a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
Oxygen is also a totally natural product, breathed out by trees. Of course, too rich a concentration of it is toxic, or to put it another way, a
Furthermore, yes, climate change DOES have something to do with pollution, for more reasons than this alone. If you pollute streams, rivers, and the
seas, with ANYTHING that ought not be in them, or ought not be in them in the concentrations involved, you wind up with dead fish, polluted river
basins, extinction of delicate species of plants, animals, and even the tiny planktons and other smaller lifeforms, which larger ones rely on for
their food. Killing off the smallest little animal in an ecology, can mean that the things which feed upon them also dwindle in number, or die off,
meaning that the things which prey upon them in turn ALSO are put at serious risk of extinction, by way of having too little to eat, and here is the
rub. Ever excretion, every drop of urine, every lump of excreta, every drop of animal blood, shed by other animals, nurtures the soil and the water.
The decomposing remains of a kill, the things the predators left behind, nourish the ground, putting nutrients into the soil, feeding bugs and
providing a rich source of volatiles for plants to grow from, to feed on. This has a measurable effect in terms of the health of trees and plants,
which , as you know, breathe out oxygen, in response to consuming CO2. Sounds like a solution there, right? Wrong. If the CO2 levels reach too high,
trees will be unable to process other nutrients they need, like nitrates in the soil for example, because the receptors they use to actually process
that nutrient will be saturated instead with CO2. Its an actual thing, and you ought to look it up.
So, unless you can ensure that there are soooooo many healthy, unthreatened trees, over soooooo much landmass, so as to make certain that the CO2
level is never so high that the trees are negatively effected by it (as we would be by an overabundance of oxygen, for example), then what you are
effectively doing is deliberately poisoning, polluting your environment, all because you simply failed to understand the biochemistry involved with
something as simple as the way trees work.
The problem here is that no one who stands against the drive to clean up the human races act, seems to have the slightest understanding of any of
these things. They believe, wrongly, that anything that was in the Earth, cannot harm the lifeforms and the ecology of the Earth. They believe, for no
reason other than the fact that people who make money from the ignorance of others have told them so, that you cannot pollute a thing, with chemicals
which occur naturally, despite the fact that arsenic, lead, uranium and other harmful substances, all occur naturally, but are DRASTICALLY pollutant,
when disposed of as byproduct of manufacture, and allowed to enter ecosystems which were never meant to deal with them.
Just as a rose in ones petunia patch is a weed, so is an overabundance of CO2, so is arsenic, so is lead a pollutant, as are many other chemicals
which, while they may appear in nature, are being pumped out of industry and destroying the habitats and ecologies which maintain the quality and the
stability of our atmosphere.
The reality is that you cannot damage any single part of an ecology, without risking the entire thing, and the ecology of this planet is what
maintains its atmosphere, which is what allows us to be protected from the worst of the suns fury, breath safely without mechanical assistance,
provides rain that our crops might grow, allows for the correct amount of heat to remain in the oceans and our air, not so much that we lose our polar
caps, but not so little that the Earth becomes a snowscape.
The Earth may produce CO2, but because it already does it, we should be limiting the increase in concentration that we are responsible for, not
throwing our hands up and saying "Ah, well, if the planet is doing it, screw it!"