Ibon wrote:Plant
You me and Dohboi are exactly the same as these politicians.
No reason to single out politicians
Trudea's personal actions will lead to the release of millions more tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, with concomitant increases in global heating that will affect the entire planet.
rockdoc123 wrote:Currently Canada outputs 617 MMtonne of CO2/yr compared to the China at 2,397 MMtonne /yr
Wow, we pollute 1/4 as much as China with 1/37 the population!
rockdoc123 wrote:
If CO2 was actual "pollution" your claim would have to look at industrialization, vehicle use etc.
The use of Fossil fuels release CO2 which is classified as a "pollutant" by the EIA in the USA
rockdoc123 wrote: CO2 is something that life on earth requires, it is neither a contaminant, poison or toxin that makes air or water harmful by it's presence. It's affects are indirect, not direct.
Of course. But CO2 is also a greenhouse gas that is accumulating in the atmosphere and contributing to global heating. Thats why there is so much attention being paid to monitoring and hopefully limiting CO2 emissions into the atmosphere by the US and other countries.
Get it now?
Ibon wrote:Plant
You me and Dohboi are exactly the same as these politicians.
No reason to single out politicians
Plantagenet wrote:CO2 is also a greenhouse gas that is accumulating in the atmosphere and contributing to global heating. Thats why there is so much attention being paid to monitoring and hopefully limiting CO2 emissions into the atmosphere by the US and other countries.
rockdoc123 wrote: I was replying to Kieth_McClary who was claiming CO2 was a pollutant. There was no discussion about greenhouse gases.
I started this thread. If you'll actually read the posts in this thread you'll find that there actually is a lot of discussion about CO2 being a Greenhouse gas.
You can't discuss the designation of CO2 as a pollutant without considering the reason, i.e. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
it is neither a contaminant, poison or toxin that makes air or water harmful by it's presence. It's affects are indirect, not direct. You could classify an elephant as an ungulate if it fit your argument....doesn't mean it actually is one or ambulates in the same manner.
rockdoc123 wrote:It was a political ploy for EIA to classify it as a pollutant (allowed them to be in charge of managing it)
I suppose if you don't accept the scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then the classification of CO2 as a pollutant must seem political and even capricious. But once you understand the science involved and accept the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and releases of CO2 are changing the planet's climate then the classification of CO2 as a pollutant makes eminently good sense.
Report shows that Canada has the highest CO2 emissions per capita of any country in the G20
rockdoc123 wrote:.... moron.....
rockdoc123 wrote:So if the reason (you seem to think) that CO2 is a pollutant is that it is a greenhouse gas
rockdoc123 wrote: classify water as a pollutant?
rockdoc123 wrote:Report shows that Canada has the highest CO2 emissions per capita of any country in the G20
it is the CO2 per capita that is important in calculating out equilibrium climate sensitivity?
You're wrong on that as well.
So if the reason (you seem to think) that CO2 is a pollutant is that it is a greenhouse gas then I guess you would also classify water as a pollutant? Water vapor is the largest by volume of greenhouse gases and it, like CO2 is a requirement for life to exist on the planet.
rockdoc123 wrote:.... classify water as a pollutant?"
rockdoc123 wrote: As I have said there is no rationale whatsoever to claim CO2 is a pollutant. EIA may have classified it that way but you are playing the role of proud advocate for them.
rockdoc123 wrote: moron.
Return to North America Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests