Next Question
RSS
It's not a polutant as far as the plants are concerned. But it *is* a polutant if there's too much of it.
Do you think vitamin C is a poison?
Did you know that if you take too much of it, it can produce artifical heart attacks?
Does that make Vitamin C a poison, or does it make *too much* vitamin C a poison?
What you're looking at with that ad is a classic example of double-spin, where first they make you think that it's popular and chic to believe that something is bad when you and nobody you know had been thinking that.
i.e. "It has been declared by some (note the "some"... that's their legal loophole") environmentalists that CO2 is a polutant!"...
... whereupon you're expected to think... 'Huh, I didn't know that... oh dear I must be so behind the times to not know that CO2 is a polutant, because I have to trust nameless environmentalists that I've never head of, don't I?'
Then it's followed by disproving that very statement which they just fed into your head, in order to make you feel like you were lied to by people you've never met,
i.e. "But CO2 is NOT a polutant! It's essential to plant life!"...
... whereupon you're expectred to think... 'darn those environmentalists for messing up my head like that! I'm going to keep driving my gas-guzzling car because my roses will love me more if I do!'
It's really a sick art, and only people who are evil or who are extremely desperate for money do double-spinning for a trade like that.
Permalink | Report
One man's rain is another man's drought (Guy Clark).
Permalink | Report
CO2 is must needed to live but when it is up to general label...it should count as pollutant.
They said that"CO2 is green" yeah they are right...why? because without 'CO2' plants can not grow and if plants are symbol of green so they said that 'co2' is green.
But I also can say"CO2 is red" .......why? because now co2 is a great warning(climate change) for us and if red is color of alert so 'co2' is red. Not yeah???
I think now it is not time to debate that it is a pollutant or not...now it is high time to control co2 growth.
Permalink | Report
The problem is, our CO2 is growing and we keep eradicating areas of green for our more favored color of gray (cities, parking lots, roads, etc; how sad). Some people even go so far as to dig up all the grass in their yard and use astroturf or some kind of fake rubber grass instead. (How lazy can you be, seriously!?) Anyway, we need to do two things; lower our CO2 emissions AND protect what trees, plants, areas of green, etc we still have left, both of which modern society has a hard time wrapping their brains around for fear of having to sacrifice a little. This isn't all America's fault. The South American rain forest, known as the "lungs of the Earth," is being cut down at alarming rates due to the absence of regulations of such like we have here in the US. I believe the last number I heard was 6,000 acres per second are cut down to make farm and cattle grazing land.
Permalink | Report
stanar
If you look at it as a chief component to photosynthesis, then it's not a pollutant. But when you look at it as a contributory factor in global warming then it's totally a different thing. Check this link: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0829-02.htm Peace!
Source(s):
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0829-02.htm
Permalink | Report
Some regulation is needed, obviously, but on the other side encouraging industry and just every day people to sequester carbon (that is take it out of the system and trap it) will probably fair better to solve the problem of too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
The ancient people of South America sequestered carbon in the soil for the purpose of increasing soil fertility. Wow, sequester carbon and increase soil fertility. What a concept.
Source(s):
http://www.organic-raised-bed-gardening.com/terra_preta.html
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
M$1
September 25, 2009 11:49 AM
Is CO2 a pollutant or not?
I just saw an ad saying "CO2 is green" on TV.
http://co2isgreen.org/default.aspx/MenuItemID/125/MenuGroup/TheScience.htm
"Why would labeling CO2 as a pollutant be such a catastrophic decision?
Claims that CO2 is a pollutant are a myth and are absolutely false. In fact, lowering levels of carbon dioxide would actually inhibit plant growth and food production. What we see happening in Washington right now is the replacement of politics for science in conversations about CO2"
http://co2isgreen.org/default.aspx/MenuItemID/125/MenuGroup/TheScience.htm
"Why would labeling CO2 as a pollutant be such a catastrophic decision?
Claims that CO2 is a pollutant are a myth and are absolutely false. In fact, lowering levels of carbon dioxide would actually inhibit plant growth and food production. What we see happening in Washington right now is the replacement of politics for science in conversations about CO2"
Interesting Question?
Yes (0)
No (0)
- In Environment |
- Tags: co2, green |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| September 27, 2009 11:25 PM |
Do you think vitamin C is a poison?
Did you know that if you take too much of it, it can produce artifical heart attacks?
Does that make Vitamin C a poison, or does it make *too much* vitamin C a poison?
What you're looking at with that ad is a classic example of double-spin, where first they make you think that it's popular and chic to believe that something is bad when you and nobody you know had been thinking that.
i.e. "It has been declared by some (note the "some"... that's their legal loophole") environmentalists that CO2 is a polutant!"...
... whereupon you're expected to think... 'Huh, I didn't know that... oh dear I must be so behind the times to not know that CO2 is a polutant, because I have to trust nameless environmentalists that I've never head of, don't I?'
Then it's followed by disproving that very statement which they just fed into your head, in order to make you feel like you were lied to by people you've never met,
i.e. "But CO2 is NOT a polutant! It's essential to plant life!"...
... whereupon you're expectred to think... 'darn those environmentalists for messing up my head like that! I'm going to keep driving my gas-guzzling car because my roses will love me more if I do!'
It's really a sick art, and only people who are evil or who are extremely desperate for money do double-spinning for a trade like that.
| Asker's Rating: |
• Not a complete answer I was looking for, but addressed the question.
Permalink | Report
Reply
Other Answers (5)
September 25, 2009 12:52 PM
It depends on context, the position of the observer. One organism's pollutant is another's source of life. One technical-rational view is that CO2 is a diluent, not a pollutant. From the vantage point of the alveoli, it must be purged and replaced with oxygen, and could be thought of as a pollutant, or on the other hand, as a marker for telling cueing our next breath. Gaia doesn't care, as she simply experiences it and adapts. For some oil companies it is a harmless byproduct of clean combustion. One man's rain is another man's drought (Guy Clark).
Permalink | Report
Reply
September 25, 2009 01:23 PM
Hey, here is two facts...see these.. CO2 is must needed to live but when it is up to general label...it should count as pollutant.
They said that"CO2 is green" yeah they are right...why? because without 'CO2' plants can not grow and if plants are symbol of green so they said that 'co2' is green.
But I also can say"CO2 is red" .......why? because now co2 is a great warning(climate change) for us and if red is color of alert so 'co2' is red. Not yeah???
I think now it is not time to debate that it is a pollutant or not...now it is high time to control co2 growth.
Permalink | Report
Reply
September 25, 2009 02:53 PM
It's all about balance. Too little CO2 and the plants have a hard time breathing. Too much CO2 and the globe starts warming up. The problem is, our CO2 is growing and we keep eradicating areas of green for our more favored color of gray (cities, parking lots, roads, etc; how sad). Some people even go so far as to dig up all the grass in their yard and use astroturf or some kind of fake rubber grass instead. (How lazy can you be, seriously!?) Anyway, we need to do two things; lower our CO2 emissions AND protect what trees, plants, areas of green, etc we still have left, both of which modern society has a hard time wrapping their brains around for fear of having to sacrifice a little. This isn't all America's fault. The South American rain forest, known as the "lungs of the Earth," is being cut down at alarming rates due to the absence of regulations of such like we have here in the US. I believe the last number I heard was 6,000 acres per second are cut down to make farm and cattle grazing land.
Permalink | Report
Reply
stanar
September 25, 2009 08:21 PM
My question is specifically about the new ad that they showing on the network TV. This contradicts everything related to global warming.
Tip stanar for this comment
Report
September 26, 2009 01:13 AM
Well, it depends on how you look at it. If you look at it as a chief component to photosynthesis, then it's not a pollutant. But when you look at it as a contributory factor in global warming then it's totally a different thing. Check this link: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0829-02.htm Peace!
Source(s):
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0829-02.htm
Permalink | Report
Reply
September 27, 2009 08:51 PM
CO2 is not a pollutant, it's just too much of a good thing. CO2 levels would have to really, really, really drop in order to inhibit plant growth. By labeling it as a pollutant, it becomes a convenient way to track, tax and penalize for excessive creation of it. Some regulation is needed, obviously, but on the other side encouraging industry and just every day people to sequester carbon (that is take it out of the system and trap it) will probably fair better to solve the problem of too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
The ancient people of South America sequestered carbon in the soil for the purpose of increasing soil fertility. Wow, sequester carbon and increase soil fertility. What a concept.
Source(s):
http://www.organic-raised-bed-gardening.com/terra_preta.html
Permalink | Report
Reply
Answer this Question
Related Questions
No questions found.
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- ranjanrhl, November 25, 2009 11:52 AM
- oticketcpatrick, November 25, 2009 11:18 AM
- simswebdesigns, November 25, 2009 10:54 AM
- crewcarlo, November 25, 2009 10:43 AM
- tanweer, November 25, 2009 09:33 AM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
