re: #43 jamesfirecat

I think the better argument is to explain why CO2 is a pollutant. Considering the change was from status quo of it not being one, the onus for explanation is on those who think it’s a good idea to change it’s status to pollutant. Unfortunately I think moves like calling CO2 a pollutant do too much to politicize it and take it out of the sphere of science. It becomes the butt of jokes, and begs idiotic responses like “Co2 helps plants grow, how can it be a pollutant.” and some such nonsense. It’s too convoluted because the explanation of why CO2 could be considered a pollutant above a certain point is far more complex than say an actual pollutant which is unhealthy at any levels, but is far worse at higher levels. Given there is safe levels of CO2, it’s misleading to call it a pollutant because calling it a pollutant makes it seem like there is nothing good about CO2 or that it’s dangerous in any context, when it’s very helpful in some contexts.