-4

Following the explosive growth in the use of coal for industrial processes, in which the UK from the late 1800s to the mid-1900s was memorably darkened with soot, the public became aware of "pollution". Black carbon, nitrides, sulfides, heavy metals, volatile organic compounds, chloro / fluorocarbons, pesticides, toxic waste, and spent nuclear fuel were on the list of industrial products that would become "pollution" if not handled properly... and it was quite often that they were not handled properly.

Now, the expression "carbon pollution" is being put into headlines by the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, Harvard University, and even the Associated Press (via MarketWatch). None of these sources are talking about black carbon, hydrocarbons, or CFCs: "carbon pollution" means carbon dioxide.

Is it true that carbon dioxide is pollution?

elliot svensson
  • 2,883
  • 13
  • 38
  • Do you want to know whether carbon dioxide is called pollution by certain people? Or do you want to know what "pollution" is and whether carbon dioxide can fit that definition? – Max Jan 22 '19 at 15:52
  • @Max, it seems that the answer to the first question is very easy. I think it's the second question is what I'm interested in. – elliot svensson Jan 22 '19 at 15:54
  • 3
    Excess carbon dioxide is pollution. Some carbon dioxide is essential. – DavePhD Jan 22 '19 at 15:56
  • @elliotsvensson the second question is also easy because "pollution" can be anything in excess. If our industrial processes produced excess fresh water and we started flooding the world, that would be fresh water pollution. Is your question then whether or not we are currently producing excessive carbon dioxide? – Max Jan 22 '19 at 16:00
  • @Max, not, I am not asking about whether people and processes are causing the pollution. It's about wording. – elliot svensson Jan 22 '19 at 16:01
  • 6
    This is off-topic as it boils down to deciding on the definition of a specific word, "pollution" in this case. This is not the type of question that works well here. – Mad Scientist Jan 22 '19 at 16:54
  • @MadScientist, I find that decision disappointing. – elliot svensson Jan 22 '19 at 16:56
  • 6
    @elliotsvensson Skeptics is about determining the validity of falsifiable claims, not deciding on definitions. Perhaps you could ask on ELU? – Tashus Jan 22 '19 at 18:01
  • 1
    @elliotsvensson To explain it another way: so what? If you defined the word "pollution" narrowly to mean "soot," that would only affect language, not the impact of carbon dioxide on the environment. That's why this question is not appropriate here. – Bryan Krause Jan 22 '19 at 21:33
  • I just learned that this exact question was addressed directly by US Supreme Court justices in their 2007 Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency case. It was decided 5-4 in favor of "CO2 may as well be called a pollutant (according to the 1963 Clean Air Act)". – elliot svensson Jan 22 '19 at 23:53
  • 1
    @elliotsvensson it wasn't the same question. They were asked whether CO2 is a pollutant under the definition "The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7602 – DavePhD Jan 23 '19 at 01:28
  • @elliotsvensson and though the decision as a whole was 5-4, that doesn't mean 5-4 on whether or not CO2 was a pollutant. The reasons for descent were stuff like the harm is not redressible because India and China control most of the CO2 pollution. – DavePhD Jan 23 '19 at 01:41
  • @DavePhD, thanks for the law link... do you find, as I do, that the definition there of "air pollutant" depends on another undefined term, "air pollution"? – elliot svensson Jan 23 '19 at 14:56
  • @elliotsvensson it depends on the definition of "air pollution", but air pollution is only partially undefined, because it defined to "include[e]" but not be limited to "any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive... substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air" – DavePhD Jan 23 '19 at 15:02
  • @elliotsvensson the Supreme Court decision also points out that a 1987 law states "manmade pollution-the release of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and other trace gases into the atmosphere" https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/05-1120P.ZO – DavePhD Jan 23 '19 at 15:12
  • It is pollution. Anyone who thinks on it for longer than 5 minutes would hopefully figure out that throwing all that gunk and carbon into the air can't be good. – The Mattbat999 Jan 24 '19 at 02:10

1 Answers1

11

According to "The Modification of Planet Earth by Man," Gordon J. F. MacDonald, Technology Review, Oct/Nov. 1969, pp. 27-35 (official link):

There are at least six ways in which man's activities could perturb the atmospheric heat balance and thus the climate in a significant way. These are: 1. increasing the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, 2. decreasing atmospheric transparency...

Of these, carbon dioxide pollution has long been recognized as potentially affecting worldwide climate.

Also, in the November 1967 US National Bureau of Standards 1967 fiscal year report it is stated at page 77:

... determine the amount of CO2 pollution in the atmosphere. For simultaneous data collection and monitoring of carbon dioxide pollution levels at widely separated geographic locations, samples must be taken continuously or at intervals over a long period of time and measurements of concentration..

So for at least 50 years, excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been considered a form of pollution.

Community
  • 1
DavePhD
  • 103,432
  • 24
  • 436
  • 464