Those who argue that "CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's necessary for life" are going about i

jwoodward48 wrote:
The "is a given substance a pollutant" doesn't determine whether it's harmful - it's the other way around! If it is harmful, then it is a pollutant. You can argue that it's not harmful, but saying that it can't be harmful because it's not a pollutant is just a circular argument.

It's like saying that you can't drown, because people need to drink water.

jwoodward48 wrote:
The "is a given substance a pollutant" doesn't determine whether it's harmful - it's the other way around! If it is harmful, then it is a pollutant. You can argue that it's not harmful, but saying that it can't be harmful because it's not a pollutant is just a circular argument.

It's like saying that you can't drown, because people need to drink water.

jwoodward48 wrote:
It's not redefining it. That is the definition. We don't figure out whether things are harmful by "are they on a list of pollutants" - the latter is determined by whether or not it is harmful!

jwoodward48 wrote:
"Pollution: the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects."

It can also have positive effects, but for a substance to be pollution, it needs to have negative effects. This means that it is dependent on the environment into which it is introduced - introducing oxygen to anaerobic bacteria colonies would be pollution, for instance, as it would kill them.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Nothing is inherently pollution. All substances can be pollution. This is true.

That does not make the term meaningless, only meaningless out of context.

jwoodward48 wrote:
How so? If I say that water can be dangerous, well, everything can be dangerous, so the word "dangerous" has no meaning anymore, right? How about the word "good"? Water can be good. But sometimes you might be happy to have found some hydrogen cyanide. Maybe you want to kill yourself or somebody else. Maybe you want to run some experiments on it. Anything can be "good". Does that mean that the word "good" is meaningless in all contexts, or just meaningless out of context?

jwoodward48 wrote:
But in the case of the Boy, he said that there was danger when there was none.

jwoodward48 wrote: But he was suppose to call if the wolf actually did attack. I don't call things pollutants when they're a dubious threat ...

jwoodward48 wrote: I am reconsidering the "quantity" portion of my definition. I would say that it's complex - perhaps slightly more CO2 than in the pre-industrial atmosphere might be good? At the moment, though, adding more CO2 would be pollution.

jwoodward48 wrote: But you haven't actually shown that CO2 has no harmful effects with that argument.

jwoodward48 wrote:
But he was suppose to call if the wolf actually did attack. I don't call things pollutants when they're a dubious threat - "pollutant" just means "harmful amount of substance for the environment to which it is added". The "amount" part can be discussed, but the context is integral to the definition.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I am reconsidering the "quantity" portion of my definition. I would say that it's complex - perhaps slightly more CO2 than in the pre-industrial atmosphere might be good? At the moment, though, adding more CO2 would be pollution.

jwoodward48 wrote:
If AGW is occurring as a result of GHGs, then yes. If not, then no.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
I am reconsidering the "quantity" portion of my definition. I would say that it's complex - perhaps slightly more CO2 than in the pre-industrial atmosphere might be good? At the moment, though, adding more CO2 would be pollution.

Why?

What makes it a pollutant?

If something needs a minimum density in an environment to be a pollutant, doesn't make the environment itself a pollutant since it's 100% of the environment?

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
I am reconsidering the "quantity" portion of my definition. I would say that it's complex - perhaps slightly more CO2 than in the pre-industrial atmosphere might be good? At the moment, though, adding more CO2 would be pollution.

Why?

What makes it a pollutant?

If something needs a minimum density in an environment to be a pollutant, doesn't make the environment itself a pollutant since it's 100% of the environment?

That argument makes no sense. A minimum density can be a necessary but not sufficient part of being a pollutant.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
I am reconsidering the "quantity" portion of my definition. I would say that it's complex - perhaps slightly more CO2 than in the pre-industrial atmosphere might be good? At the moment, though, adding more CO2 would be pollution.

Why?

What makes it a pollutant?

If something needs a minimum density in an environment to be a pollutant, doesn't make the environment itself a pollutant since it's 100% of the environment?

That argument makes no sense. A minimum density can be a necessary but not sufficient part of being a pollutant.

As soon as you put the minimum qualifier on the definition, that's what you've done. You've MADE the minimum density a necessary AND sufficient part of it being a pollutant.

Thus, the word is rendered meaningless through the case above.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
I am reconsidering the "quantity" portion of my definition. I would say that it's complex - perhaps slightly more CO2 than in the pre-industrial atmosphere might be good? At the moment, though, adding more CO2 would be pollution.

Why?

What makes it a pollutant?

If something needs a minimum density in an environment to be a pollutant, doesn't make the environment itself a pollutant since it's 100% of the environment?

That argument makes no sense. A minimum density can be a necessary but not sufficient part of being a pollutant.

As soon as you put the minimum qualifier on the definition, that's what you've done. You've MADE the minimum density a necessary AND sufficient part of it being a pollutant.

Thus, the word is rendered meaningless through the case above.

What? Pollution is "the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects." So a polluting substance is any substance that has harmful effects in the environment into which it is being introduced.

For something to have significant harmful effects, it usually has to have a minimum density. So a polluting substance is any substance that is capable of being harmful in concentration within the environment to which it is being introduced AND being introduced in sufficient quantity. It's an and, not an or.

Another way of looking at this is the word "qualify". It means to make more reserved or limited. So if the definition of pollutant is qualified, it means it would cover less substances.

jwoodward48 wrote:
My definition involves quantity being necessary for a pollutant, but not sufficient. You appear to be arguing that my definition would necessarily imply quantity becoming a sufficient condition for a pollutant.

jwoodward48 wrote:For something to have significant harmful effects, it usually has to have a minimum density.

jwoodward48 wrote:But what if I put a molecule in there?

Whether or not something is called pollution is beside the point, then. What's important is if something has a significant detrimental effect on the environment.