- #1
2f9hg0jd5
- 1
- 0
Part of Explorations today dealt with CO2 emissions and the melting southern ice shelf. I have a colleague who argues against placing controls on CO2 emissions because, since CO2 is a naturally occurring gas, there is no way that it can be justifiably called 'harmful'. Since it is 'natural' and not 'harmful' there is no reason why it should be controlled.
What do real scientists have to say about this reasoning methodology? Are there any other instances where too much of a natural thing can be harmful?
I recall reading something discussing the changing balance between O2 and CO2 and the possible ramifications on life. Unanswered questions were raised as to what such a change in balance might mean on a biological level. Could this explain attention deficit disorder? IOW, could some of our societal problems lie in the air we breath?
Thank you very much
What do real scientists have to say about this reasoning methodology? Are there any other instances where too much of a natural thing can be harmful?
I recall reading something discussing the changing balance between O2 and CO2 and the possible ramifications on life. Unanswered questions were raised as to what such a change in balance might mean on a biological level. Could this explain attention deficit disorder? IOW, could some of our societal problems lie in the air we breath?
Thank you very much