Our PM says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Our PM says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

I'm still waiting for the ice age.....

Yeah, me too. Of course, that will be the cause of global warming too.

 

[Jersay]

We are still headed for an ice age. Because of global warming it could be the worst ice age in world history from what they have calculated because of global warming.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

The only thing disingenous around here is the supporters of Kyoto...

No, it's still disingenuous (and specious, don't forget specious) to pretend carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant just because it occurs naturally. It *is* a greenhouse gas, it *is* implicated in global warming, and the data indicate the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been rising approximately since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

... but let's not confuse global warming with pollution. If that was the case... .

The logic of that paragraph escapes me. Global warming is one consequence of certain kinds of pollution, i.e. excess greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide and methane, in the atmosphere. What's to confuse?

And what about that lead poisining?

Okay, so what about it? What's it got to do with the PM's and your erroneous claim that carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant?

 

[Vicious]

RE: Our PM says carbon di

All those who think Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant please put up your hand. Now take you hand and put it over your nose and mouth and don't allow yourself to exhale cause that would be polluting.

Carbon monoxide = poison
Carbon dioxide = breathing

 

[BitWhys]

RE: Our PM says carbon di

I do consider the debate over definitions rather beside the point but since you asked...

listen (pdf)

:hello2:

 

[BitWhys]

... By the way, has anyone even seen one of these "credits" we are supposed to be buying, and if so, where does it fit on some emitting problem? No one has answered this question, and I have raised it on many occasions. What do we get when we buy credits?

something like this

you must have missed it.

... And how are these magical credits supposed to reduce emissions in Canada? And what does, say, Russia, do with the money we give them for these magical things? ...

they don't. they're a last resort which can be avoided. Russian, say, companies earn the credits by exceeding their requirements. this affords an adjustment to the bottom line.

... Give Harper time...

Ambrose claimed to have a "very thorough policy for the environment" at the end of January last year. That's plenty of time already.

...the auto industry is exempt...

The auto industry is signed on to an MoU to reduce emissions by 5.3 Megatons relative to projections of "business as usual".

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Our PM says carbon di

All those who think Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant please put up your hand. Now take you hand and put it over your nose and mouth and don't allow yourself to exhale cause that would be polluting.

Carbon monoxide = poison
Carbon dioxide = breathing

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I take it from this that you'd be perfectly alright with replacing all the atmospheric nitrogen with carbon dioxide? It's just a harmless, naturally occurring gas, right?

 

[Karlin]

See what happened here?

This thread starts off with really great posts, pointing out the stupidity of dismissing global warming on the basis that CO2 is used by plant life.

Then albertahump and some other newbie plant send their "distraction posts" and we all get off on a tangent of personal insults.

It was going so well, with 95% of the replies giving a good projection of Canadian opinion. The overwhelming majority demands our politicians start addressing global warming, and that using hydrocarbons as the only energy source is going against our better judgement.

WE are supposed to be represented, not dictated to, by our elected politicians; the goals of the minority conservative side - favouring industry and corporations over the rights of citizens - are displacing the goals of the majority.

 

[drose]

http://www.dfat.gov.au/environment/climate/

The Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate is a collaboration between six developed and developing countries to address energy, climate change and air polution issues within a paradigm of economic development. The Partnership includes all major emitters and focuses on practical action to develop and deploy low-emissions technologies. Partnership countries (Australia, China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea and the United States) acount for about half of the world's GDP, population, energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.

It recognises that climate change actions should complement, and not frustrate, economic development and energy security goals. The Partnership will not set arbitrary targets and will focus on developing and deploying new technologies that will put economies on low-emissions trajectories. This initiative is complementary to the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol, G8 climate activities and regional initiatives such as the APEC Energy Working Group and the Australian sponsored APEC Climate and Business Workshop (Seoul, April 2005).

A real response to human contributions to greenhouse gas overabundance?

Makes more sense, at least on the surface, than that Kyoto nonsense.

 

[Jersay]

That is a bunch of BS. What has it done really show me evidence that this proposal that is only in the interest of business and not the environment is improving anything.

 

[drose]

So a proposal that is intended to cut greenhouse emissions in conjunction with Kyoto and other protocols and has the cooperation of the governments of half the world's population is BS and not improving anything?

Since "business" is the prime producer of greenhouse gasses, I presume that "business" will have to cooperate in their reduction.

The US, which rightly has neglected to sign on to the Kyoto protocol is at least doing something to limit greenhouse emissions. Surely that has to be "in the interest" of the environment?

 

[bluealberta]

Bit Whys gave me a link to refer to about purchasing credits. Here is the paragraph about that issue:

4. Compliance
Installations must meet their targets by reducing emissions or by buying allowances which can be surrendered against their target. A forthcoming proposal will also allow (with some limitations) for units from CDM and JI to be substituted for allowances. Installations without sufficient allowances to cover their emissions will pay a direct financial penalty (40 Euro per tonne CO2 from 2005-7, 100 Euro thereafter) and have to make up the deficit in subsequent commitment periods. For installations that have a surplus of allowances, member states may (and probably will) allow banking.

I added the bold part. So I ask again, how does buying credits reduce emissions? Answer: It doesn't. So to reduce an emission target we buy credits, which then offset the emission target, but actually do nothing to reduce emissions. Then if we don't buy enough credits to cover our emissions, we pay a fine. So we either give another country a bunch of money in order to reduce our targets, but not our emissions, or pay a fine.

Question: Why not keep all that money used to either buy credits or pay fines in Canada, and use it to actually do something to reduce emissions?

Nothing in this paragraph or that link changes my opinion that this is nothing more than a wealth transfer system. Thanks, Bit, for making my point, I really appreciate it.

 

[BitWhys]

Question: Why not keep all that money used to either buy credits or pay fines in Canada, and use it to actually do something to reduce emissions?

That was one of the programs Ambrose has either axed or has on the block. Ask her.

 

[Mogz]

RE: Our PM says carbon di

pol·lut·ant

Something that pollutes, especially a waste material that contaminates air, soil, or water.


con·tam·i·nate
tr.v. con·tam·i·nated, con·tam·i·nat·ing, con·tam·i·nates

1. To make impure or unclean by contact or mixture.
2. To expose to or permeate with radioactivity.

Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant. As was said above, it's a gas emission. We expel it, trees use it, it's part of the cicle of life ladies and gentlemen. Examples of TRUE pollutants:

Sulphur Dioxide
Nitrogen Oxide
Hydrocarbons
Carbon Monoxide
Freon

 

[BitWhys]

RE: Our PM says carbon di

I take it you don't think the acidification of the ocean constitutes contamination.

 

[Jay]

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6164

Ken Caldeira, a chemical oceanographer at California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who was not involved in the research, says the new studies may help inform a debate about whether to actively remove CO2 from the air and store it in the ocean.

"It's clear that putting more CO2 into the ocean would help global warming but there would be some biological cost associated with that," he told New Scientist. "It's not clear whether or not there would be a net benefit."

Interesting idea.

 

[Jay]

I heard on CBC radio, about 1-2 months ago, about a certain animal that had the ability to absorb huge amounts of CO2, and could be farm raised for meat.....anyone else hear about this?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Our PM says carbon di

1. To make impure ...

Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant

Seems to me that "to make impure" covers it. Ozone is also a naturally occurring gas, there's a layer of it in the upper atmosphere that filters out most of the solar ultraviolet. Up there it's a good thing. At ground level it's one of the more corrosive constituents of smog, i.e. at ground level, it's a pollutant. Excess carbon dioxide is similarly a pollutant. Everything on your list of "true pollutants" also occurs naturally, except freon. The pollutant nature of those things arises from concentration, not simply their existence.

You "carbon dioxide is not a pollutant" types are just trying to define an issue out of existence so you won't have to take it seriously. Nit-picking definitions aside, however, there's no denying that too much carbon dioxide is a bad thing, we're producing a lot of it, and normal processes in the environment, like the carbon cycle, may not be able to cope with it, leading to an excess in the atmosphere, a greenhouse effect, and assorted disruptions in plant and animal life. Call it what you like, that is what it does.

 

[aeon]

Stephen Harper[/url]]Mr. Speaker, I can explain the difference. The climate change agenda is principally about carbon dioxide, which is not a pollutant. The government is also concerned with pollutants such as nitrous oxides, sulphur dioxides and other organic compounds. There are differences and that is the difference.

I guess it depends on who you listen (pdf) to, but at least we know where Professor Tinkerputt is taking his cues from.

Well we have the proof right there, that our pm, is an idiot at the highest level, in the same lin as george w.

 

[BitWhys]

At least W used quotie things and qualified his conclusion by referencing the Clean Air Act. Must have better handlers.