Dear QA,
Fear and reverence of God is the beginning of wisdom. If man wasn't so prideful he would put the word of God in its right place and wisdom would once again flow out the land bringing life to a parched land.

Richie ten I see your footprints in other threads this morning.
While we must defend free speech on every subject I find it sad.
Sad that you find the need to evangelize in such places.
Yes we have other Christians here, and all have the right to say as they wish.
It to me seems like shouting into an empty water tank, inflicting your views on passing people.
Increasingly such methods are being used in this country as numbers attending Church's fall, maybe that is for the good.

Foxy says we "cannot continue to tolerate unlimited amounts of pollution" but this makes no sense when applied to the question of CO2 emissions - CO2 is not a pollutant. Yet this kind of logical shift occurs frequently in debates about 'global warming'. I'm all for policies and technologies that reduce toxic pollution and the advanced capitalist countries have made great progress in this regard but I'm not in favour of global warming alarmism that seeks to justify reductions in energy consumption and carbon taxes and subsidies to less efficient alternative energy sources, all of which can only lower standards of living, slow down progress, and hurt the poor in particular.

Richie 10, I will defend to the last your right to your belief in, and understanding of religion, but to place humanity as anything other than the 'owner' of the natural world is little different to what the Greens do with their form of nature worship (ie, humans are seen as subservient to Nature). Human progress and freedom have both come from the mastery of Nature and that can be measured in recent centuries by the growth of secularism, democracy (the people are sovereign, not the gods or God), materialism and science. Simply put: the gods and God need us more than we need them; indeed, without us, they would not even exist.

CO2 isn't a pollutant, byork? Well, cyanide isn't a poison either - people eat almonds all the time, even though millions were gassed to death with it by the Nazis. Nor is chlorine - drinking water is full of the stuff. Does that mean you could be persuaded to drink the it straight? And what about morphine? Great for pain management, but potentially lethal in quantity.

Dose is often the difference between poison and remedy, and the same goes for atmospheric gases.

The same principle applies to humans and nature. There is no green religion, just the sober recognition that humans are a product of the natural world, not vice versa, and have currently outstripped a sustainable level of population . It's truly ironic that conservatives sneer at environmentalism by branding it "nature worship" when the egocentric exceptionalism they cling to is solely the product of fundamentalist Christianity.

Dear Richie 10,

Over the past century, pollution of the environment
has begun to threaten the ecological balance of the
planet and the health of many of its species,
including ourselves. The pollution problem is an
exceedingly difficult one to solve, for several
reasons. First, some people and governments see
pollution as a regrettable but inevitable by-product
of desired economic development - "where there's
smoke, there's jobs."

Second, control of pollution, sometimes requires
international co-ordination, for one country's
emissions or pesticides can end up in other
countries' air or food. Third, the effects of
pollution may not show up for many years, so
severe environmental damage can occur with little
public awareness that it is taking place.

Fourth, preventing or correcting pollution can be
costly, technically complex, and sometimes - when
the damage is irreversible - impossible.

However, in general, the most industrialized nations
are now actively trying to limit the effects of
pollution. But the populous less developed societies
are more concerned with economic growth, and tend to
see pollution as part of the price they have to pay
for it.

Senator Fielding's thinking belongs with
that of the less developed societies. It's time he
realized in what sort of society he lives - and what
sort of constituents he represents.

“CO2 is not a pollutant….Most people think carbon is a pollutant. 'Nuff said.”

Byork

Carbon dioxide is a pollutant and fossil fuels were interred for good reason but man in his wisdom, dug them up.

Uranium 238 (not a fossil fuel) but nevertheless, interred to keep the planet healthy and in equilibrium, has a decay chain of 4 billion 500 million years where its final progeny is lead 206.

When you burn fossil fuels the final progeny is carbon dioxide. Fossil fuels are deadly chemicals which desecrate biodiversity, ecosystems, human and animal health. CO2 is the final progeny of many fossil fuel chemicals.

When you burn benzene, a category 1 carcinogen, it oxidizes to carbon dioxide. When you burn fossil fuels, you create carbon monoxide from incomplete combustion. Carbon monoxide elevates atmospheric methane and ground level ozone before oxidizing to carbon dioxide etc etc.

Hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds (VOC) burn to carbon dioxide. Add a few more nasties such as a bit of chlorine in the feed stock and the unintended man-made polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin/furans (dioxins and furans) are formed to wreak havoc on the planet.

Dioxins have no respect for geographical boundaries. The Arctic Inuits have a high body burden of dioxins from their marine diet. Dioxins are gender benders - they feminize embryros and are teratogens - think Agent Orange.

Pollution kills - so does carbon dioxide. And that’s why the USEPA deem carbon dioxide, a pollutant.

All things are bound together - all things connect – and that’s not guess work – it’s scientific. If we want to stop polluting the planet, we must stop polluting with CO2.

Would Mr Fielding know a VOC from a sock?