CO2 – POISON OR ESSENTIAL GAS?

Some Science Basics

'To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant.' (Robert Balling, as quoted by Popular Technology)

My Education

I never really thought about CO2 until in college where we studied the dark cycle of photosynthesis.  Basically, we breathe in O2 and exhale CO2.  Plants do the reverse, making us both dependent on each other.  If we were to deplete CO2 (and perhaps cut population), we would have fewer plants.  CO2 is produced by us and animals, the burning of fossil fuels and wood, and fermentation.  It is naturally occurring and the average level is 400ppm in the atmosphere.

One time, when I panicked about something, a friend gave me a paper bag and instructed me to breathe into the bag.  What you do is rebreathe your CO2 which has a calming effect.  You don’t do it for long; too long and you won’t feel as good, which is why long-term mask-wearing or wearing a mask during exercise can make you feel ill.  The signs of having a little too much CO2 are dizziness, headache and fatigue.  But poisoning is very rare. Just like everything, balance is important.  We need O2 and CO2 in our air to survive.

What is a Pollutant?

In general, we define pollutants as contaminants that dirty the environment.  As such, CO2 is not a pollutant any more than water is a pollutant.  If you drink too much water, you can literally drown yourself—it takes a LOT to do this, but it is possible.  Pollutants are generally things that aren’t good in any amount, such as sulphur dioxide. 

What’s Good about CO2?

Beyond the above benefits, a bit more CO2 will give you more crops.  In many ecosystems, more CO2 increases productivity and in plants, it increases the water-use efficiency, which is critical in states like mine, where water storage lags as population grows.  It’s not the only factor, but a significant one.  Despite many studies to detect it, the increased CO2 levels don’t appear to have any health impacts on humans.

Why We Need Balance?

Growth in populations necessitates development of previously natural or agricultural areas.  This causes a depletion in the “carbon sink,” the aggregate base on life which depends on CO2.  More people and fewer plants translates to an increase in CO2.  Oddly, those who are alarmed about “climate change” ignore this aspect, instead focusing on reducing the increasing population’s footprint, an approach that rapidly leads to diminishing returns.  No one is going to be willing to return to a Stone Age lifestyle.  Balance means taking into account both sides of the equation, so that:

People’s CO2 = Plants ability to use it

While we look to be smarter about energy use, we need to also consider that we can’t ask people and animals to refrain from exhaling. 

Climate Change Reconsidered

When I was a kid, the scare story was the coming Ice Age.  Then, it was Global Warming.  Now, it’s “climate change,” a political rephrasing to cover all bets.  Doesn’t that concern anyone?

1.  Since recorded history (and certainly from the time of the Big Bang), climate has changed.  There have been many causes, but we are dealing with a defined ecosystem that will respond to a variety of changes in a variety of greenhouse gases, use of chemicals, number of people, etc.

2.  It’s not just Earth and its atmosphere.  Our fading sun, with its cycles, has immense impact on Earth, impacts we can neither alter nor influence.

3.  Most reports on the impact of proposed changes show that there will little or no impact.  Very high cost and impact to all of us, but little benefit. Modelers do not consider population and in fact, try to avoid mentioning the impact of increasing numbers of humans on the Earth.   But it is an important point which must be considered. The reason it isn’t is purely political, which is not the way a scientific problem should be considered.

4.  Restrictions and rules will probably never have a measurable effect.  In reality, a tendency to consider community and nation as important factors in life choices has diminished considerably over time, as the recent reluctance to get vaccinated has proven.  Like it or not, the kinds of sacrifices the Greatest Generation made in WWII are not likely to be seen again in a world where people’s focus in on their short-term pleasure.  It would be great to believe this can change, but the short-lived community spirit after 9/11 dwindled too rapidly to believe we will see a resurgence.

Politics is Poison

There’s one way we could hope to change things—by getting politics out of science.  Politicians, on the whole, have no training in science and rely on the latest “reveal,” rather than taking a look under the hood of a study to determine if it actually proves anything.  As such, letting them pick studies to fund results is a ridiculous wastes of money.

The past year and a half have demonstrated how allergic to science most politicians are.  Vaccines are bad if developed by Trump and any treatment recommendations cannot be considered.  But if it’s Biden’s watch, we should “follow the science.”  Neither man has the credentials to make these policies.  If we could get politicians and government out of the climate business, we stand a better chance of letting real scientists lead and finding a balance.