O
OMNI-MAN
Guest
plants need co2. anti-co2 is anti environment! plant killers!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
B
ballz2wallz
Guest
No way, let's just tax breathing.
B
ballz2wallz
Guest
That's not what happens with CO2
B
ballz2wallz
Guest
Too much of anything will kill you. Doesn't make it bad.
F
FunkyMunniez
Guest
breathing credits will be issued this coming tax season. you can sell your credits to other people who want to/need to breathe more (ie fattys walking up stairs) and make a small profit for yourself. but god help you if you exceed your breathing credits. god help you.
F
FunkyMunniez
Guest
@ blaming THAT on CO2
S
Simius The Monkey
Guest
Hey guys! People breath out carbon dioxide so the EPA shouldn't be able to regulate companies pumping it out into the atmosphere. It is natural!
Likewise people shit out E. coli. The government shouldn't regulate how much E. coli dishes served in restaurants have. It is natural!
Likewise people shit out E. coli. The government shouldn't regulate how much E. coli dishes served in restaurants have. It is natural!
3
|3illy the |<
Guest
NCPA
The EPA isn't interested in CO2 because of affects on human health directly. They're concerned because of temperature and water conditions.
Experts, no doubt.
The EPA isn't interested in CO2 because of affects on human health directly. They're concerned because of temperature and water conditions.
Experts, no doubt.
H
hodd
Guest
smarter on the subject then 99% of the world.
T
The Internet
Guest
It depends on the timescale.
If you are asking about the past century, we can say with great certainty that human activity is responsible for ~100% of the observed rise in CO2. Dishonest pundits point to the fact that there are other natural sources and sinks of CO2. The biosphere and the oceans are enormous sources of CO2. Volcanoes are much less important. However, those sources were roughly in balance with natural sinks in the centuries preceding the industrial revolution. It only takes a small imbalance, compounded over decades, to account for the observed increase from pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm to modern levels of 385 ppm.
How do we know that this increase is due to humans? Because fossil fuel burning leaves an isotopic fingerprint in the atmosphere. Combustion also depletes the atmosphere of trace amounts of oxygen. We observe both of these features over the past century.
If you are asking about the past century, we can say with great certainty that human activity is responsible for ~100% of the observed rise in CO2. Dishonest pundits point to the fact that there are other natural sources and sinks of CO2. The biosphere and the oceans are enormous sources of CO2. Volcanoes are much less important. However, those sources were roughly in balance with natural sinks in the centuries preceding the industrial revolution. It only takes a small imbalance, compounded over decades, to account for the observed increase from pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm to modern levels of 385 ppm.
How do we know that this increase is due to humans? Because fossil fuel burning leaves an isotopic fingerprint in the atmosphere. Combustion also depletes the atmosphere of trace amounts of oxygen. We observe both of these features over the past century.
3
|3illy the |<
Guest
Considering it's not peer reviewed and references absolutely nothing.
I'd beg to differ.
I'd beg to differ.
3
|3illy the |<
Guest
Don't worry bro, someone at NCPA told me this is good for the planet. Plants (despite increased urbanization and destruction of habitat) will flourish!!!
T
Tzuma
Guest
This was my first thought too.
T
The Internet
Guest
More CO2 = more plants. Nutrients, moisture and urbanization aren't part of the equation, bro.
3
|3illy the |<
Guest
Why do you hate nature?
T
TheRemains
Guest
Finally! No longer will I have to board an airplane and fly 10 hours down to the tropics. I can just sit and wait while the tropics come to me!