oxygen, and plant life emit carbon dioxide. that does no longer mean that we are able to alter the composition of the ambience and anticipate each and every thing to stay a similar. existence in the worldwide is predicated upon an extremely specific atmospheric chemical composition, and specific, tampering with it does have outcomes. i comprehend which you're thinking, "yet, CO2 is obviously happening interior the air, so this is no longer pollutants, blah, blah, blah". wager what? Sulfur dioxide additionally occurrs clearly interior the ambience in small quantities, yet no one ever says "we will not regulate sufur dioxide emissions". We DO regulate sulfur dioxide, and different gas emissions that is recent in nature, because of the fact intense concentrations of those gasses have poisonous outcomes on the ecosystem and our wellbeing. Al Gore isn't the "significant spokesperson" the two - he did no longer invent the thought of world warming. teach your self. the thought of world warming replace into developed an prolonged time in the past by employing examining archives that have been accumulated by employing climatologists, meteorologists, ecologists, marine biologists, oceanograhphers, astronomers, and scientists in different fields. BTW - whilst making an argument, use ideal grammer and spelling. Your writing is so undesirable, i could no longer often tell what your factor is.

Answer 5

It is considered a pollutant by some, who are not honest individuals.

CO2 is a food, in reality, not a pollutant.

CO2 is just something the earth cannot do without, so it is easy to tax.

Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."

They can make you feel guilty, then it is easy to pick your pocket and enforce tyrannial laws on you.

Answer 6

you may need to review your definition of "pollutant"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution

yes CO2 is a pollutant and just incase you don't believe in greenhouse gases, excess co2 in the atmosphere means more going into the oceans, once in the ocean it reacts with water forming carbonic acid and bicarbonate - decreasing ocean pH

-chris horner lacks a science degree and is a lawyer - which makes him about as credible as algore on this issue.

- many pollutants are neccesary for life - everything is concentration dependent.

Answer 7

CO2 is a pollutant, it is a waste product given off by things that breath oxygen. In the Devonian period and prior geologic epochs CO2 consistently stayed above 3000 PPM, or almost 9 times higher than its current level. During these periods the sea was full of a huge variety of life forms that form much of the vast hydrocarbon reserves that our society has grown dependent on.

There is a catch however, elevated CO2 levels, while beneficial to the marine animals and plants of that time, CO2 at levels much above 2000 PPM would become uncomfortable (stuffy) to most mammals, and CO2 levels at our above 5000 PPM would become poisonous to most mammals.

At some point too much CO2 in the atmosphere would make life uncomfortable, but there are not enough hydrocarbons available to increase CO2 to toxic levels.

.

Answer 8

CO2 in excess causes global warming. But that is not enough to call it a pollutant.(because its not). In fact, without CO2, The Earth would have been freezing cold!

Answer 9

A certain amount of CO2 is natural and normal, we, and all the animals exhale CO2, it's when you dump huge amounts of it into the atmosphere that it becomes a problem and there aren't enough trees to
handle the excess and then it builds up in the atmosphere and " presto-chango!!!" global warming.

Answer 10

Too much of anything is not always a good thing.


For example, we need water to live, yet too much water in one place is called a flood.


The same is true with Carbon Dioxide.


We need Carbon Dioxide because plants need Carbon Dioxide, yet too much Carbon Dioxide can be very destructive.