In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

Dan L. wrote:

Hmmm ....

I have questions.

Carbon dioxide CO2 is that the gas we humans exhale (Good)?

Yes, it is essential that we do so, the same with other animals.

Do not plants take in CO2 and keep the carbon and release oxygen O2
(Good)?

Yes. Put very simply animals and plants consume each other's by products,
it's a good system.

Do not cars exhale carbon monoxide CO (Bad)?

Only small amounts, mainly they burn hydrocarbons (petrol, diesel) with
oxygen to give carbon dioxide. The CO2 has the major greenhouse effect
compared to CO.

I am not sure but comparing machines to living things different?

You can compare living and non-living things in their contribution or
consumption of greenhouse gasses (well any gasses really) in the atmosphere.
Rather than say one is 'good' and the other 'bad' you need to look at the
numbers and evaluate the net effect. Which isn't at all easy.
Net effect of balance and stability = things go much as they are
Net effect of imbalance and instability = rapid change = collapse human
society as we know it.

Is CO2 a green house gas also?

Yes indeed. So is methane which is more significant per molecule, it is
produced by bogs, ruminants (cattle) and coal mines amongst many things.

If so should we limit the growth of the human population to save the
planet also?


In the long term this is an essential part of the solution because we have
many effects on the earth other than greenhouse gasses, many resources that
we need are running out and many pollutants that we make, including
greenhouse gasses, are harming the environment. You can reduce the rate of
using up resources and generating pollutants per head but unless you do
something about the number of heads too you are only delaying the date of
collapse as you cannot reach stability.

Those who suggest that there is no need to limit human population (say
because of technological advances) will find that it is limited for them, or
for their descedants, nontheless. It will be limted by the Four Horsemen.

My chemistry is week. However, this "Nathan Fiala" is an economist
not a chemist or biologist. After all, Does any economist of this
world know what they are saying, let alone how this world operates?


You do have to wonder.

David

Ahhh David
I do love your postings, they have always been direct to the point and
your insight has alway been clear. Also I tend to agree with you.

Enjoy Life ... Dan

--
Garden in Zone 5 South East Michigan.