On September 8, 2019 at 11:32, Anthony said...
first of all when I said kills people I did not mean on the "global warming" side of it but on the more simplistic side. What would happen if you start your car in an enclosed room? why do we have smog alerts? CO2 but the other stuff that are part of the same process.
As for your point , it does not make sense you are assuming exclusivity when it does not need to be that way. You can't without water, but hold your head under water for long enough and you will be dead, you can't live without salt and some herbivores will travel miles to salt licks and some birds eat salt chucks but too much salt in your diet is detrimental to your health.
You, I and every other animal create CO2 by breathing the question is do we need a lot more of it (like burning stuff)
absolutely, that is why the expression the straw that broke the camel's back. there are many examples where something is balanced and just a small change has a large effect.
Part of the net-zero plans envisioned by the CCC (the UK's Committee on Climate Change) sees the large scale adoption of Hydrogen to replace Natural Gas. The electrolysis of water produces no 'harmful' by-products, but it's not scalable economically. The alternative is steam reformation of Natural Gas, but the process produces CO
2 as a by-product and is thus predicated on the development of a cost effective carbon capture and storage process and suitable storage sinks. However, my concern with such a plan is that large scale CO
2 storage sinks are environmental disasters in the making, such as the natural one which occurred at Lake Nyos in 1986.
A limnic eruption in the lake released several hundred thousand tons of CO
2, which descended onto the surrounding villages, suffocating 1,746 people and 3,500 livestock. In answer to your comment then. Yes, there are times when we can have too much of a good thing, but the order of magnitude you are talking about is far beyond the imagination of even the IPCC. For example, you comment on breathing, but are you aware that we inhale circa 400ppm CO
2, but exhale circa 40-50,000ppm, which was at one time (until other circumstances intervened) considered perfectly acceptable for artificial respiration?
CO
2 is not a pollutant, as you seem to imply, but an essential life-giving gas and plant fertiliser. Has one not even considered the possibility of the previous low levels being a CO
2 drought, rather than today’s level being an excess?
