We can’t say this enough. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. It is chemically incapable of achieving a tipping point. Accumulation leads to saturation, resulting in a decline in radiative forcing. There’s even evidence that the majority of the (irrelevant) rise has very little to do with human activity.
CO2 is not just good for the planet; life on Earth is impossible without it. So, when Obama’s EPA issued its endangerment finding, the government gave itself the permission structure to regulate and tax the crap out of you—a circumstance that Trump’s EPA plans to roll back, and rightly so.
The Endangerment Finding enabled the Obama and Biden administrations to bypass Congress all in the name of fighting what they called the “climate emergency.”
But wait. Should carbon dioxide really be categorized as a pollutant given how beneficial it is for animal and plant life? Here’s the answer we get from our five scientists:
While the definition of “pollutant” is ultimately a legal matter, there are important scientific distinctions between CO2 and the Criteria Air Contaminants. The latter are subject to regulatory control because they cause local problems depending on concentrations that include nuisances (odor, visibility), damage to plants, and, at high enough exposure levels, toxicological effects in humans. In contrast, CO2 is odorless, does not affect visibility and has no toxicological effects at ambient levels. It is a naturally occurring part of the atmosphere and a key component of human and plant respiration. CO2 is essential for plant photosynthesis and higher levels are beneficial for vegetation. In these aspects, CO2 is similar to water vapor.
In other words, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
It doesn’t fit the definition of a pollutant, and the climate consensus that never actually existed (OMG, you mean they lied?) is having to deal with scientists producing research that dims CO2’s future as the bugbear we’ve been told to fight, regardless of the cost.
Therein, of course, lies the rub. Trillions have been misdirected to the Climate Cult Industrial Complex (CCIC), much of it from taxpayers’ pockets to friendly industries and the “experts” whose misinformation props them up. A cabal that encourages a continued flow of easy money by electing power-hungry partisans who keep taxpayer pockets open to the enterprise.
It is an act of economic suicide. Marxists whose admitted goal is to undermine free market capitalism, which will in turn end the subsidies on which the CCIC cannot exist without. In the end, the Marxists will have used bad science and fear to achieve power that will, by its own nature, make it impossible to provide financial support for the useful idiots who helped them acquire it.
They couldn’t care less about the climate or science; they want unassailable one-party power.
We’ve quoted high ranking members of the UN.
“… the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
AOC’s (Nazi Sympathizing) former chief of staff and the author of her apocalyptic Green New Deal said,
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
Dr. Ottmar Endehofer IPCC Working Group 3
We (UN-IPCC) redistribute de facto the worlds wealth by climate policy…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, former chairman of the IPCC, clearly spelled out that aim. Ms. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change until last year, openly stated that it was not about climate but that, for the first time, it gave them the tools to replace capitalism.
“the manifesto is explicit that we should condemn corporations and embrace “non-market approaches …(with) a strong focus on the rights of women, youth and indigenous peoples.”
One of the founders of the Extinction Rebellion, Stuart Basden, admits their movement is about ending white euro-centrism and western civilization.
Euro-Americans violently imposed and taught dangerous delusions that they used to justify the exploitation and reinforced our dominance, while silencing worldviews that differed or challenged them.
When warming failed them, they pivoted to everything that proves the theory to which they then added a laundry list of Marxist terms like climate justice, colonialism, white supremacy, and so on.
Blame ot on white people and Western liberty when it is they who have lifted more people out of poverty and into comfort than any other. At the same time, the Marxist strains of left-wing totalitarianism demonstrated a commitment to poverty, misery, discomfort, and disregard for any right not granted, regulated, and policed by the state.
It’s gotten so absurd that even when they admit CO2 is essential for plants (crops, food production, etc.), and that more of it means more food, more affordable food, and more oxygen for us to breathe, it’s still bad.
And we can’t leave without bringing up this.
Even if CO2 were a pollutant, its contribution is insignificant.
And remember, the climate cult has been misled. The goal is not to save the planet or the environment, it is to ensure that Marxists can destroy it and whatever else falls under its totalitarian gaze, without fear of resistance
