There is a consensus about CO2 being a problem that we should combat, therefore all the green agenda and a gigantic amount of resources being spent worldwide on it. But is it really a problem? Even bitcoiners play the game saying that most energy from mining is "green" or come from renewables.
No problem with CO2 emissions59.6%
We should reduce emissions 40.4%
47 votes \ poll ended
It will be unpopular in this space but I think humans have a mandate to be respectful to its enviroment and resources. I understand we need oil and gas and we cant live without all this stuff but I don't understand why it has to be so political to advocate for a cleaner more efficiently ran planet. We don't have to reduce energy consumption. We have to figure out more effective ways to produce denser amounts of energy cleanly.
Any reduction in any negative emissions is a good thing, and we should be mindful about shitting where we eat. I don't think it should be such an extreme thing that we significantly negatively impact peoples lives across the planet while doing it, but I really don't understand how we as a species has gotten to the point where you cannot have any nuance in your stance on these types of issues. You must either be all in one way or the other.
I am so tired of fighting with each other.
reply
Co2 is not a pollutant. It is clean plant food. We should reduce pollutants like chemical dumps on crops for pest control
reply
Co2 is a pollutant. I am not going to argue this point.
reply
Refusing to argue 🚩
pol·lute /pəˈlo͞ot/ verb contaminate (water, air, or a place) with harmful or poisonous substances.
CO2 is non-toxic, naturally occurring, but if 10% of our atmosphere was CO2, it would likely be quite harmful.
But if the atmosphere had no CO2, it would be WAYYY more harmful.
If something is actually a pollutant, we should be able to get rid of ALL of it without negative consequences.
reply
You are being dishonest with your knowledge.
The claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant because it is essential for plant growth is a common argument made by some individuals. However, it oversimplifies the complex nature of CO2 and its effects on the environment. While it is true that plants use CO2 during photosynthesis and that it is necessary for their growth, the issue arises when there is an excessive buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Here are a few points to consider:
Climate Change: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning it traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere. The increasing levels of CO2 resulting from human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, are a major contributor to climate change. The excessive amounts of CO2 contribute to the greenhouse effect, leading to global warming, rising sea levels, and disruptions in weather patterns. These changes have significant negative consequences for ecosystems, biodiversity, and human societies.
Ocean Acidification: Excess CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans, causing them to become more acidic. This process is known as ocean acidification. Acidic waters can harm various marine organisms, including shell-forming organisms like coral reefs, oysters, and plankton. This disruption can have far-reaching ecological consequences, impacting entire marine food chains and ecosystems.
Health Impacts: High levels of CO2 can have adverse health effects on humans. When CO2 concentrations are elevated indoors, such as in poorly ventilated spaces, it can lead to symptoms like headaches, dizziness, shortness of breath, and impaired cognitive function. While these levels are typically not reached in outdoor environments, the overall impact on climate change and related health consequences are of concern.
It is important to note that the claim about getting rid of all CO2 without negative consequences is misleading. While reducing CO2 emissions is necessary to mitigate climate change, abrupt elimination of all CO2 emissions would have significant economic and social repercussions. Transitioning to cleaner energy sources and reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a complex global challenge that requires careful planning and consideration.
While CO2 is essential for plant growth, the excessive buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to climate change, ocean acidification, and adverse health impacts. These consequences highlight the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate these effects while also considering the broader implications of abrupt changes in CO2 levels.
reply
Ok chatgpt
reply
Yeah like I said. Didn't feel like arguing. Why do that when LLM can crank out the words I would have spent 20 minutes typing anyways? Not worth my time to put actual effort into this but we can keep going. Just know you are responding to AI.
reply
You are using LLM to argue like a bitch. No amount of your crying is going to stop the increase of co2 in the air (which is earth-food)
All you are going to accomplish is pain and suffering in the global south.
Stop shilling for genocide you trash
Why do people breathe into a paper bag when they’re having a panic attack? If CO2 is a deadly pollutant / poisonous to humans in high concentrations, wouldn’t that cause a person to panic even more? I’m not smart enough to understand all the complexities, so I’m all ears.
reply
Water could be considered a pollutant if your home was flooded with it. If the Atmosphere was flooded with CO2 maybe that would have serious consequences for life on earth. Does that sound scary?
The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%. Its basically a trace gas. And plants, grass, algae, consume it. The CO2 that humans release already existed. Stored underground in the form of natural gas and oil, among other things. When we use it we are releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere. And it will be consumed by plants and what not again. And these plants among other things will eventually become oil again, its a cycle and therefore you can argue Earth is naturally carbon neutral.
reply
deleted by author
reply
Okay. But let's discuss thought experiment. Imagine somebody invented a way to capture carbon from CO2 and produce fuel either gaseous or liquid. And this way provably becomes way cheaper than digging deep holes in Earth. Suddenly, since the fuel is expansive and costs are low it becomes very lucrative business and literally everybody is busy converting C from CO2 and producing O2 and O3 as a result.
Suddenly politicians start saying about that our babies grow too much because there is too much O2 in the atmosphere, not to say anything about ozone O3 which is toxic, and they propose acts against new way of producing fuel from CO2. People who produce O2 got fined and taxed, there's is stare of Emergency and everybody talks about destroying Amazon forests because they add into O2 production and we would need fuel instead.
How do you like this scenario?
reply
We actually just have to stop thinking we can do anything to control the weather like ancient Mayans. Some of these climate fascists are 1 step away from sacrificing babies… they already advocate for reducing the population.
reply
Well this is another good example. At some point they were also thinking that they control climate.
reply
They are backward anti-human freaks and should be treated as such. I don’t have patience for it anymore
reply
deleted by author
reply
Will pass on this but appreciate the link.
reply
deleted by author
reply
Anything is a pollutant, even water is in excessive amounts. The reason CO2 is considered pollutant is because is shifting some kind of equilibrium that is beneficial to us.
reply
equilibrium is such a magnetic idea, probably an illusion though
reply
Co2 is not a pollutant. It is clean plant food.
LOL what a trash argument xDD . I'll try that too!
O2 is not a pollutant. It is clean animals food - it's needed by humans for breathing and therefore it's okay.
Opps. Guess what? Great Oxidation Event caused >99% of life to go extinct once in a earth history.
Pollution is about a balance, not about who eats what LOL.
If there is a consensus of CO2 being a problem it is for a reason. Yes. It is a big problem. This question in 2023 doesn't make sense. It is going to be worse for next generations, a massive problem and they will hate us for this. We humans knew about the problem for decades and we did nothing. Now it is too late. We must face the consequences.
We can try to mitigate it a bit, that's all. We cannot reverse it anymore at least with current technology. We needed new nuclear technology decades ago. Fusion is advancing super fast but not fast enough.
You are living a mass extinction event at high speed. In other words. Yes. A big problem.
reply
Oh yes just like “consensus” on vaccines right?
reply
How do you define "consensus"? And what are your arguments against vaccines?
reply
You need to listen to the scientists dumbass and inject whatever they tell you
reply
reply
insane amount of anti-human bots on this issue still.
surprised you are learning about bitcoin but still unwilling to question the machine on other issues.
reply
Reduce carbon emissions, increase energy usage.
reply
reply
this cunt that came up with this CO2 bs took a step back and thought about how he can gain power and influence. He figured every living being produces CO2 so that was going to be his angle. Then he figured humans most humans when asked pretend to care about the environment, and maybe they do, so he started acting like CO2 harms the environment. He started saying this over and over and eventually enough people believed it.
What he said next was that in order to prevent this, he should get money and power. But in order to not look like a total fraud he had to deliver something. And he figured Wind mills and Solar panels would pass for a solution. And thats why the world is littered with these kinds of monuments now. Because thats all they are. Monuments. They are not economically viable. They require capital and resources from other parts of the economy to be diverted to them, with force none the less, otherwise they couldnt exist. So they are our modern monuments. Built by slaves, but in a way, and under such pretenses, that people cant seem to figure it out. End of story.
reply
Exactly. It’s a scam. Reduce pollutants. Increase co2 and energy. Co2 is literally earth-food
reply
I apologize for the profanity in the post above, it seems like its bad taste in hind sight. But on topic, even if we accept that CO2 is a pollutant, its still only a trace gas in the atmosphere which consists of:
78% Nitrogen 20.9% Oxygen 0.9% Argon 0.04% CO2
reply
Whether or not an energy source is "green" or renewable is not necessarily linked to CO2 emissions.
Biomass harvesting (like gasification of landfill waste or burning cow farts) is considered "green" even tho it still results in CO2 emissions.
Plus, renewable energy is often not green at all, causing massive deforestation, topsoil erosion and ground water toxicity from mining the metals and minerals to produce photo voltaic cells, wind turbines, etc.
Additionally, nuclear power generation is very "green" because its only byproduct is heat, water vapor and depleted uranium. But nuclear isn't renewable since there's a finite amount of uranium on earth.
Most people have no idea where energy comes from and 50% of people have below average IQs so the clean/dirty or green/hydrocarbon dicotamy is a flawed but popular heuristic for when people argue about energy even when they aren't qualified to do so.
I think "green" is a terrible term because most of the greenery on this planet comes from CO2 breathing plants. Plants actually grow faster during seasons with higher winds. In stillness, there is a local deficiency of CO2 around leaves. Plants are starving for CO2 almost constantly.
I used to grow cannabis and the way to achieve max yield was to introduce tanks of CO2 in the grow room. Even cycling in fresh outside air wasn't packing enough CO2 to max out what the plants were capable of soaking up.
I don't think limiting CO2 emissions as a government policy is a worthwhile effort. We'd be better off creating more (or rather repairing) CO2 sinks by planting more trees and restoring old growth forests.
CO2 emissions aren't that bad compared to other types of emissions that often come from burning hydrocarbon. What's way worse is sulphur emissions that create actually poisonous gasses and acidic precipitation. We should limit those toxic gasses for sure.
In general, I think there is CO2 hysteria. If something is actually environmentally harmful, it will be resolved. We saw this with ozone depletion caused by CFCs and also in urban areas with smog from toxic fumes. There was a clear and obvious link between the pollutants and the environmental harm and as a society, we organized to eliminate the source of the problem and nature healed itself.
Sure, you can measure CO2 levels in various locations over time and make conclusions about how fast the levels are rising. You can do the same with temperature and hypothesize that CO2 causes increased temperatures from greenhouse effect.
If this hypothesis is correct, its a good thing for human flourishing! Humans thrive in warmer climates.
The narrative lost me when I'm supposed to believe that increased temperatures will lead to sea levels rising until thousands of miles of coastline are underwater and we're in an uncontrollable death spiral until the earth is a scorched wasteland and human populations decline drastically. To me, this line of reasoning shows no respect for the ability of nature to heal and for humans to adapt. Humans are powerful enough to cause climate change but not powerful enough to undo it? IDK seems like a leap with a lot of assumptions.
I think long-term projections about climate change should be completely ignored. The biosphere is incredibly complex and impossible to model everything. Some of our "best and brightest" forecasted that COVID-19 would be the next Bubonic Plague but those models were invalidated after just a couple months. But somehow, we're supposed to take scientist's predictions about the next 50-100 years of climate data as gospel? Ok boomer.
With all that said, I think societies will still move away from hydrocarbons as a primary energy source. Nuclear and hydropower are better suited for providing reliable energy to the grid. At least in the US, nuclear and hydro are highly-regulated so it's artificially easier and cheaper to produce energy with hydrocarbons. Instead of applying more regulation to hydrocarbons, and subsidizing unreliable alternatives like wind and solar, why not de-regulate the other non-hydrocarbon reliables like nuclear and hydro? I think Bitcoin miners will be instrumental in changing the regulations around energy production in the USA.
reply
Co2 is clean plant food
reply
Are you a plant?
reply
"the relationship between the organism and the environment is transactional—the environment grows the organism, and the organism creates the environment. The organism turns the sun into light, but it requires an environment containing a sun in order to exist. It’s all one process. It isn’t that organisms came into this world by accident or chance—this world is the sort of environment that grows organisms. And it has been that way from the beginning. From the very first moment of the big bang—if that’s the way the whole thing started—organisms like you and me were involved."
  • Quote by Alan Watts
reply
Thanks. That makes more sense.
But I think people who just say "more CO2 => more plants" are making it very easy for themselves.
reply
What about the people that say "More CO2 => More problems"
It seems that CO2 levels are up 100% over the last couple hundred years. I will let you be the judge of wether or not that has caused any problems. If you have concerns with wether or not CO2 will be up another 100% over the next couple hundred years, maybe it will. But its a slow process and there will be time for most people and most species to adapt if needed. But also it will not be possible for CO2 levels in the atmosphere to double every 200 years. Because the earth is pretty much a closed system. Sometimes the carbon is stored underground, sometimes its stored in the atmosphere, its a cycle.
Can even talk about how central banking and all this debt that is in the world has released epic amounts of CO2 that wouldnt have been possible otherwise. I mean, it leads to increased consumption, demand, etc. we are borrowing from the future to spend in the presents. Therefore human CO2 emissions are likely significantly increased, and will decrease in the future as the economy switches from consuming and spending to just paying off debt one way or the other.
Btw. does anyone want to discuss if the earth is growing or not?
reply
deleted by author
reply
Look up prehistoric co2 levels and mega fauna. The co2 cycle is natural and no amount of crying is going to stop it. The argument is over how much anti-human energy restriction green-freaks are able to damage humanity with in the process
reply
The co2 cycle is natural
So if we dig up coal or oil and burn it, that does not increase co2 levels? Or do you consider this to be a natural increase?
reply
Yes it does and it is natural. We are part of the earth
reply
Ok, I agree that we are part of the earth and thus also nature.
But at which point does something become not natural? Is a car burning fuel natural?
reply
That’s how I believe bro
Unless a person thinks CO2 doesn't exert a greenhouse effect or that CO2 in the atmosphere isn't increasing, they'll probably be interested in reducing emissions. The trickiness is at what cost and for what benefit.
Generally, I think attempts to reduce energy consumption are going fail. It's too useful. I think a lot of renewables are sometimes inconsiderate of end to end harms, costs, and tradeoffs.
I'd prefer our grid to go nuclear and we focus on capturing carbon via turning more deserts into grasslands.
reply
Germany shutting down their last nuclear plants really makes me consider moving somewhere else ...
reply
Germany is goverend by a gang of clowns and people voted for them. But now waking up and realize what trash gov we have.
reply
OT sorry, but funny: Our gang of clowns foreign minister Annalena talks about #BaconOfHope"
She's from the green party (lots of communists).
reply
Can't read, have no twitter account
reply
That is already happening naturally. The question is reduce pollution vs reduce co2. Yes reduce pollution. Co2 is not pollution. The “green” movement has been captured and twisted into an anti-human 500million population cap psyop.
reply
More important to clean up the oceans from all the plastic waste.
reply
I think this is much more important and actionable than "climate change." "Seaspiricy" on Netflix was a good watch and eye-opening.
And this video of Jordan Peterson talking about oceans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4MCM7EgIQ
reply
I love this website! It's maybe the only place where you will not find consensus on this subject.
reply
MORE CO2 = MORE PLANTS
reply
It's a great for scaremongering useful idiots into more communist totalitarianism, but besides that it is just another gas in the atmosphere, the concentration of which may be slightly affected by human activity.
reply
the concentration of which may be slightly affected by human activity.
what contributes the most to the increase of the concentration of CO2 in your opinion?
reply
It's a great for scaremongering useful idiots into more communist totalitarianism, but besides that it is just another gas in the atmosphere, the concentration of which may be slightly affected by human activity.
reply
It is not actually true that there is a consensus about CO2 being a problem. What are close to consensus opinions are that CO2 levels are rising and that we're in a long term warming trend. There is actually a lot of disagreement about the degree to which CO2 is contributing to warming, the degree to which humans are driving the increase in CO2, and whether or not a warmer world is something to be avoided.
It is also widely acknowledged that CO2 is causing a massive increase in global biomass.
reply
My instincts tell me CO2 probably isn’t the most important emission / byproduct of industry to focus on, not by a long shot. Regardless, I agree the environment has been under a concerning amount of stress for a long time.
reply
Should we do something about CO2? No.
reply
I am in the camp that fossil fuels are necessary for human survival and advancement and that yes it is feasible that the rate of change we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere may be a concern but I don't think it is a near term problem. Technology will solve the problem if we don't allow grifters, power hungry politicians and climate communists to push their solution upon us.
It's hard to take the climate crazies seriously when their solution is to pretty much throw humanity back into the stone ages instead of something as simple as "it will take 100 years to fully transition to green energy so lets project what the excess carbon emissions will be over that time frame and work on mitigating unnecessary emission (switch coal to nat gas, methane capture etc) and capturing/sequestering the rest".
reply
For everyone here who feels that reducing emissions is a wolf in sheep's clothing for government expansion, it is not. Please do not think that it is. It is entirely possible for carbon emissions to be reduced in a free market way, and to not try and do so is to knowingly damage the environment. Many people falsely try to wield carbon emissions against Bitcoin, but that doesn't mean we should give up this point.
reply
With the monetary system they lied and cheated us but with the climatechange they always tell the truth. Google Gell-Man Amnesia
reply
3rd option - more CO2
reply
Learning to meditate and breathe deeply is known to reduce CO2 emissions as the number of breaths are reduced due to mindfulness - Buddha.
reply
Where is the option to increase it to feed the plants?
Who is "we"? 🧐 ...if you attack someone's property, you can expect a lethal response.
reply
Woke braindead agenda.
reply