pull down to refresh
1826 sats \ 24 replies \ @0000 29 Jun 2023 \ on: Should we do something about CO2? meta
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.
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
reply
deleted by author
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.