First time CO2 emissions have dropped or stayed flat without a major economic downturn.
The cause of The Flattening?
This was the result of growing renewable power generation, switches from coal to natural gas, improvements in energy efficiency, as well as structural changes in the global economy.
This post has been reshared 2 times on Google+
View this post on Google+
CO2 is not a pollutant…
+Tonia Hall
https://media.giphy.com/media/Fjr6v88OPk7U4/giphy.gif
+Dustin Wyatt How can a gas that is food for plants and that all mammals exhale, that's part of the life cycle, be a pollutant?? It is NOT. Period.
But it is a metric of the efficiency of energy generation. It's a waste product containing wasted energy, and that's before you start considering climate effects. Reduction of CO2 output for the same energy use is a desirable goal economically too, unless you create other waste.
+Tonia Hall Oh, well then I guess we can just replace all the gases in our atmosphere with CO2. That's just hunky-dorey by your logic.
Just like with most things, everything exists in a balance.
CO2 proportion is the trigger for our breathing reflexes, so in extreme circumstances it is a very real problem.
CO2 is a waste gas for us. It's a food source for all the plants and algae on this planet. You can't just see one side.
CO2 is part of the life cycle and is necessary to life. Period!
+Tonia Hall No one sane in the world would disagree with any of those statements.
Also those statements mean nothing as to whether CO2 can be harmful to us.
+Dustin Wyatt My point is, we need it, therefore it's not a pollutant and you need to stop acting like it is. That's all.
+Tonia Hall So, your point is an extremely pedantic argument about when we should and should not call a substance a "pollutant"?
That seems like a weird hill to die.
CO2 in the right quantities is a pollutant just like most other substances. I'm unaware of any widely-used definition of "pollutant" that requires the substance under discussion to adversely affect the environment in all possible concentrations. Such a definition likely means nothing is a pollutant.
There are many substances that are a necessary part of life and the "life cycle" that any reasonable person would also call a pollutant in the right quantities. For a quick example, see sodium.
+Dustin Wyatt It's not a pollutant. Many things are harmful, as you say, including O2. It causes rust, right? So is it a pollutant, now? Of course not. Too much H2O destroys not only wildlife but the land itself. Is it a pollutant? Of course not.
You (and others) are declaring CO2 a pollutant for political reasons and that's just not right.
Yes, O2 is a pollutant in the right quantities. You are making up definitions that no one else uses.
from dictionary.com: "any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose"
I think a case can definitely be made that, in its impact on ocean acidification, it renders water harmful to various marine organisms.
Sea level right will render some coastal soil unsuitable the the specific purpose of supporting the buildings and infrastructure of a coastal settlement. So, although a little indirect, I think CO2 could be claimed as a pollutant for that impact
We might be able to identify impact on harmfulness of air via higher energy storms; but science is uncertain there so might be a little too indirect.
It is probably true that, thus far, it has had a net positive impact on crop yields; that said the yield curve will decline after around 2 degrees of warming. So it will become a pollutant for that purpose a few decades from now.
It's NOT a pollutant. The end. Muting.
Lol
Lol
Don't feed the trolls