In light of the EPA’s decision (at the behest of the U.S. Supreme Court) to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, a big push to oppose that listing is bubbling up from the plastic “roots” of AstroTurf Nation.
A group calling themselves CO2 Is Green is going public with a campaign to propagate one of the biggest misconceptions about the whole CO2 debate: Because it is biologically necessary for plant life, CO2 is, by extension, good for plants and animals, in any and all quantities. The problem with this logic, however, is that it focuses on the wrong scale entirely.
Put it this way, just like water is necessary for plant life to flourish, too much water can kill a plant, flood a field or a farm, and if there is enough of it, wipe out entire towns and cities. Just like CO2, water is a critical component of photosynthesis. But just because they are both necessary, we cannot make the logical leap that more is necessarily better.
Watch it:
“Congress is considering a law that would classify carbon dioxide as pollution. This will cost us jobs. There is no scientific evidence that CO2 is a pollutant. In fact, higher CO2 levels than we have today would help the earth’s ecosystems and would support more plant and animal life. Please take action. Contact your senator and congressman today and remind them CO2 is not pollution and more CO2 results in a greener earth. Go to CO2isgreen.com, because we all need CO2.”
![Sarah Palin Calls for Revolution at Tea Party Convention, Refers to Alaska as “Beacon of Hope” [Video]](http://ecopolitology.earthable.org/wp-content/themes/loak_v1_epoli/thumb.php?src=/blogs.dir/8/files/2010/02/palin_hand_inset_fix.jpg&h=145&w=145&zc=1&q=90)
![The Facts of Cap-And-Trade [Video]](http://ecopolitology.earthable.org/wp-content/themes/loak_v1_epoli/thumb.php?src=/blogs.dir/8/files/2010/02/facts-of-cap-and-trade.jpg&h=145&w=145&zc=1&q=90)
![Sticky Environmental Politics in 2010 [Earth and Industry Radio]](http://ecopolitology.earthable.org/wp-content/themes/loak_v1_epoli/thumb.php?src=/blogs.dir/8/files/2010/02/earth_and_industry_2010-predictions.jpg&h=145&w=145&zc=1&q=90)
![Eco-Friendly Eating with Roadkill, the Yes Men, and More! [video]](http://ecopolitology.earthable.org/wp-content/themes/loak_v1_epoli/thumb.php?src=/blogs.dir/8/files/2010/01/shift_logic_roadkill.jpg&h=145&w=145&zc=1&q=90)
Wow, that’s terrible. “Higher CO2 levels than we have today would help the earth’s ecosystems”? It’s really sad that anyone would try to put this kind of message out there.
This is kind of like saying that if one glass of red wine per day is good for your heart then alcoholics must be the most healthy people on earth.
We can come up with stupid analogies all day.
Unfortunately, this message will resonate with all the unthinking masses who want to believe anyone that tells them their lifestyle is just fine and they can go back to their reality TV and shut out the bad greenies who are only out to upset them out of some evil self interest. Better to spend time in front of the altruistic boob tube.
Whenever I hear this type of “logical” argument being used about breathing CO2 being natural, I always think to mention that water is natural as well, but that if someone puts you underneath a bunch of it for a couple minutes you die.
TIm–this was a wonderfully written piece–I especially love the second half of the first sentence!
Actually, I do think one glass of red wine per day is good for your heart, but a bottle isn’t. As it was said in the article, it’s the excess that harms.
I don’t really get the point of their campain : do they want people to give up sustainable development while it’s actually creating jobs ?
The funniest is that lot of people might think it’s a parody…
Find Green Eco-Friendly Products Here
Help Me Here…! Which way is it to high to low..The question here is consumption rate. If the planet makes more than we consume of “anything” that thing becomes a problem. Even as the observer said “RED Wine”..From an eco standpoint we can do two things reduce production or increase consumption. One must contemplate who,what and when the production affects. Would you quit exhaling for 6minutes per day for the eco redux ? On the consumption side why not just plant more trees? Both of these are naive and tend to swing in critical directions. Neither solve the problem. In the by-product area of living things CO2 and water +heat are the chemical suffix added to most balanced equations. We must find a way to reduce and consume at a rate that reduces the curves to an intersection but not an inverse. The by whom, the by what and by how are elusive.