Your Voting Intention

[Left Coast]

I don't think it is. I don't consider CO2 to be a pollutant. Calling carbon dioxide a pollutant takes the attention away from the real pollutants.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is well-known and established scientifically. That is how it contributes to climate change.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'd like to ask if anybody regardless of political affiliation if they feel they are better off now then in the past in terms of economic and personal progress?

Perhaps you could first ask women "if they feel they are better off" before or with or without Roe v Wade or 50 to 129 million non-elderly Americans "if they feel they are better off" with or without the ACA or the tens of thousands of at risk people "if they feel they are better off" with or without DACA and TPS or ...

 

[crossfire]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is well-known and established scientifically. That is how it contributes to climate change.

It is not anything like a pollutant such as radioactive waste that will stay in the environment for a very long time. Rather, carbon dioxide is the main gateway of carbon sinking via photosynthesis by plants. The other main gateway to carbon sinking is having carbon dioxide gas dissolved in the oceans and eventually becomes calcium carbonate on the ocean floors. Other types of pollutants interfere with these carbon sink cycles, but no one wants to talk about them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I said "none." As someone who isn't an American citizen (or even resident), it would be illegal for me to vote in your election.

I won't be voting either, for exactly the same reason.

Given that the purpose of the pole was likely to see how the forum's registered voters might vote, I'm curious as to why you voted "none" rather than "other". After all, choosing not to vote and not having such a choice are considerably different.

 

[Secret Chief]

I'm curious as to why you voted "none" rather than "other".

I haven't voted in the poll.

 

[Callisto]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is well-known and established scientifically. That is how it contributes to climate change.

I think the other person may be attempting to argue that it's not a pollutant because it is, in part, naturally occurring, However, it's not in natural occurring levels that is the issue here. Human CO2 emissions have exponentially increased the amount so much that it's had significant, harmful impacts globally, thus CO2 in such excessive amounts is a pollutant. When an imbalance occurs, there's usually a negative impact and the source needs to be curtailed. Deer are natural but they need to be routinely culled otherwise they rapidly overpopulate and have a negative impact on the surrounding ecosystem. Alcohol occurs naturally and can be helpful, too much in one's system results in alcohol poisoning. It makes no sense to get hung up on semantics, the fact remains CO2 levels have reached dangerous levels and is a global problem.

 

[crossfire]

I think the other person may be attempting to argue that it's not a pollutant because it is, in part, naturally occurring, However, it's not in natural occurring levels that is the issue here. Human CO2 emissions have exponentially increased the amount so much that it's had significant, harmful impacts globally, thus CO2 in such excessive amounts is a pollutant. When an imbalance occurs, there's usually a negative impact and the source needs to be curtailed. Deer are natural but they need to be routinely culled otherwise they rapidly overpopulate and have a negative impact on the surrounding ecosystem. Alcohol occurs naturally and can be helpful, too much in one's system results in alcohol poisoning. It makes no sense to get hung up on semantics, the fact remains CO2 levels have reached dangerous levels and is a global problem.

I disagree. It is the deforestation and pollution that is the problem, not the CO2. CO2 levels are currently at a historical low as compared to the geological timeline as a whole.

 

[Callisto]

I disagree. It is the deforestation and pollution that is the problem, not the CO2. CO2 levels are currently at a historical low as compared to the geological timeline as a whole.

Source?

CO2 levels have indeed fluctuated over the course of the earth's history. However, CO2 levels have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution and now we're at a point where the last time the levels were this high was before the arrival of modern man. So, we can't say it's ok, it's been this high before. One has to consider at what era, what life forms and ecosystems existed during those eras and the end results of those phases.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Given that the purpose of the pole was likely to see how the forum's registered voters might vote, I'm curious as to why you voted "none" rather than "other".

I took "other" to mean "other candidate besides Trump and Biden."

After all, choosing not to vote and not having such a choice are considerably different.

But both result in no vote... i.e. "none."

 

[Left Coast]

It is not anything like a pollutant such as radioactive waste that will stay in the environment for a very long time. Rather, carbon dioxide is the main gateway of carbon sinking via photosynthesis by plants. The other main gateway to carbon sinking is having carbon dioxide gas dissolved in the oceans and eventually becomes calcium carbonate on the ocean floors. Other types of pollutants interfere with these carbon sink cycles, but no one wants to talk about them.

"Pollutant" likely has a specific technical meaning in environmental science, and I don't know about that. I am confident that none of the things you mentioned are really relevant to whether CO2 contributes to climate change, which according to climatologists who have dedicated their careers to studying the question, it does. The main way to stop the trend of excess CO2 in the atmosphere is by not pumping so much of it up there, via reduction in use of fossil fuels.

 

[crossfire]

Source?

Plug "Geological Climate History" into your favorite search engine and you should get plenty of results. You will find that The Carboniferous period, roughly 360 million to 300 million years ago, had extremely low carbon dioxide levels, similar to the concentration of those today. Most of the rest of the geological epochs have much higher concentrations of CO2 than the present time.

CO2 levels have indeed fluctuated over the course of the earth's history. However, CO2 levels have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution and now we're at a point where the last time the levels were this high was before the arrival of modern man. So, we can't say it's ok, it's been this high before. One has to consider at what era, what life forms and ecosystems existed during those eras and the end results of those phases.

The CO2 levels have always been very low since the arrival of modern man, so low that they can only go up. (We are just a blip on the earth's timeline.) We are also in an interglacial period of an Ice Age, when climate changes rapidly.

 

[crossfire]

"Pollutant" likely has a specific technical meaning in environmental science, and I don't know about that. I am confident that none of the things you mentioned are really relevant to whether CO2 contributes to climate change, which according to climatologists who have dedicated their careers to studying the question, it does. The main way to stop the trend of excess CO2 in the atmosphere is by not pumping so much of it up there, via reduction in use of fossil fuels.

I would say that there are more important things to regulate than carbon dioxide, and that focusing solely on the carbon dioxide distracts attention away from the more important things that really need to be regulated.

 

[Callisto]

Plug "Geological Climate History" into your favorite search engine and you should get plenty of results. You will find that The Carboniferous period, roughly 360 million to 300 million years ago, had extremely low carbon dioxide levels, similar to the concentration of those today. Most of the rest of the geological epochs have much higher concentrations of CO2 than the present time.


The CO2 levels have always been very low since the arrival of modern man, so low that they can only go up. (We are just a blip on the earth's timeline.) We are also in an interglacial period of an Ice Age, when climate changes rapidly.

That's not countering what I posted.

 

[Left Coast]

I would say that there are more important things to regulate than carbon dioxide, and that focusing solely on the carbon dioxide distracts attention away from the more important things that really need to be regulated.

Regulators don't just focus on carbon dioxide. Many GHGs (methane, as another example) are regulated (though the Trump admin has rolled much of it back).

 

[crossfire]

That's not countering what I posted.

I was clarifying my position.

 

[crossfire]

Regulators don't just focus on carbon dioxide. Many GHGs (methane, as another example) are regulated (though the Trump admin has rolled much of it back).

Perhaps a better word would be "fixated" on CO2.

 

[Watchmen]

Just mirror images of each other.

When was the last time we saw real progression?

Not by collective data, but by real world personal experience. I'd like to ask if anybody regardless of political affiliation if they feel they are better off now then in the past in terms of economic and personal progress?

It seems there are still a lot of miserable people around to say things haven't really changed for the better.

Yes.

 

[fantome profane]

Most of the rest of the geological epochs have much higher concentrations of CO2 than the present time.


The CO2 levels have always been very low since the arrival of modern man, so low that they can only go up. (We are just a blip on the earth's timeline.) We are also in an interglacial period of an Ice Age, when climate changes rapidly.

This seems to indicate that relatively low levels of CO2 are necessary for humans to thrive on this planet. A conclusion supported by other evidence as well. We would be wise to do everything we can to keep these levels low.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Other - Jo Jorgensen

 

[crossfire]

This seems to indicate that relatively low levels of CO2 are necessary for humans to thrive on this planet. A conclusion supported by other evidence as well. We would be wise to do everything we can to keep these levels low.

Interglacial periods typically last 10,000 to 30,000 years. The current Holocene interglacial period we are now in began about 11,650 years ago. It is possible we are at a tipping point of either going back into a period of glaciation or into a superinterglacial. Which would be better? We can't guarantee maintaining the status quo forever, as change is the norm.
Glacial-Interglacial Cycles | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Loss of Antarctic ice could trigger super-interglacial