Weren't our automotive engines forced to change in the 70's to only give off harmless CO2, H2O and sulfur to avert the pending ice age? Now CO2 from engines is bad and helping global warming?
I understand we gotta worry about the Earth becoming a second sun but is it really wise to exchange that for a inevitable ice age in 40 years?
I vote we go back to horse and buggy. Or, better yet, those nifty person-drawn carriage they got all over Asia. That way we won't piss off PETA and they can get back to killing puppies they don't think should be in people's homes.
CO2 is required for plant life. In fact, for many plants, the more there is the faster they grow. Some pollutant!
If CO2 is a pollutant (makes plants grow, traps some outgoing IR) then so is water (makes plants grow, traps some outgoing IR). Is the EPA going to start regulating water too? What about methane?
Right, too much of anything can be bad. Does that mean the EPA should regular EVERYTHING?
Too much nitrogen is not fatal, as far as I know. 100% Nitrogen is fine for humans. Of course, 100% nitrogen means 0% Oxygen, and THAT's not good. But it's not Nitrogen's fault if there's no Oxygen around.
As for water, you're right. We should ban Dihydrogen Monoxide today! It kills many people.
Nicholas, I meant, obviously, of fixed nitrogen. Plants, and animals, do not use the gas directly since it is mostly inert.
I assume you have no problem with the regulations preventing an industry from dumping millions of tons ammonia and nitrates into our lakes and rivers.
Or maybe you do. Ammonia and nitrates are commonly found in rain after all. Its there already, its natural, it can't be a pollutant, can it? Of course it can.
If you dump a bunch of concentrated salt water into the ocean you kill fish and plants there, so we regulate desalination plants, to continue the water example. And thats just the same ocean water that went in.
I assume you have no problem with the regulations preventing an industry from dumping millions of tons ammonia and nitrates into our lakes and rivers.
I don't know what effect millions of tons of ammonia and nitrates would have if they were dumped in a lake or a river. It depends on the size of the lake/river, what time period they would be dumped over, how those substances affect the toxicity of the water, etc. I have no problem with "dumping millions of tons of ammonia and nitrates" into a body of water if it's done in such a way that it's unlikely to cause any significant harm.
So I guess the question that arises is that, given that pretty much anything can cause harm in the wrong place or in large enough quantities - what ISN'T a pollutant and what SHOULDN'T be regulated?
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question - is water in the atmosphere considered pollution? If I cause water to evaporate, am I polluting?
Weren't our automotive engines forced to change in the 70's to only give off harmless CO2, H2O and sulfur to avert the pending ice age? Now CO2 from engines is bad and helping global warming?
Actually some people still thought smoking was okay for you. Also people thought margarine was good for you and prevented heart disease when in fact it probably contributes to it. So people back then were less knowledgable than they are today due to a thing called "learning".
I understand we gotta worry about the Earth becoming a second sun but is it really wise to exchange that for a inevitable ice age in 40 years?
I vote we go back to horse and buggy. Or, better yet, those nifty person-drawn carriage they got all over Asia. That way we won't piss off PETA and they can get back to killing puppies they don't think should be in people's homes.
If CO2 is a pollutant (makes plants grow, traps some outgoing IR) then so is water (makes plants grow, traps some outgoing IR). Is the EPA going to start regulating water too? What about methane?
Too much nitrogen is not fatal, as far as I know. 100% Nitrogen is fine for humans. Of course, 100% nitrogen means 0% Oxygen, and THAT's not good. But it's not Nitrogen's fault if there's no Oxygen around.
As for water, you're right. We should ban Dihydrogen Monoxide today! It kills many people.
I assume you have no problem with the regulations preventing an industry from dumping millions of tons ammonia and nitrates into our lakes and rivers.
Or maybe you do. Ammonia and nitrates are commonly found in rain after all. Its there already, its natural, it can't be a pollutant, can it? Of course it can.
If you dump a bunch of concentrated salt water into the ocean you kill fish and plants there, so we regulate desalination plants, to continue the water example. And thats just the same ocean water that went in.
I don't know what effect millions of tons of ammonia and nitrates would have if they were dumped in a lake or a river. It depends on the size of the lake/river, what time period they would be dumped over, how those substances affect the toxicity of the water, etc. I have no problem with "dumping millions of tons of ammonia and nitrates" into a body of water if it's done in such a way that it's unlikely to cause any significant harm.
So I guess the question that arises is that, given that pretty much anything can cause harm in the wrong place or in large enough quantities - what ISN'T a pollutant and what SHOULDN'T be regulated?
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question - is water in the atmosphere considered pollution? If I cause water to evaporate, am I polluting?
I thought my answer would have been obvious, its the same as yours. It depends on its ramifications.
Ah, I see now that you are looking for a definition of pollutant that totally disregards its effect on the environment. Beats me why.
Plants don't like extra CO2 in the air because it BURNS THEM!
Actually some people still thought smoking was okay for you. Also people thought margarine was good for you and prevented heart disease when in fact it probably contributes to it. So people back then were less knowledgable than they are today due to a thing called "learning".