Rather than Climate Change, could CO2 present a more immediate danger?
 

We can certainly measure the increasing ocean water temperatures which has a direct impact on the severity of the storms we've been experiencing. But something that Musk highlighted during his recent conversation with a certain ex-President was the effect the rising levels of CO2 in our atmosphere will have on the human race.

In addition to the need to be moving to a more sustainable energy economy meaning getting away from oil and gas (demonstrating how short sighted a drill baby drill strategy is), he pointed out that as CO2 levels continue to rise we will be subjected to physiological problems like headaches and nausea and then ultimately it even becomes uncomfortable to breathe. The levels we are talking about are 1,000 PPM which based upon on the trajectory we are on will be by the end of this century (the actual trajectory since 1960 has been a straight line upwards thanks to industry and our addiction to fossil fuels - Trends in CO2 - NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory and Scripps CO2 Program).

So rather than climate change and the warming of our planet, maybe we should be thinking about the problems associated with elevated CO2 levels including our ability to breathe. Based upon that, burning more fossil fuels will only exacerbate that problem. That's at least one thing that I think Musk is getting right.

Food for thought. Makes me want to buy an EV or at least a hybrid next time I buy a car.

Do people who keep on banging on about how bad the air is, not remember back to pre and post WW2 times.
As a kid growing up in those post war times, the air was foul, full of coal smoke, lead, sulfur, and God knows what else, and every winter, for sure here in the UK, thousands died from the smog and fogs it created.
In the mid 1950s a clean air act was passed, and slowly great improvements were made.
Nowadays emissions from industry and cars are minimal compared to those times, and as far as I can tell air quality has never been better.
I know climate is changing, only a fool would deny it, but all down to cars and industry?
I don't think so.
What happens if by some miracle we get to the Holy Grail of zero emissions and the climate continues to change?
Will enough ever be enough for the zealot industry?
Mother Nature must be laughing her socks off as she does her own thing.

Carbon dioxide does not cause warming because it cannot hold heat - cuz its a heavy gas that stinks to ground level. Humidity holds heat so that would make atmospheric water a huge problem :) People working in greenhouses that burn propane to increase CO2 levels far beyond 1000 ppm are not suffocating...Are they? Early Homo species were surviving quite nicely with CO2 levels above 2500 ppm. Early mammals and dinosaurs at 8000 ppm.

If the planet ever warms to its optimal 69F temperature (It is at 60F today), then atmospheric CO2 will be about 1200 ppm. It is really too bad man can't cause global warming...It would be ideal.

Well said!!!!!!

Unfortunately, speaking the truth to the indoctrinated cultists will fall on deaf ears. And the power brokers that are manipulating these poor misguided folks will label you as Quixotic, while laughing all the way to the bank.

Anything renewable or green made from mining and fossil fuels. Agree we could cut that level but the world has to be on same page. We in United States have the highest standards in world , until rest of world meets our standard there nothing we can do except going down same old road.

the real and present danger is the collapse in biodiversity
example: kill enough bees and pollination falls far enough where it affects fruit and vegetable production.

but no need to worry, it won't completely collapse because increased CO2 helps plants and vegetation grow faster.

So if your neighbor had trash all over his property, would you do the same? It's up to each of us to do what we can to clean up this planet.

Keep buying your EV's, Have to keep the child slave labor digging for cobalt going in the Congo.

Many would dispute that statement, and not be wrong.

I think you completely missed the point. It's not sulphur, mercury, and all those other nasties that could severely impact our health - it's also what you can't see. Think of Carbon Monoxide in your home - invisible and yet kills. We may think everything is "clean", but as CO2 levels rise you will find it harder to breathe and as Elon points out we will all start to suffer. Sort of like a frog in a pot of water slowly being brought to the boil.

My intent is to point out that besides climate change, elimination of biodiversity, and all the other problems a reliance on fossil fuels creates - CO2 is a very simple one to understand. It's easy to measure, and the charts make it very plain as to what is going on.

Maybe it's a case of the Millenials and Gen Z's will have to deal with this because we will all be dead when it starts to rear it's ugly head. But whatever the case, we (the not so "wise" old ones) are not leaving the world in a great place for our grand children.

Now you're mixing the heating problem with the gas problem I'm highlighting.

Early homo sapiens have NEVER existed with CO2 levels at the 2500 PPM level, and the end of this century is nowhere long enough for us to evolve to be able to. You have to go further back than about 16 million years ago to see where it was higher than 1,000, but then it was dinosaurs that had to deal with it and not humans. In the 30,000 years we've been around, the levels were much lower than today.

You can do your own research to find out what effect CO2 levels has on us. But Elon got it right - it is dangerous to our health and we're not even talking about it. The higher the level, the less our lungs are able to remove it from our blood and you end up with the effects Elon highlighted.

You were obviously not around during the 40s and 50s!

How many PPM of C02 in the atmosphere will cause all the breathing problems being cited? Provide a bonafide source for this info and not someone's opinion.

We could split hairs about the who has the best among relatively similar standards, but it is irrelevant. The problem is China and India.

What if? Let's give it a try and see! Or, we could sit on our thumbs and do nothing.

For what it's worth, China, USA, India, then all the also-rans!

Much of the world has been giving it more than a try for a long time, and "they" say it's still getting worse, despite all the improvements.
Maybe you could get Mother Nature to make a better effort.

So, you recommend adopting the lowest standards rather than setting the highest? That's an interesting concept. 🤔

I was. You think the air is cleaner now? Thank the "tree huggers" of that era for they brought polution to our attention, forcing regulations to make big poluters clean up their act.

Why do some folks always want others to do the research and provide all the data? You want a statement fact checked, then you fact check it and you provide you findings. More often than not, "please provide" is just wasting your time and will deny any evidence and/or source as valid. It's mental "rope a dope", getting others to waste their time and energy. Hey, maybe you can cheat off Elon's notes?

And? 😐🤨

OMG! 😒 Since when did you start caring, other than to use it as a guilt trip argument for big oil?

FYI! Often "missing the point" is intentional. Used to get one to chase red herring or present misdirection or misinformation. Tactical "thick headedness".

"Much of the world" isn't doing enough, and the other "much of the world" is short sighted simply trying to survive as the whole world around is getting less habitable.
And, Mother always liked you more..

I think his point was there is NO answer, only opinions. You can't fact check when there are no facts. If someone does actually have an answer based on facts, let us know.

It's obvious the air is cleaner now. Nothing to do with tree huggers back then, at least in UK.
We were still struggling in the aftermath of WW2.
So many were dying from the stuff in the air, it was getting ridiculous.
When votes are at risk, things get done.

When someone makes a claim, it is their responsibility to provide evidence to back it up. Otherwise, it is just oral diarrhea.

No, hate child trafficking more than oil, but I guess you're ok with it. I'll pray for you.

It does no good for me to clean up my property when neighbors trash just blow on to mine. Just makes more work for me. The point was make neighbors clean up their yard, until, then no matter what I do the trash will keep coming cause I can’t force my neighbors to be good neighbors.

Opinions don’t need claims beside’s if look hard enough you can find some study to back up your claim. But I don’t have to agree with it.

How about the folks at Yale who point out some of the problems - https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2...mb-and-dumber/ Or do some homework yourself rather that sitting back and letting others do the thinking and leg work for you.

AI engines return the following -
Cognitive performance
Exposure to 1,000 ppm or higher can negatively impact cognitive performance, such as decision making and problem solving.
Respiratory symptoms
Children exposed to CO2 levels above 1,000 ppm may experience respiratory symptoms.
Other health effects
Exposure to CO2 can also cause headaches, dizziness, tiredness, and eye irritation.


Ever heard and experienced getting a breathe of fresh air? What do you think that's all about? It's common sense.

As they say in the article - CO2 will cause people to get dumber and dumber. I think we already have a lot of that going on as we can see from the current politics.

drill baby drill. EVs are decades away from being practical. When I have as many chargers as gas stations, when I can charge an EV in the same time as it takes me to fill up a tank of gas, when I don’t have to wait hours being 3rd or 4th in line for a charge, when EVs aren’t so ugly, and when comparable cars cost about the same, then maybe I’ll look at them.

I’d be a whole lot more worried about entities spraying god knows what into our upper atmosphere, then bombarding that with high energy to change/manipulate the weather. Think HAARP. Kind of puts a damper on all the climate alarmists. As in my humble opinion we all should be extremely concerned about that. It’s no coincidence these storms are so intense and record breaking.

DuckDuckGo

What kind of damage is the manufacture of lithium batteries doing ?

Then people might research weather modification. ( H A A R P.) Energy Frequency & Vibration, can be used for good or bad. Nikola Tesla

We all want to improve the environment. All engineering disciplines are working to improve the environment. Sometimes mistakes are made (examples, forever chemicals and micro plastics). The human condition is to move forward and eliminate the mistakes that we learn from. The solutions we have come up with so far continue to be imperfect
Lots of work opportunities. Be optimistic!!

CO2 is essential to the life cycle on Earth. Without CO2, plant life would die, and animals would soon follow. In a closed environment of a space vehicle or submarine, CO2 produced by humans must be removed, and oxygen consumed by humans must be replaced. The Earth's plant life performs this function without human intervention. If you want to fight against higher CO2 levels, plant a tree.

Spitting in the ocean without China and India climate compliance which will never happen

CO2 promotes plant growth. Plants and trees emit Oxygen which we breathe. Seems like a good system.

Remember, THEY scared us with Acid Rain !!!