Monday, August 13, 2007

A Followup Query to

I have sent, the David Suzuki linked Carbon-Credits site the following followup query:


"The pollutants we pump into our atmosphere are enhancing its ability to trap heat (the ‘greenhouse gas effect’) and increasing the earth’s temperature. Today's atmosphere contains 32 per cent more carbon dioxide, one of the main greenhouse gases, than at the start of the industrial era."

On what grounds do you consider carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring substance, a "pollutant"?


Stay tuned for the answer.


Anonymous said...

I just came across this old post when searching for info on Did they ever get back to you on this?

Following on from your logic I suppose you wouldn't class mercury as a pollutant as it's naturally occurring?

That's great because I've got several tonnes of it and need to dump it somewhere. As it's naturally occurring and therefore not a pollutant you won't mind it going directly in your water supply?

RkBall said...

You make a good point. You should work for

However, Mercury is a poison and therefore a pollutant; CO2 is not.

I should have said something like naturally-occurring, non-poisonous, and generally beneficial -- like water.

Even water, ingested in extremes, can be fatal. But I wouldn't worry too much about a process that creates "excess" water vapour.

I posted somewhere on CO2 and a billiard ball analogy. If you do a search on the site and find it, it's worth a read.

What are your views on Michael Mann Nobel Peace Prize Winner's suit against Mark Steyn et al?

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"