CO2 is Green
(→A simple counter-argument) |
|||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
The CO<sub>2</sub> is Green group seems to have no concept that too much of a needed substance can be a bad thing. If you have friends who believe the arguments of the CO<sub>2</sub> is Green group, you can try to explain the error of their beliefs this way: | The CO<sub>2</sub> is Green group seems to have no concept that too much of a needed substance can be a bad thing. If you have friends who believe the arguments of the CO<sub>2</sub> is Green group, you can try to explain the error of their beliefs this way: | ||
| − | :There is a claim that humans need to drink 3.5 liters (about one gallon) of water per day. If this is true,<ref>Some claim that this is nothing but a form of [[food woo]] | + | :There is a claim that humans need to drink 3.5 liters (about one gallon) of water per day. If this is true,<ref>Some claim that this is nothing but a form of [[food woo]]. But since it's a popular [[meme]], let's use it anyway.</ref> then is it also true that drinking 35 liters (ten gallons) per day is ten times as good? Is drinking 350 liters (about 100 gallons) per day 100 times as good? |
This may not convince them of their error at first, but you will have introduced to them the concept that living things can indeed overdose on needed substances. | This may not convince them of their error at first, but you will have introduced to them the concept that living things can indeed overdose on needed substances. | ||
Revision as of 16:42, 5 April 2011
| Not just a river in Egypt |
| A dirty dozen gems |
CO2 is Green, along with its sister organization Plants Need CO2, is a global warming denialist pressure group in the United States lobbying against the classification of carbon dioxide as a pollutant. These organizations argue that since carbon dioxide is a vital chemical for plant life, more of it can only be a good thing, and that any reduction in CO2 output would be harmful to the ecosystem and the economy - a view seen as complete and utter horseshit by anyone with any experience or knowledge of atmospheric chemistry or climate change.
Contents |
Background
Unsurprisingly, the CO2 is Green and Plants Need CO2 groups are the creation of fossil fuel industry fat cats: specifically Leighton Steward, retired vice chairman of Burlington Resources oil and gas company, and Corbin J Robertson Jr, chief executive of Natural Resource Partners, a coal resourcing corporation, both based in Houston, Texas.[1] Both organizations have applied for 501(C)(4) non-profit organization status, which would class them as charities and make donations tax-deductible.[2][3]
CO2 is Green, with its aim of "educating" the public on the alleged dangers of reduced carbon emissions, has launched newspaper and television adverts in several states.[4] The TV ads feature a montage of aesthetically chosen nature film footage and a soothing voiceover affirming that "higher CO2 levels than we have today would help the earth's ecosystems and support more plant and animal life".[5]
The CO2 website urges readers to write to their Senator, Congressman, and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, protesting against the classification of CO2 as a pollutant.
Bullshit claims
There are two central claims made by the CO2 is Green pressure group; firstly, that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and secondly that more of it will make the world better. Both are very wrong - at best they are simplifications of real science and twisted semantic; at worse, they are outright deceitful claims.
Not a pollutant
The adverts claim that "there is no scientific evidence that CO2 is a pollutant". Of course, there is actually plenty of scientific evidence to show the effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere. The definition of a "pollutant", however, is a complicated issue to address.
If we define a pollutant as something actively and instantly harmful, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. If we define it as something that can cause environmental problems and destabilize natural equilibriums when in non-normal concentrations, it certainly is a pollutant. We suspect that CO2 is Green are certainly playing around with their definitions when they make this claim. The nature and activity of a pollutant is also certainly dependent on concentration, bioaccumulation, and other factors - even the most harmful substances in the world will have little or no effect in sufficiently small doses.
More carbon dioxide is good
That's right folk, the sun is cooling the earth. Quick, use lots more carbon fuels before it's too late!
The second claim - that more CO2 will benefit the world - is patently false. It has absolutely no backing in science or reality. In the case of CO2, it's not that the molecule itself is a dangerous pollutant or actively harmful, but rather that high concentrations of it have a much different effect than low concentrations. CO2 may be "plant food" in the basic, Sunday-school version of how carbon cycles around the Earth, but this emphatically does not mean that more is better. Indeed, an increase in atmospheric concentration will accelerate the greenhouse effect, warming the planet; and plants will hardly be in need of all this extra food if they're all dying because the climate is changing too quickly.
For examples, vitamin C is definitely good for you, but eating your own weight in oranges will just cause the body to excrete the excess as it isn't needed, and in the worst-case scenario you could overdose on the substance and suffer very ill effects. In a more relevant example, you do need a small amount carbon dioxide in your blood. This can be found in the blood around muscle tissue and, due to the changes in pH by the presence of carbonic acid, displaces oxygen from hemoglobin. Without the carbon dioxide there, oxygen wouldn't unload out of the blood and into the cells and respiration would not occur - CO2 is good for you! In higher concentrations, however, carbon dioxide stays loaded onto hemoglobin and it's presence in the blood causes oxygen to be loaded onto hemoglobin less efficiently - more CO2 is certainly not good for you.
Finally, plants are not the only sink for carbon dioxide. Most of it is permanently stored by being dissolved in the oceans. As the oceans warm up, the solubility of gases goes down (this is the reverse situation of the solubility of solids) and the oceans can't absorb as much CO2 - so there'll be more of the gas in the atmosphere. What causes an increase in temperature? More of the gas in the atmosphere. So the cycle continues in a positive feedback loop, made worse by the increase in water vapor (due to higher temperatures) which is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.
A simple counter-argument
The CO2 is Green group seems to have no concept that too much of a needed substance can be a bad thing. If you have friends who believe the arguments of the CO2 is Green group, you can try to explain the error of their beliefs this way:
- There is a claim that humans need to drink 3.5 liters (about one gallon) of water per day. If this is true,[6] then is it also true that drinking 35 liters (ten gallons) per day is ten times as good? Is drinking 350 liters (about 100 gallons) per day 100 times as good?
This may not convince them of their error at first, but you will have introduced to them the concept that living things can indeed overdose on needed substances.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ "New Groups Revive the Debate Over Causes of Climate Change", Stephen Mudson, Washington Post, September 25, 2009.
- ↑ See statements on both organisations' websites, as linked above.
- ↑ Media Matters Action Network - Oil & Coal Interests Launch "CO2 Is Green" Misinformation Campaign
- ↑ "CO2 is green: the TV advert making viewers choke", Leo Hickman, The Guardian Environment Blog, 28 September 2009.
- ↑ CO2 is Green video at YouTube.
- ↑ Some claim that this is nothing but a form of food woo. But since it's a popular meme, let's use it anyway.