• zjti8eit@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      no one claimed its lowering CO2 they are saying that it won’t matter because there will be less sunlight as its the sunglight that actually causes the global warming.

        • Random Dent@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Yes, implementing an insanely wasteful solution that affects one metric that sounds good while doing virtually nothing to solve the actual problem and actually causing several more, arguably worse problems (eg: plants need sunlight to live) is pretty much how everything works these days.

        • Semester3383@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          CO2 levels don’t actually poison us though. The problem isn’t CO2 levels per se, but the effect they have on global climate change, by trapping more heat. If less light gets through, then the planet cools, even if CO2 levels remain high. If temperatures stabilize or drop by 1.5C, then plants should eventually be able to remove the excess CO2, as long as we stop increasing our output. OTOH, the decreased amount of light getting through might make solar panels less efficient, and may reduce plant growth since they kinda need sunlight too. Sooooo…

          • Jax@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            21 hours ago

            High levels of CO2 are 100% toxic, why would you ever suggest otherwise?

            • Semester3383@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 hours ago

              Technically accurate, but not accurate in any meaningful way in this context.

              The planet would be unlivable LONG before CO2 levels got high enough to directly risk the health and safety of humans through inhalation.

              • Jax@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                34 minutes ago

                You know, I mistakenly conflate CO2 and particulate matter — I recognize my error.

            • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              18 hours ago

              We aren’t even halfway to the “this isn’t a great idea to live in” levels, and far from lethal levels. Purely from a “toxicity” level your bedroom at night is far worse than projected co2 levels in the next 100 years.

              Does that mean it’s fine to keep increasing? No. But arguing that we are anywhere near “high levels” as it pertains to toxicity is inherently flawed.

              • Jax@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                33 minutes ago

                You know, I mistakenly conflate CO2 and particulate matter — I recognize my error.