Truth To Power wrote:Who has denied that climate changes? Talk about lack of logic...
What on earth does that have to do with CO2, which is colorless, odorless and tasteless, and cannot be detected by human senses in any plausible atmospheric concentration??
What does any of that have to do with CO2, which is plant food, necessary to life, and not harmful in any plausible atmospheric concentration?
CO2 is not a pollutant, as it is not harmful in any plausible atmospheric concentration. Anti-CO2 hate propaganda is a distraction from real environmental (and economic) problems and their real solutions.
How is any of that relevant to CO2?
Please present your evidence that CO2 is harmful in any plausible atmospheric concentration.
Being real is not the same as being a problem. Try to understand the difference.
Relevance to CO2? Of course not.
TTP do not play like you do not know how to think. You are a very intelligent man but you are attached to ideas that for me are erroneous.
You know CO2 exists in the atmosphere naturally. Everything on Earth has a natural origin. That is not in dispute. The dispute is about human activity that modifies natural elements, refine them and then use them without being fully conscious of the long term effects on the environment. The reason behind a lack of long term effects is very simple. Greed.
Capitalism has at its core greed. Modernity requires fuel. To get from point A to point B with speed. That is part of why horses no longer are the main transportation systems.
So why did the car industry choose combustible engines? Because of greed. They had a choice long ago to go for electric vehicles. They chose not to have it because fossil fuels were plentiful, cheaper initially and they could profit faster with less time for initial investment.
All pollution that is concentrated has its origins in seemingly an innocent and commonly used human product. But that is the key. Humans using the product and refining it in ways that are harmful for animals, plants and the natural balance of ecological dependency.
So? To think that there aren't any consequences to all this human activity is completely erroneous TTP.
Coca leaves have been used by indigenous Incans for millennia. It is good to combat fatigue due to high elevation sickness in the terraces of the Altiplano in Peru and Bolivia, etc. But the problem becomes when it is taken out of its natural leaf form and refined. It loses a natural digestive quality and become concentrated and then it is much deadlier and can be easily dangerous in large concentrated doses.
The same with refined sugar. Cane sugar in its natural format and if chewed and or just the first squeeze called in Puerto Rico and in other sugar cane producing nations in Spanish is called guarapo
. If you drink it is has a lot of great minerals like copper, zinc, and magnesium among other minerals and vitamins. But if you refine sugar cane, boil it down and make it white crystals and granules? It becomes an empty concentrated calorie substance capable of preserving food and extending a long shelf life. It also hits the pancreas directly in human beings if drunk in liquid form and it induces over time diabetes among other diseases.
These examples are about how human beings modify and change something from nature that is not poisonous or bad for the body or environment and becomes a real problem due to a lack of studying the long terms effects and the need for greed instead.
Unless the entire system is redone to take into account human activity in the long term? You have serious problems.
That is common sense. It always will be.