Carbon 'facts' according to Green Dream Believers

I'VE seen the light, the truth about "carbon pollution" in simple terms as explained by some Green Dream Believers and disciples of the new Climate Change religion.

So why am I still in the dark? I've always wondered how Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen, Greens leader Adam Bandt, the nowhere-near-independent Teals and a host of other climate change advocates keep banging on about "carbon pollution" and how we must eliminate it to save the planet while creating thousands of new Green Renewables jobs.

I thought they were talking about carbon dioxide or CO2, an essential trace gas which now measures slightly over 400 parts per million or a miniscule 0.04 percent of the atmosphere. Science confirms it has been present at much higher levels due to natural influences in the past, when trees thrived and coral reefs proliferated. (From Wikipedia: Concentrations of CO2in the atmosphere were as high as 4,000 ppm during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago, and as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years.^[4] Reconstructed temperature records for the last 420 million years indicate that atmospheric CO2concentrations peaked at approximately 2,000 ppm during the Devonian (400 Ma) period, and again in the Triassic (220–200 Ma) period and was four times current levels during the Jurassic period (201–145 Ma).^{[16] [17]})

How can they call it "carbon pollution" when we know it is essential to all life on Earth?

How can they call it "carbon pollution" when all living organisms breathe it out as part of the respiration process and then plants absorb it and return oxygen to the atmosphere as part of nature's perfect master plan?

Well, just as decades ago in TV ads we were told "oils aint necessarily oils," carbon pollution ain't necessarily carbon pollution.

My re-education on how all this is really supposed to work began years ago, courtesy of a newspaper column I wrote where I suggested people who lie awake at night worrying about breathing and adding to the "carbon pollution" need worry no more as there were a couple of ingenious devices developed which could sequester their own personal greenhouse contributions (at least from their lungs).

With a global population now approaching 8 billion and each human exhaling an average of about 1kg of CO2 daily, that's nothing to sneeze at. In fact it inspired the developers of the amazing "Living Green Screen Mask," hailed as "a living, carbon-capturing face mask which also filters bacteria, and the "Binchotan" (Japanese for "White Coal") bracelet.

If you combined these colourful accessories back then, you would not only be noticed in a crowd (any crowd), more importantly you would capture and store CO2, filter out microbes, generate feel-good negative ions and ward off electromagnetic waves from the cellphone powered by the electricity you have just generated with your bracelet, all at the same time you are helping to save the planet. Or so I thought when I passed the information on to readers, with just a hint of sarcasm.

According to the angry nest of Green hornets and climate worriers I stirred with my helpful information, the CO2 which humans breathe out is not pollution. Some also said the CO2 spewed out by volcanoes was not pollution since it was natural and possibly responsible for higher CO2 levels in the past which was all good because humans weren't responsible.

They were adamant that we were not contributing to "carbon pollution" through breathing. Some mistakenly thought the carbon dioxide we breathed out was the same volume we breathed in, when in reality through respiration, we breathe out about four times as much.

Others said the CO2 we breathe out today is the carbon we ate yesterday and this was "good carbon" seeing it was perfectly in balance with nature. Apparently it does not matter whether you are a vegetarian or a meat eater, the principle remains the same. Garbage in, garbage out, I guess (just like today's climate computer models which churn out the desired predictions).