Environmentalism, right or wrong? Options

[Kontroll]

Now, when I say environmentalism, I'm dealing with the rainforest and what not. How do you guys feel about it? What's your stance on this topic?

If there has already been a thread about this, then whatever.

[sadolakced acid]

certainly attempts to limit pollution can cause no harm.

right?

but isn't that just an assumption?

sure, mercury is bad and such. these things aren't good, and should be limited and controlled.
but things like carbon dioxide? it's iffy

sure, i understand combustion.

but let's think for a second.

we're burning fossil fuels, right?

that's made from dead animals.

now, years and years of animals have been dying, and the carbon in them is getting stored in a massive carbon sink.

right?

and then we humans come along, and in the past 200 years, open up that carbon sink and start releasing the carbon as carbon dioxide.

now. let's think. this is carbon that was from the atmosphere- that's where it came from. then us pesky animals came and stored it away as fossil fuels.

so obviously, carbon avalible must have been declining, right?

and we are carbon based life forms, are we not?

and plants need carbon dioxide. so what happens when there's more carbon dioxide? more plants can grow, causing more oxygen to be produced.

it's logically sound.

look, the point is, we don't know what's good for the environment

sure we know what's bad for the environment, like CFCs, and heavy metals in the water.

but how do we do what's good for the environment if we dont' even know what it is?

[*mipadi*]

certainly attempts to limit pollution can cause no harm.

right?

but isn't that just an assumption?

sure, mercury is bad and such. these things aren't good, and should be limited and controlled.
but things like carbon dioxide? it's iffy

sure, i understand combustion.

but let's think for a second.

we're burning fossil fuels, right?

that's made from dead animals.

now, years and years of animals have been dying, and the carbon in them is getting stored in a massive carbon sink.

right?

and then we humans come along, and in the past 200 years, open up that carbon sink and start releasing the carbon as carbon dioxide.

now. let's think. this is carbon that was from the atmosphere- that's where it came from. then us pesky animals came and stored it away as fossil fuels.

so obviously, carbon avalible must have been declining, right?

and we are carbon based life forms, are we not?

and plants need carbon dioxide. so what happens when there's more carbon dioxide? more plants can grow, causing more oxygen to be produced.

it's logically sound.

It's not logically sound, because you made one very big mistake: You assumed that if a compound contains an element, it has all the properties of that element. But a cursory study of chemistry shows that is not true.

Take the element oxygen. Combine two oxygen atoms, and you get O2, a nice gas that keeps us alive. Combine three atoms of oxygen, and you get O3, commonly known as ozone: a gas that is helpful because it blocks out harmful UV rays—until it forms on the surface of the earth, in which case it causes major respiratory problems and even death in high enough concentrations.

Take hydrogen, a dangerous, highly flammable gas. Combine four atoms of hydrogen and two atoms of oxygen, and what do you get? Two molecules of H2O, commonly called water, the building block of life and necessary for our survival. Combine two atoms of hydrogen and two atoms of oxygen, and what do you get? H2O2, or hydrogen peroxide, a potentially dangerous compound that is a liquid at room temperature.

So let's get back to carbon. Carbon is normally not a gas; it's normally found in the forms of say, diamons and graphite. Combine it with oxygen, and you get CO2, a gas that is dangerous to humans, and has properties very different from it's two basic elements, carbon and oxygen.

So no, your argument makes no sense because you are ignoring basic principles of chemistry. The cycle of carbon dioxide production and use does not work as simply as described, and yes, a buildup of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would have ill effects on the environment.

look, the point is, we don't know what's good for the environment

sure we know what's bad for the environment, like CFCs, and heavy metals in the water.

but how do we do what's good for the environment if we dont' even know what it is?

Justin, you act as though scientists are stupid, and no one is actually studying the environment, or effects on the environment, or anything of that nature. Yes, scientists disagree about some specifics of environmentalist policies (especially in global warming and natural forest fires), but scientists do understand how the environment works, and they do know a lot of things that are good and bad for it.