Trump Declares in EO that CO2 Is Not Pollution..

The Trump administration’s desire to roll back our society into the fifties is highly questionable. What’s next? Leaded Gasoline? Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Guy loves to live in the past. How can this guy be considered a forward looking/thinking person.

Perhaps all Democrats should do their part and stop breathing. The world would be a much better place. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

By letting the maggie mindset accelerate the worsening conditions that lead to an environment that won't support life as y'all know it? Bet your last dying breath is secure in knowing how much $$$ you banked letting loose all stops on the collapse of the world.

... No, The Trump Administration is saying that CO2 emissions
are NOT the extreme "threat" that the wacky "Global Warning" droobs
believe it to be.

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

Ah yes. Believeing the Father of the Big Lie and ignoring empirical data of countless studies.

Wasn't it the dalai here that said facts don't matter. Such a maggie mantra.

Trump is partially correct. C02 is essential for plant growth. Plants need C02 to make sugars and release oxygen through photosynthesis. So C02 is not a pollutant in that respect. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Oh. I think I see the hidden reward behind donnys decision. Plants make sugar with CO2. There is a war against obesity. donny greenlit drugs that combat it for Big Pharma. We make sugary soda from all that free CO2, sunlight, and air. So, there is a never ending circle of free resources, soda sales, perpetually skinny consumers.

What a $$$$ making machine!

So excessive emissions of Co2 into the atmosphere warms the Earth's surface to the point of catastrophic proportions? So, let's just start from the basics there is only three ways in which to warm a surface, Convection, Conduction and Solar Radiation. Scientists know that but they aren't explaining how Co2 correlates with any one of these modes of warming. They just come up with anecdotal evidence to skirt the actual truth. They don't know how much Co2 was in the atmosphere 3 million years ago. There is no way of knowing so much of what they try to explain is mere speculation. Global Warming has become a Political Phenomenon and it's ridiculous. It's constantly being talked about but never a real solution. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Well, there are gonna be people addressing this. But you are right. As more is learned, the experts adapt to the new data. I think Global Warming is passe. Climate Change is real.

How about everyone who thinks plant food is going to be the downfall of civilization put their money where their mouths are, go live in a mud hut and ride a bicycle anywhere they need to go. Not only will they be saving the world, but also drive down housing costs for these youngins who are looking at 400k minimum for anything decent to start a family in. Two birds, one stone. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

What do maggies care about kids? They have proved time and again they do not by their inaction in passing bills that show such. Such words devoid of actual care for the current and future youth of this country.

you forget. humans exhale CO2.

BTW, plants exhale CO2, breathe O2 at night whereas they exhale O2, breathe CO2 at day. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Never heard that before. Got a link to a description of such?

you won't get any argument from me if its air pollution. clean air is healthy for everyone.

this is the issue of over-regulation many chemical companies are over-regulated as many of them are zero emissions. problem is how they define zero emissions. the emissions they produce is basically 0.0004711 for example. something like that. its four thousand seven hundred eleven ten-millionths. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Well, what's wrong in striving to get a lung full of clean air on each and every breath? Just that some fat cats bottom line ain't padded as fast as they like.

you forget. humans exhale CO2.

BTW, plants exhale CO2, breathe O2 at night whereas they exhale O2, breathe CO2 at day. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

to address Precious_b's point re: Dilbert's comment above:

Dilbert is "sorta" on the right track, but not exactly.

What’s wrong with it?
Plants don’t “switch” between breathing and exhaling in a simple way like humans do. Two different processes are happening:

Respiration (happens all the time, day and night)

Uses O₂

Releases CO₂

Photosynthesis (happens only in light)

Uses CO₂

Releases O₂

What actually happens
During the day (in light):

Plants photosynthesize → take in CO₂, release O₂

They also respire → take in O₂, release CO₂

But photosynthesis is stronger, so the net effect is:

They take in CO₂ and release O₂.

At night (no light):

Photosynthesis stops. (At least the part involving light. There's something else called the "dark" reactions involving building sugars from CO2 and H2O, which can continue in the dark.)

Only respiration occurs at night (with the "dark reaction" caveat, explained above.)

So the net effect is:

They take in O₂ and release CO₂, at night.

A more accurate version of the statement:
During the day, plants take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen due to photosynthesis (while also respiring). At night, they take in oxygen and release carbon dioxide because only respiration occurs.

Bottom line: yes plants need CO2, but not at post-Industrial Revolution levels. Climate instability caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions-and man produced CH4-can actually have a net negative effect on plant growth and plant health-think droughts, wildfires, elevated temperatures, feast/famine rain cycles, landslides, etc.

All of which goes to show that a politically-influenced, non-endangerment finding for CO2 pollution is bad and retrograde policy, and contrary to the scientific consensus concerning its well-established dangers to the health of the planet. But Trump doesn't care about any of that.

to address Precious_b's point re: Dilbert's comment above:

Dilbert is "sorta" on the right track, but not exactly.

What’s wrong with it?
Plants don’t “switch” between breathing and exhaling in a simple way like humans do. Two different processes are happening:

Respiration (happens all the time, day and night)

Uses O₂

Releases CO₂

Photosynthesis (happens only in light)

Uses CO₂

Releases O₂

What actually happens
During the day (in light):

Plants photosynthesize → take in CO₂, release O₂

They also respire → take in O₂, release CO₂

But photosynthesis is stronger, so the net effect is:

They take in CO₂ and release O₂.

At night (no light):

Photosynthesis stops. (At least the part involving light. There's something else called the "dark" reactions involving building sugars from CO2 and H2O, which can continue in the dark.)

Only respiration occurs at night (with the "dark reaction" caveat, explained above.)

So the net effect is:

They take in O₂ and release CO₂, at night.

A more accurate version of the statement:
During the day, plants take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen due to photosynthesis (while also respiring). At night, they take in oxygen and release carbon dioxide because only respiration occurs.

Bottom line: yes plants need CO2, but not at post-Industrial Revolution levels. Climate instability caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions-and man produced CH4-can actually have a net negative effect on plant growth and plant health-think droughts, wildfires, elevated temperatures, feast/famine rain cycles, landslides, etc.

All of which goes to show that a politically-influenced, non-endangerment finding for CO2 pollution is bad and retrograde policy, and contrary to the scientific consensus concerning its well-established dangers to the health of the planet. But Trump doesn't care about any of that. Originally Posted by pxmcc

Never heard that before. Interesting. Have to look into that.

CO2 is not and has never been pollution. If you knew or understood the carbon cycle that is so obvious. Methane on the other hand is a problem. On the ocean floor is a layer of semi gelatinous methane. If recovered, it can be fuel. 60 million years ago was the "big burp" when that methane reached critical mass. It turned to vapor and changed the climate almost overnight. Mass extinction event!

CO2 is not and has never been pollution. If you knew or understood the carbon cycle that is so obvious.

px: tell that to hothouse Venus. it was a CO2-induced runaway greenhouse effect that wrecked our planetary neighbor for good..

Methane on the other hand is a problem. On the ocean floor is a layer of semi gelatinous methane. If recovered, it can be fuel. 60 million years ago was the "big burp" when that methane reached critical mass. It turned to vapor and changed the climate almost overnight. Mass extinction event! Originally Posted by Schwarzer Ritter

on CH4, you are correct sir. well done..

This is a losing argument in my opinion. Many elements and chemicals are part of the natural world. It’s human processes that take these elements and places them unnaturally into our environment. The burning of fossil fuels is a human created process that places huge quantities of CO2 and Methane into the environment. IE It could easily be classified as a pollutant. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

CO2 is not and has never been pollution. If you knew or understood the carbon cycle that is so obvious. Methane on the other hand is a problem. On the ocean floor is a layer of semi gelatinous methane. If recovered, it can be fuel. 60 million years ago was the "big burp" when that methane reached critical mass. It turned to vapor and changed the climate almost overnight. Mass extinction event! Originally Posted by Schwarzer Ritter

Humanity has upended the carbon cycle unnaturally by the burning of fossil fuels. Any element or chemical can be labeled as a pollutant if it’s being created or released into the environment unnaturally.

Humanity has upended the carbon cycle unnaturally by the burning of fossil fuels. Any element or chemical can be labeled as a pollutant if it’s being created or released into the environment unnaturally. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

You mean like Chemtrails that have been known to contain compounds that contain Aluminum, Barium and Strontium just to name a few. All poisonous to the environment.

Humanity has upended the carbon cycle unnaturally by the burning of fossil fuels. Any element or chemical can be labeled as a pollutant if it’s being created or released into the environment unnaturally.[/QUOTE]
You mean like Chemtrails that have been known to contain compounds that contain Aluminum, Barium and Strontium just to name a few. All poisonous to the environment. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Originally Posted by Levianon17

How long have chemtrails been a thing?

Here's one of the first known descriptions of contrails from 1921.

To affect the atmosphere over populated areas of the United States alone would require continuous coverage of several hundred thousand square kilometres each day, an area larger than many European countries.

Each mission would have to release tonnes of material at cruising altitude. Even if every aircraft were as efficient as a modern passenger jet, it would take around 150 to 200 large aircraft flying multiple sorties daily to sustain the coverage.

These are not small drones or crop dusters but commercial airliners, machines that are loud, conspicuous, and regulated to the finest detail.

Such a fleet would rival that of a major airline and would need dedicated hangars, fuel farms, and maintenance crews.

None of these can exist without public record, procurement contracts, and regulatory oversight.

The operation would be visible not only to the public but also to the world’s extensive air-traffic control network and to thousands of aviation enthusiasts who monitor aircraft movements in real time.

Chemtrail claims often name barium, strontium, and aluminium compounds as the materials being sprayed. Yet these substances are easy to identify in environmental science.

Laboratories routinely detect such elements at concentrations far below what any aerial release could produce.

If hundreds of tonnes of these materials were being dispersed daily, the evidence would appear unmistakably in air, water, and soil samples worldwide. It has not.

Decades of global monitoring show no anomalies consistent with large-scale atmospheric deposition of these metals.

Chemically, the idea is also unsound. Many proposed compounds are poor candidates for aerosol release.

Aluminium reacts quickly with moisture, forming insoluble oxides, while barium sulphate is so inert it is used as a safe contrast agent in medical imaging.

These are not the ingredients of invisible sky-wide chemistry; they are substances that would rapidly fall out or be detected.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...trail_1921.jpg
https://contrailscience.com/chemtrai...ce=chatgpt.com
https://chemtrails.info/a-brief-hist...ce=chatgpt.com
https://chemtrails.info/the-logistic...ail-programme/
https://chemtrails.info/the-scale-of...ail-0peration/

Humanity has upended the carbon cycle unnaturally by the burning of fossil fuels. Any element or chemical can be labeled as a pollutant if it’s being created or released into the environment unnaturally. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Wouldn't you say the same of a large wild fire or volcanic eruption? You should to be consistent. The fact is that plants are growing larger and faster absorbing the additional CO2.

Wouldn't you say the same of a large wild fire or volcanic eruption? You should to be consistent. The fact is that plants are growing larger and faster absorbing the additional CO2. Originally Posted by Schwarzer Ritter

This reply is pure MAGA script and is incredibly naive and simplistic. Volcanic eruptions and wildfires not exacerbated by climate change are unavoidable and generally tolerated by the CO2 cycle in the human era. And while some plants benefit from increased CO2 levels, the effect is not often good. Yields of some food crops can be reduced, and damage from heat stress and the risks of increases in pests and disease are very real.

The problem here is not CO2 from naturally occurring events. It is increased CO2 levels above the normal background caused by human activity that is the problem. It has overloaded the natural carbon cycle.

But I'm sure MAGA says that this is all a lie.

.

in a heineous decision, Trump overturns an EPA finding from 2009 that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant responsible, in significant part, for global warming, using hack scientists to support his EO..

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0zdd7yl4vo

can you say, let's go backwards and deny scientific facts..

the sooner he is removed, the better chance the planet has to recover from the last 150 years of CO2 and CH4 anthropogenic emissions and the havoc they are sowing on a global scale..

has Trump ever tried to get affordable homeowners' insurance on the Gulf Coast, or any other vulnerable region like So. Cali.? it does not exist. gee, i wonder why.. Originally Posted by pxmcc

Perhaps Herr Orange Shits-in-pants should go inhale some. A lot of it actually.

This reply is pure MAGA script and is incredibly naive and simplistic. Volcanic eruptions and wildfires not exacerbated by climate change are unavoidable and generally tolerated by the CO2 cycle in the human era. And while some plants benefit from increased CO2 levels, the effect is not often good. Yields of some food crops can be reduced, and damage from heat stress and the risks of increases in pests and disease are very real risks.

The problem here is not CO2 from naturally occurring events. It is increased CO2 levels above the normal background caused by human activity that is the problem. It has overloaded the natural carbon cycle.

But I'm sure MAGA says that this is all a lie. Originally Posted by rooster

Humans are also contributing to the loss of natural carbon absorption.

Forests account for about 25% of total C02 absorption. The Amazon accounts for about 25% of that.

The Amazon rainforest stores an estimated 150 to 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide in its vegetation and soil. While historically a massive carbon sink, high rates of deforestation and burning have shifted parts of the forest to a net carbon source, with some studies showing it emitted roughly 16.6 billion tonnes of
CO2 while absorbing 13.9 billion tonnes between 2010 and 2019.

Key details regarding the Amazon's absorption:

Carbon Storage & Sequestration: The Amazon holds roughly 650 billion tons of in its trees. It accounts for a significant portion of land-based carbon absorption, but its capacity has decreased by roughly 30% since the 1990s due to deforestation.

Net Source/Sink Status: While often described as "the lungs of the earth", studies indicate that the southeastern Amazon has become a net source of carbon emissions due to deforestation, increased tree mortality, and fire, with the region emitting 1 billion tonnes more than it absorbed annually during a recent study period.

Impact of Human Activity:

Deforestation and forest fires, particularly in the Brazilian Amazon, have transformed portions of the forest into a source of emissions, outweighing the carbon sequestration of intact, growing trees.

Future Risks:

The Amazon is approaching a tipping point, with the potential to shift completely from a vital carbon sink to a net carbon emitter due to climate change, drought, and ongoing deforestation.

The Congo and Indonesia have the second and third largest rainforests. The Congo remains a net carbon sink, but is at risk due to deforestation. Indonesia is now a net carbon emitter due to deforestation.

China and India are helping to increase vegetation that helps offset the loss of forests in the Amazon and Indonesia, but not enough.

“But, now that we know direct human influence is a key driver of the greening Earth, we need to factor this into our climate models,” Nemani said. “This will help scientists make better predictions about the behavior of different Earth systems, which will help countries make better decisions about how and when to take action.”

The researchers point out that the gain in greenness seen around the world and dominated by India and China does not offset the damage from loss of natural vegetation in tropical regions, such as Brazil and Indonesia. The consequences for sustainability and biodiversity in those ecosystems remain.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+...hrome&ie=UTF-8
https://www.science.org/content/arti...ioxide-falling

...
Forests account for about 25% of total C02 absorption. The Amazon accounts for about 25% of that.
....
The Congo and Indonesia have the second and third largest rainforests. The Congo remains a net carbon sink, but is at risk due to deforestation. Indonesia is now a net carbon emitter due to deforestation.... Originally Posted by Turner2099

There is already debate saying that the Amazon has tipped to become a net carbon emitter.

Another massive carbon sink is the oceans. But as they warm, we risk them becoming net emitters also.

And then there is the Permafrost....

As these sinks tip over into being emitters, we risk positive feedback loops that will accelerate carbon emissions far beyond current levels. Change will happen much faster.

Faak. We are cooked. Soon...perhaps literally.

Drill baby drill!

.

[QUOTE=Turner2099;1064008457]

How long have chemtrails been a thing?

Here's one of the first known descriptions of contrails from 1921.







https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...trail_1921.jpg
https://contrailscience.com/chemtrai...ce=chatgpt.com
https://chemtrails.info/a-brief-hist...ce=chatgpt.com
https://chemtrails.info/the-logistic...ail-programme/
https://chemtrails.info/the-scale-of...ail-0peration/ Originally Posted by Levianon17

So they say. What would be the reason for spraying chemicals into the air in the first place.

[QUOTE=Levianon17;1064008857]

So they say. What would be the reason for spraying chemicals into the air in the first place. Originally Posted by Turner2099

The chemicals you referenced aren't being sprayed into the air. Silver iodide is used for cloud seeding to help with rain and it's been used for seven decades. Plenty of time to study for safety. Chemtrails have been widely debunked and you can find much more information showing that they don't exist than they do. Cloud seeding is the closest I saw other than geoengineering, but like I said, that isn't done, yet.

Cloud Seeding: A Proven, Local Solution

Cloud seeding keeps it simple. It’s about giving nature a nudge to make clouds more productive.
Tiny particles—usually silver iodide, a common seeding agent—are introduced into existing
clouds to stimulate the formation of ice crystals or water droplets, speeding up the process of
precipitation. These agents act like magnets, encouraging clouds to drop more rain or snow than
they would naturally. This isn’t about conjuring storms or rewriting climate patterns—it’s a
localized boost to help clouds more efficiently release the moisture they already contain to
produce additional water supply.

The practice has maintained a solid track record. For over seven decades, states such as Utah,
Idaho, and Texas have used cloud seeding to meet real-world demands. Farmers get more water
for crops, firefighters have full reservoirs to combat wildfires, and hydropower plants keep
churning. Extensive research backs this up, estimating a 5-15% increase in precipitation, with 70
years of data demonstrating its effectiveness.

Safety isn’t an afterthought, either. Silver iodide, the most widely studied seeding agent, is used
in small quantities and leaves no lasting environmental impact, as confirmed by multiple studies
over decades. There’s no evidence of harm to ecosystems—just practical results.

States with cloud seeding programs maintain strict oversight by issuing permits and enforcing
regulations to ensure transparency and documentation. This makes cloud seeding a regulated
and transparent tool, delivering measurable benefits where they are needed most without
pretending to play God.

Geoengineering is also referenced in the following, but that's not a thing, yet.

Please take a look at the links in my previous post and if you question any of the data, crosscheck it.

Don't forget that Marjorie Taylor-Greene said space lasers started California wildfires. Misinformation can spread just by having trusted people spread the ideas.

https://legislature.maine.gov/testim...8804207404.pdf