EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
If you think that the days of total propaganda are over or that politics only changes history textbooks, you are very wrong. Today it is also imposed through natural sciences - the lesson "Air Pollution" in my daughter's textbook "Man and Nature" for 4th grade is a clear example.
The definitions of oxygen (O 2 ) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) begin with “colorless gas.” However, the former is a “constituent of air,” and the latter is an “air pollutant.” Obviously, O 2 is normal, and CO 2 is abnormal and harmful.
Then our children are taught that CO2 is “released during combustion,” which is technically true. However, CO2 is primarily released during the respiration of living organisms – at least 95% of what goes into the atmosphere. Finally, they are told that oxygen is “necessary for respiration,” meaning it is important, and CO2 is “needed in small amounts by plants,” meaning – it is not that important!?
Life on the planet is based on carbon – in large quantities. It is made up of chains of carbon and hydrogen atoms, and only after them come other elements. And their only source of carbon for plants is CO 2 from the air, from which, in the presence of water and sunlight, they produce biomass, and O 2 is a waste gas in this process. And we exist thanks to the fact that this waste has accumulated in the atmosphere.
Obviously, in the definitions themselves, the author determines the character of the characters – O 2 is good, and CO 2– bad. Therefore, we should not be surprised by the text regarding the latter: “When inhaled in large quantities, it is dangerous to the life and health of people.” And the central message that children should remember is absolutely unambiguous: “Carbon dioxide is the main air pollutant.”
Undoubtedly, the author is right – inhaling concentrated CO2 is dangerous to your health. But this can only happen if you are in a burning building. And long before you get to CO2, you will have been poisoned by carbon monoxide (CO). It is no coincidence that in every textbook on environmental protection there are maximum permissible concentrations for the latter, but not for CO2.
What would happen if we increased the atmospheric oxygen concentration only twice – from 21% to 42%? Bad idea – all the biomass on the planet would burn. Doesn’t sound like a “good” gas. And if we increased the CO2 concentration twice– from the current 400 to 800 ppm? All photosynthetic organisms, both on land and in the oceans, would grow more – 30-50% faster. In fact, throughout the Mesozoic era, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere ranged between 1000 and 2000 ppm. That’s exactly why the largest animals in geological history – the dinosaurs – lived then. It was warm and humid, there were almost no deserts and ecosystems were much more productive. Modern greenhouses mimic Mesozoic living conditions by artificially maintaining a CO2 concentration of around 1500 ppm, or 4 times higher than atmospheric levels. If you are reading this in a room, the CO2 concentration around you is over 800 ppm. Signs of illness?
In fact, CO2 is completely absent among the pollutants, but there are various other gases present, the existence of which the author briefly mentions: "In addition to carbon dioxide, smoke from the combustion of coal, gasoline and naphtha pollutes the air with various other gases and solid particles." Only fossil fuels emit pollutants? The author has probably never seen a campfire, a fireplace, a country house or a panel block with chimneys. Or he simply ignores the fact that 60% of the 7 million victims of air pollution in the world annually are due to fine dust particles from burning biomass. Yes, billions of people still heat and cook with animal feces, wood, pellets, that is, they die from the eco-smoke of RES. This also applies to a large part of the population in the cities with the dirtiest air in our country - Montana, Vidin, Pleven, Plovdiv. Moreover, combustion is by no means the only source of pollution – in some areas, agriculture, livestock farming, or simply nature are much more significant pollutants.
It is clear that acquiring knowledge is not the goal of the lesson. The latter becomes obvious only when we get to a sad picture: two children complain about the dirty air against the background of billowing smoke, and the girl holds a book with the inscription: "The Greenhouse Effect". Here my daughter is left with the impression that she is "sneezing, coughing, her throat hurts and her eyes water" because of the greenhouse effect!?
It turns out that the vilification of CO2 is quite deliberate. Because of its contribution to the greenhouse effect, we have to lie to children that CO2 is the main air pollutant, fossil fuels are the only source of dirt, and the symbols of human civilization are just smoking chimneys? If this is the case, the biggest culprit should be water - water vapor and its clouds are responsible for 75% of the planet's total greenhouse effect!
Yes, burning fossil fuels has consequences – about 20% of the world’s air pollution victims are associated with them. But this is not necessarily the case. First, natural gas is practically non-polluting. Second, there are standard technologies for generating energy from coal and oil that do not emit significant amounts of pollutants. When was the last time you came across news about heavy smog in Germany, Australia or the US, even though the concentration of coal-fired power plants there is as high as in China?
The lie that air pollution is inextricably linked to CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels is a major weapon of climate policy. All the coverage of pollution in China against the backdrop of the negotiations for the Paris Climate Agreement has clearly shown that there is literally no unmistakable media. And if China modernizes its power plants by installing adequate dust collectors and desulfurization plants, what will happen? Pollution will remain a thing of the past, but CO2 emissions will increase because these plants need electricity. And what if India, Indonesia, Bangladesh and all of Africa do the same and more than a billion people switch from eco-cigarettes to electricity and live better?
No, global climate activism under the auspices of the UN does not want this. It has another goal, and it justifies any means – modifying textbooks is among the mildest examples.
If you still want your child to know the most important thing, use the following definition: Carbon dioxide is the main food for life on Earth!
What does it mean, i.e. what do you mean by this - ''Carbon dioxide is the main food for life on Earth!''
For 15 years I have been asking people if they know where the oxygen on Earth comes from and I have not received a correct answer. Even my son at school was given a couple of questions and then apologized after I made them ask professors in Sofia. That is, 65-70%, and according to NASA, over 80% of the oxygen on Earth comes from phytoplankton, and Wikipedia writes well - "Phytoplankton is responsible for 50% of the photosynthetic activity on Earth and for 80% of the oxygen produced, i.e. most of the air we breathe is produced by tiny microalgae."
How many people know that CO2 is washed away by rain, etc. Yesterday I wrote about this in detail - https://www.facebook.com/atanas.shalapatov/posts/1695547024056858
It requires reading and thinking because some things are not what we think, especially economics because indoctrination of the mind is easy in it because it is a special and social science.
And what does photoplankton eat?
The way you wrote it is confusing and misleading - for me and for those who doubt warming, they may doubt it even more.
As for plankton, it is decreasing a lot - http://e-vestnik.bg/9641
plus deforestation, there is no one to convert CO2, although carbon dioxide is a smaller problem because it is washed away by the rain and turns into carbonic acid, destroying the calcium-silicate minerals on the earth's surface and releasing calcium and bicarbonate ions, which go through rivers to the oceans and serve to form the shells of mussels and scallops - three scientists, J. Walker and P. Hayes from the University of Michigan and J. Casting from NASA, have developed this model and in the magazine ''Science and Technology'' 12th issue of 1988 it is explained in detail. The model is simple - when solar activity increases, water evaporates and rain falls, which washes away CO2, and when less water evaporates, it means an increase in CO2, i.e. warming leading to water vapor / rain / washing away CO2, and so on.
METHANE IS DANGEROUS, ETC.
As for the plankton increasing: http://megavselena.bg/stranen-bum-na-zhivi-syshtestva-v-okeana-no-uchenite-ne-znayat-zashto/
Photosynthesis is a biological process in which, with the help of sunlight, carbon dioxide is converted into organic compounds.[1] In the most common version of the process, water is involved in the synthesis, saccharides are synthesized, and oxygen is released as a waste product.
I'm starting to suspect that NASA is part of the timber mafia too.