I’m not sure what to say about this video, but it almost made me do a spit take.
If you want to really vomit in your mouth check out the CO2 is green website.
I tagged this post with greenwashing, but this just goes so far beyond your run of the mill greenwash that the only other word that comes to mind is “lie.”
 |
 |
|
Vegan food doesn't have to be all about salads, and it doesn't have to be boring! It also doesn't have to be difficult to make. Check out my recipe archive for lots of delicious, simple vegan recipes.
I am thrilled to be offering copies of Lunch Bags, the craft book that I contributed to, for sale! You can pick up a copy of Lunch Bags! right here on the site!
With more and more people getting into crafting, it's more important than ever that we stay mindful about our materials and their social and environmental impacts. Get your green craft on!
You think this is a lie? There have been times in recorded history with higher levels of Co2 and there were more animals. It’s like, a basic element. The danger would be not having enough plant life to support the Co2, but when there’s more Co2 you have more plants. I’m sure an extremely high level would be terrible, but so would too much oxygen, or too much nitrogen.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg though! You have to look thoroughly at both sides.
Yes, I do think it’s a lie.
I do understand that plants need CO2 to survive, but you hit the nail on the head in you comment: extremely high CO2 levels are dangerous. We are in that situation now, and we’ve got to change to avert disaster, if it’s not too late already.
If we’ve had thriving life before with higher Co2 levels, why are they dangerously high? Just… because of other pollution?
CO2 I mean, of course, hah.
This is from grist.com and I think it addresses that question really well:
“It is true that CO2 has gone up on its own in the past, most notably during the glacial-interglacial cycles. During this time, CO2 rose and fell by over 100 ppm, ranging between around 180 to 300ppm. But these rises, though they look steep over a 400Kyr timeframe, took 5K to 20Kyrs, depending on the glacial cycle.
By contrast, we have seen an equivalent rise of 100ppm in just 150 years! Check this plot for a dramatic juxtaposition of the slow glacial termination versus the industrial revolution.”
It also should be noted that we’re well over 300ppm in the atmosphere now…closer to 387ppm. Scientists posit that we need to get things reigned in to 350ppm to avoid disastrous consequences.
Faith, I really appreciate you having an open mind and asking direct, civil questions. I’ve seen these sorts of conversations get ugly on the internet, and I’m so glad that’s not happening here.
No problem. I genuinely want to know what I’m missing. Sometimes reading a lot just doesn’t do it. I just can’t comprehend that we could change the environment enough to damage and kill everyone (unless it was food or water related), which I suppose global warming, or climate change could do theoretically. It just seems very cocky. Even where we have nuked the earth it’s not a barren wasteland of nothing; it has largely recovered. Of course people are affected by it. Thanks for the info.
Any time! That Grist article I linked has a lot of great info, and they debunk a lot of the climate myths. I know, it totally feels a bit cocky in a weird way to think humans could do so much damage, but the science is totally there.