19 of 86

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 3

the purity or sanctity of; make foul or filthy; contaminate or defile (environment); pollution: noun. This seems to me to be pretty straight forward. However, to apply the word to atmospheric CO2 is a gross distortion of the scientific facts and a deliberate deception to promote the Kyoto anti-carbon eco-belief system.

There is no way that putting CO2 into the atmosphere (a natural minor component) can be regarded as "pollution", as defined in the Oxford dictionary, nor is it harmful to do so. In fact it is more likely to be beneficial to mankind.

The entire biosphere of living matter is composed of carbon compounds which are derived from atmospheric CO2. You can not, by definition, pollute the atmosphere with CO2, and it is madness to think so. Carbon is the most wonderful element in the periodic table. It has far more chemical compounds than all the other elements put together. Plants and trees absorb CO2 from the atmosphere to convert into cellulose and sugars and by doing so liberate oxygen for us humans and animals to breath and live. The "carbon cycle" is a fascinating natural phenomenon and should not be held to abuse by religious environmental fanatics.

The USA and Australia have recently (June 2009) passed (so far to the Senate) climate bills, or "emissions trading schemes" designed to drastically reduce CO2 emissions.

The Labor Government of Australia's bill is called the "Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009" or the CPRS. What a misnomer! How dare they distort the facts! At every TV news, the populace is bombarded with visions of power station cooling towers emitting voluminous white clouds of so-called "pollution", when in fact all it is, is condensed water vapor and harmless.

Carbon dioxide is an invisible harmless gas, highly drinkable (beer and sparkling wine) and an essential component for all living matter. Nor is increasing atmospheric CO2 causing any measurable global warming. Even if it did, a little global warming would be a good thing, better than global cooling any day!

The US bill is called the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" or the Waxman-Markley climate-change bill. The major clean energy sources promoted are wind and solar energies which are thought suitable to replace any further development of coal or even nuclear power for electricity generation. The bill narrowly passed the House of Representatives (219 for, 212 against) and it has now gone to the Senate for consideration.

The concept of "clean

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Should a global climate agreement hold the US to a higher environmental standard than the rest of the world??
We want to hear your view. Write now!