Of course it is NOT a pollutant, it's an essential compound for life on the planet. Without CO2, just like oxygen, we would all be dead.
If you are going to say that CO2 is a pollutant because it helps warm the atmosphere then you have to remember that water vapor is more than 95% of the Greenhouse Effect --- that makes water a pollutant too. How nuts is that?
Well, it's so nuts that the EPA actually tried to declare water vapor a pollutant. http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/200...
It's silly nonsense like calling CO2 a pollutant that screams the whole AGW movement is POLITICAL and is NOT about science.
CO2 and more of it makes the plants grow faster, that means more food for a hungry world. And it's effect on temperature is miniscule and negligible.
heat and noise are pollutants and they exist naturally, so the argument that CO2, because it can derive from natural processes, is thus not a pollutant is false. A pollutant is something that comes from man's activity that alters the natural system in an adverse way. Like poison, pretty well everything is a pollutant when taken in excess. the only thing that matters is the limit of tolerance of the system into which the material is being added.
I don't much buy the argument that CO2 is being injected into the atmosphere-hydrosphere in amounts that exceed the ability of the system to operate without detrimental results, so I agree that CO2 isn't really a pollutant, but not at all because of your analogy to water (or you could argue that water IS a pollutant in certain situations, either way it is not because it CAN be produced by man and by nature that the thing is, of itself, a pollutant).
A substance like carbon monoxide is clearly a pollutant. The same cannot legitimately be said of carbon DIOXIDE. Let's get real here!! The argument has gotten so far out of hand, that one suspects some nutty agenda underneath it all. And, the dogma has the quality of the hysterical...like a nutty religious cult. BEWARE!!
I don't know why people persist with this stupid argument. If you dump something artificially created into the land, or water, or air, and it has adverse effects, of course it can be considered a pollutant. Why shouldn't it be?
I understand propagandists like populartechnology.net making this argument, but you have to be seriously logic impaired to buy into it.
EDIT for Sagebrush: I'm guessing you were never on a debate team, or you would realize you were making an argument FOR having CO2 as a pollutant, rather than against that. Yes, you can overdo it, that's the point--that's why it's classified as a pollutant.
Maxx seems to not understand that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is determined by temperature and availability of liquid water, not by how much water vapor is dumped into the atmosphere. That makes it essentially different than carbon dioxide. If you ever take a chemistry class Maxx, pay attention when they mention the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.
It's been a long time since you've asked a question that isn't pure garbage Kano.
Why would anyone give a thumbs down on Maxx's demonstration? Those have to be Demon inspired.
Just look at Peggy. She claims to be a PhD yet fails to realize you can over do anything. If she took all the CO2 out of her house, how long would her plants survive? Ha! Ha! Ha! You see what a mess this world is in. When we let people like that out in a free world, bad things happen.
It is not a pollutant. It is a food.
Your question is quite silly- a pollutant is a geographical term : a chemical at an unwanted concentration in the place it is found
Hint : you only use integers when you balance an equation. You also get water from combustion of hydrogen , phenol , wood , humans......so what
when a substance in in excess of normal levels, yes. Even sound can be noise pollution. in the case of CO2, we should be around 280PPM, we are clearly not.
And, yes I know we had 1000PPM before humans were around. the EPA determined it was a pollutent based on 'Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change', this was upheld by US courts.
I'm sure you've seen Apollo 13, CO2 posed a risk to astronauts, so it is certainly a pollutant in high concentrations.
Yes, CO2 definitely a pollutant. But, it has some other uses and those are essential uses. But, excess of CO2 in atmosphere is very harmful for the Eco-system.
The Wall Street Journal explains why it is considered an air pollutant by the EPA. [1]
Another reason why the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is a pollutant, is that it causes ocean acidification [2] by altering the natural balance.
Can you think of any other substances that we consider desirable and use today that are pollutants if they enter the biosphere in large enough quantities?
There are no pollutants, with the exception of hydrogen it was all made by stars and will one day go back to the stars.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html
Scientifically it doesn't' matter what we call it. It has the same properties regardless.
Yes it is ia considered a pollutant
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/09/20/epas...
http://nlquery.epa.gov/epasearch/epasear...
Water vapor is indeed the largest volume greenhouse gas but not man made
Maxx fill your home with CO2 and if you are still alive in a couple of days then tell us it isn't a pollutant
Kano Where do you get this crap science from??
