CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a pollutant

-
I recently got into a online discussion with someone who made the ridiculous argument that CO2 (carbon dioxide) can not be classified as a pollutant. Below are the reasons he gave that it is not a pollutant and my responses:

".. benign gas..."

Many pollutants are "benign" at low levels. The are several ways in which CO2 is not benign at higher concentrations.

"..occurs naturally..."

Many pollutants (maybe even most) occur naturally - asbestos, mercury, sulphur, radiation,

"helps to maintain the earth at a temperature suitable for life"

Ozone as it exists in the atmosphere also helps to maintain life on the earth. But it is also considered a pollutant.

"...essential to the growth of all plants..."

Nitrates are essential to plant growth. Sulphur is an essential element for cell growth. But both are considered pollutants.

Comments

sylvia said…
labelling something a "pollutant" is much like calling something a weed. "pollutants" like CO2 and "weeds" like dandelions are benign, naturally existing / arising entities. but if there's too much CO2 gas being generated, or too many dandelions on that suburban lawn, then they get called "pollutants", or "weeds".

otherwise, one is simply the gas that plants require to photosynthesise, and the other is a plant that is both a lovely flower and cuppa tea.
9:20 PM
Rob said…
Not sure I quite agree with the analogy. Too much C02 can do harm.

Too many dandelions - while some people might not like them,they won't do any harm.

"Weed" is a pretty arbitrary term. I heard once that in an Indian language what we call "weed" translates as "bonus crop."

Pollutants are not so arbitrary. If the levels are too high they cause very real and specific damage.
9:28 PM
sylvia said…
"weed" = "bonus crop" is actually precisely my point. it's a matter of perception. i'm NOT saying here that too much CO2 is a matter of perception (you know whose side i'm on here), but if you talk to a moncrop farmer, "weeds" cause damage, for example. given my preferred method of farming, i don't agree, but your average big farm will show you the books.

anyway, for your convenience, let's erase the dandelion analogy and just say CO2 is a NECESSARY and naturally existing gas, when present at whatever benign level within whatever closed system you choose - and a pollutant at some, other, defined higher level. ie, "too much of anything is not a good thing".
9:57 PM
sylvia said…
ps. the internet explains this better than i do. here's some bedtime reading :) looks like it's become quite the political issue. but an analytical biological chemist like myself WILL tell you that it's all about concentration.
10:12 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Community Activists Modify Construction Signs

-
Image
Morning commuters were greeted with new messages along Gateway Program construction routes this morning.  The construction announcement signs had been modified to read "Farms not Freeway", "Peatland not Pavement", "Homes not Highways" and "Transit not Truck Routes." The action occurred on the last scheduled day of climate talks in Copenhagen.  Government reports estimate the Gateway program will increase greenhouse gas emissions by over 160,000 tonnes per year.  Independent modelling puts the figure at over 300,000 tonnes. The signs modified included promises that transportation experts have consistently questioned. Some sign promise that the project will be " Reducing Congestion." Yet, Gordon Campbell said in 2003 “You cannot build your way out of congestion”. The signs also promise that the government is "Strengthening the Economy ."  The Provincial and Federal governments have provided massive investments to the Port in...
Read more

Buses on the Port Mann

-
Image
Apologists for the Gateway Program appear to be re-writing history and claiming that Translink had no plans to run transit over the Port Mann bridge. In actual fact a transit route with queue jumpers was originally planned to be implemented in 2004-2005 (see page 93 of Tanslink's South of Fraser - Area Transit Plan, Final Report - June 2000 : http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/pdf/plan_proj/area_plans/south_fr_final.pdf) Later it appears this was changed to 2007 (see page A8 of Three Year (2005 - 2007) Implementation & Financial Strategy - December 2004 :http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/pdf/plan_proj/ThreeYr05-07Strategic.pdf ) The two maps below produced by a third party illustrate the plans outlined in the documents referenced above. The Port Mann bus route is shown in red. The 2000 Transit plan had the route stopping at central Surrey - this map extends that route. The queue jumper lanes. Update: This project is also mentioned in the "KEEPING GREATER VANCOUVER MOVING...
Read more

Burrard Bridge Bike Lane Myths

-
Vancouver's new mayor and council has reversed the previous council's decision about the burrard bridge bike lane trial. I am finding that there are still a lot of myths out there about the bike lane trial: Myth: The electorate has spoken in opposition to the bike lane trials by electing the NPA. Reality: The only poll I saw showed that 50% of the population supported the lane reallocation trial. The other 50% was divided among those that were neutral or opposed the lane reallocation. So, only a minority opposed the bike lane reallocation. And even among those that opposed it I found many were confused about basic facts and would change their mind when given all the facts. Myth: The bike land trial is only supported by a “radical bike lobby.” Reality: The bike lane reallocation plan was supported by a board coalition that included: - the mainstream cycling groups in Vancouver - transportation policy groups that advocate for public transportation - one the most famous and ...
Read more