guaranteed pricing for fruit and vegetable producers

[odyssey06]

I don't think carbon dioxide is a pollutant, scientifically speaking.
But we are a member state of the EU, and it does. And will fine us heavily accordingly.
So economically we need to treat it as a pollutant and those costs need to be factored into economic costs of agricultural production here.

 

[Purple]

No I don't. Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring and naturally prevalent gas that is essential for the existence of life.

And please don't swear. For starters, it's against AAM posting guidelines.

Most of the pollution we create is made up of naturally occurring elements. It is the amount and concentration of it that we produce that makes it pollution.
Cow excrement is naturally occurring but I don't think anyone would describe tons of it being dumped into a stream as anything other than pollution.

And please don't swear. For starters, it's against AAM posting guidelines.

Since when is praying swearing? For the love of God, I don't know what the world's coming to...

 

[T McGibney]

Cow excrement is naturally occurring but I don't think anyone would describe tons of it being dumped into a stream as anything other than pollution.

But carbon dioxide doesnt pollute anything. Comparing it to slurry dumped in a stream aptly illustrates the nonsense of claiming otherwise.

 

[Purple]

But carbon dioxide doesnt pollute anything. Comparing it to slurry dumped in a stream aptly illustrates the nonsense of claiming otherwise.

CO2 released by human activity pollutes the atmosphere, increasing the atmospheric CO2 levels and thereby contributing to the Greenhouse Effect. It is different to slurry in that its impact is global and endangers life as we know it. So yes, it is different; it is far worse.

 

[T McGibney]

CO2 released by human activity pollutes the atmosphere, increasing the atmospheric CO2 levels and thereby contributing to the Greenhouse Effect. It is different to slurry in that its impact is global and endangers life as we know it. So yes, it is different; it is far worse.

Again:
CO2. is. not. a. pollutant.

Inhaling or imbibing slurry can kill you within seconds. CO2, on the other hand, is safe and actually facilitates life. The comparison is fatuous.

 

[Purple]

Again:
CO2. is. not. a. pollutant.

Inhaling or imbibing slurry can kill you within seconds. CO2, on the other hand, is safe and actually facilitates life. The comparison is fatuous.

I'm not going around in circles with this but your position is nonsensical.
When we add the right amount of Chlorine to water we make it safe to drink. When we add too much it becomes a pollutant.
When we add the right amount of carbon to steel it makes it harder and better. When we add too much it becomes a pollutant.

The same with CO2 in the atmosphere; it should be between 280 and 350 parts per million, above that it is a pollutant.
If we take the definition of pollutant as a substance that causes instability or discomfort to an ecosystem then what else can our high emissions be?

 

[T McGibney]

I'm not going around in circles with this but your position is nonsensical.
When we add the right amount of Chlorine to water we make it safe to drink. When we add too much it becomes a pollutant.
When we add the right amount of carbon to steel it makes it harder and better. When we add too much it becomes a pollutant.

The same with CO2 in the atmosphere; it should be between 280 and 350 parts per million, above that it is a pollutant.
If we take the definition of pollutant as a substance that causes instability or discomfort to an ecosystem then what else can our high emissions be?

We were talking about slurry as a pollutant, yet its deleterious effects persist even in small concentrations. That's why it causes mayhem when added to rivers and lakes where it is diluted to tiny concentrations.

The claimed pollutant effects of CO2 at 350 ppm (however contested these actually are) are not remotely comparable with the pollutant effects of slurry.

 

[Purple]

The claimed pollutant effects of CO2 at 350 ppm (however contested these actually are) are not remotely comparable with the pollutant effects of slurry.

I know; it's far worse.

 

[T McGibney]

I know; it's far worse.

You won't die or get violently ill if you are temporarily exposed to air containing 351 ppm CO2.

 

[Purple]

You won't die or get violently ill if you are temporarily exposed to air containing 351 ppm CO2.

Yea, I know.
So what?

 

[T McGibney]

Yea, I know.
So what?

Again: CO2 and agricultural slurry are not remotely comparable as alleged/conditional and actual pollutants respectively.

Which is where we were fadó fadó when you insisted in conflating them.

 

[Purple]

Again: CO2 and agricultural slurry are not remotely comparable as alleged/conditional and actual pollutants respectively.

Which is where we were fadó fadó when you insisted in conflating them.

You can make the same point as many times as you like but it is still nonsense. They are both considered pollutants.
More here.

 

[T McGibney]

You can make the same point as many times as you like but it is still nonsense. They are both considered pollutants.
More here.

Your source confesses

How we choose to define the word 'pollutant' is a play in semantics.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

My point, that slurry and CO2 are not comparable as actual or potential pollutants, stands.

 

[Purple]

My point, that slurry and CO2 are not comparable as actual or potential pollutants, stands.

We're not going to agree on this so maybe just leave it.