Taxing the air plants breath

Most of the mass of a tree is taken from the air. It takes the carbon out of CO2 as mentioned in the OP.

This goes for other plants too.

www.canr.msu.edu...#:~:text=The%20mass%20of%20a%20tree%20is%20primarily%20carbon.,molecules%20built%20fro m%20atmospheric%20carbon%20dioxide%20and%20water.

It is the Jets flying overhead that pour CO2 into the atmosphere where there are no trees that cause a lot of problems. Maybe our politicians should quit flying all over the place to show their support of trying to deter issues with our atmosphere. Seems like these climate people attack what we need, but not what they want to do.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: kwaka

C02 is up about 50% since the 1700’s.

Are you actually concerned they can do anything to scale that back to a dangerous degree?

How in the world could one country offset India and China so much that we’d have to worry about C02 dropping below viability for plant life on earth.

I understand the arguments that global warming may not be man made, or that it’s not as big of a deal as many make it. But acting like efforts to offset it is going to put plant life in danger is hyperbolic at best.

Woah woah, that isn't right at all. It is way down historically for a few decades. You have been Gaslighted again by CNN, and the other networks who just want us out of their way.

a reply to: Justoneman

I didn’t say the last few decades, I said 1700’s.

I’m not arguing that it’s causing global warming. I think there’s a debate for how much impact man has vs natural cycles. I don’t think there’s any debate that natural cycles have had far bigger changes than anything humanity has seen.

My point was that mankind isn’t suddenly going to develop technology and terraform to cause catastrophic plant death due to lack of C02.

Can you appreciate the irony of saying there’s no way man could have any effect on global temperature only to imply green policies could crash C02 levels?

a reply to: kwaka

But Brawndo is what plants crave.

It's got electrolytes...

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Justoneman

I didn’t say the last few decades, I said 1700’s.

I’m not arguing that it’s causing global warming. I think there’s a debate for how much impact man has vs natural cycles. I don’t think there’s any debate that natural cycles have had far bigger changes than anything humanity has seen.

My point was that mankind isn’t suddenly going to develop technology and terraform to cause catastrophic plant death due to lack of C02.

Can you appreciate the irony of saying there’s no way man could have any effect on global temperature only to imply green policies could crash C02 levels?

In the 1700s it was higher because we are at an all time low

From Wikipedia

Concentrations of CO 2 in the atmosphere were as high as 4,000 ppm during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago, and as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years.

I am an air pollution analyst and CO2 is low I am telling you. They are gaslighting the public and ignoring the facts. I am upset with this situation as a Scientist working in this field. The data from 10 years ago was reading below 200ppm.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: kwaka

But Brawndo is what plants crave.

It's got electrolytes...

Never heard of that product.

a reply to: Justoneman

Source for your claim of 200ppm 10 years ago?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

My point was that mankind isn’t suddenly going to develop technology and terraform to cause catastrophic plant death due to lack of C02.

The technology is coming online. You are right that it will not be a sudden change. But in time and as this kind of infrastructure gets rolled out and is pumping away for many years on end, the effect will start to add up eventually. If these kind of things are still running after many decades and Trillion of dollars, it is going to have an impact that will not be that easy to turn off.

a reply to: kwaka

If it’s technology, I think it would be easy to turn off. Most have an off switch.

If it’s forests, you could just cut them down, we’ve done that.

a reply to: Justoneman

In the 1700s it was higher because we are at an all time low From Wikipedia

Your source talks about millions of years ago when the planet had a completely different ecosystem.

I said the 1700s.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

If it’s technology, I think it would be easy to turn off. Most have an off switch.

It is more the politics and money where the problem is. With the globalists' aiming for net zero and declared CO2 as bad, how many hard lessons will be made until the political will is strong enough to find that off switch and use it?

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Justoneman

I didn’t say the last few decades, I said 1700’s.

I’m not arguing that it’s causing global warming. I think there’s a debate for how much impact man has vs natural cycles. I don’t think there’s any debate that natural cycles have had far bigger changes than anything humanity has seen.

My point was that mankind isn’t suddenly going to develop technology and terraform to cause catastrophic plant death due to lack of C02.

Can you appreciate the irony of saying there’s no way man could have any effect on global temperature only to imply green policies could crash C02 levels?

In the 1700s it was higher because we are at an all time low

From Wikipedia

Concentrations of CO 2 in the atmosphere were as high as 4,000 ppm during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago, and as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years.

I am an air pollution analyst and CO2 is low I am telling you. They are gaslighting the public and ignoring the facts. I am upset with this situation as a Scientist working in this field. The data from 10 years ago was reading below 200ppm.

You are talking utter BS.

The last time CO2 levels were this high, your ancestors were still living in the trees - in fact some data suggests as much as 20 million years

earth.org...

Sounds like a deforestation problem more than a carbon emission problem.

a reply to: WaESN

do you believe them? youtu.be... you sure they don't store oxygen? There are already dozens, maybe even hundreds of these factories. and they are talking about millions of tons.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Justoneman

I didn’t say the last few decades, I said 1700’s.

I’m not arguing that it’s causing global warming. I think there’s a debate for how much impact man has vs natural cycles. I don’t think there’s any debate that natural cycles have had far bigger changes than anything humanity has seen.

My point was that mankind isn’t suddenly going to develop technology and terraform to cause catastrophic plant death due to lack of C02.

Can you appreciate the irony of saying there’s no way man could have any effect on global temperature only to imply green policies could crash C02 levels?

In the 1700s it was higher because we are at an all time low

From Wikipedia

Concentrations of CO 2 in the atmosphere were as high as 4,000 ppm during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago, and as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years.

I am an air pollution analyst and CO2 is low I am telling you. They are gaslighting the public and ignoring the facts. I am upset with this situation as a Scientist working in this field. The data from 10 years ago was reading below 200ppm.

I have looked up data in a variety of locations and dates and it is down overall in almost every place. Also, the measurements fluctuate day to day, and are affected by humidity and temperatures. What I don't understand is, what happened to CO2 from 5,000,000,000, 2,000,000, 10,000 500 and 100 etc. years ago? It obviously doesn't accumulate because we would be suffocating in it. Does it dissipate on it's own? Do plants really process that much CO2? What if we didn't remove it.....ever, just like we have NEVER done before the last few decades or so?

I feel like all these new ideas to remove CO2 are a scam, get us hooked on yet another 'quality control' monster that we just can't live without and will need to financially support forever and ever.

Sometimes the 'fix' is worse than the problem. I believe we're killing our planet with all the 'green' ideas.