Comment: They are talking about

(See in situ)

They are talking about

They are talking about carbon dioxide (CO2, one carbon atom combined with two oxygen atoms), not carbon (C). There's a very large difference. I haven't heard of anyone having problems with carbon (C). I've heard a lot about supposed increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) supposedly causing global warming. All known life has carbon (C) as the most important component to it's molecular structure. Carbon dioxide (CO2), however, is necessary for plant life, which is at the bottom of our food chain. Carbon dioxide (CO2) makes up a very tiny percentage (0.036% to 0.039%) of our atmosphere, even after all the carbon dioxide (CO2) added to the atmosphere from humans and their tools. Now I suspect this extra carbon dioxide (CO2) and possible increase in temperature is good for plant life, which is in turn good for us. However, there are also weather concerns related to "global warming", though I don't know how concerned we should be about them. Too much carbon dioxide (CO2) is bad for humans, but I think the amount is significantly higher than what is currently in our atmosphere (in the area of 1% you start to see effects such as drowsiness after prolonged exposure, at 8% it causes headache, sweating, dim vision, tremor and loss of consciousness after exposure for between five and ten minutes...see wikipedia).

But the politicians main concern is global warming. So now they are favoring carbon dioxide (CO2) reducing regulations and financial incentives in attempt to basically control the weather. Most likely the government will be incapable of achieving whatever levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) it thinks is "good" without side-effects. There's also a risk of over-shooting and lowering carbon dioxide (CO2) levels to dangerously low levels, suffocating plant life, leading to food shortages (practically everything we eat is either a plant, or itself eats plants...I'm not sure how fungus (mushrooms) fit into everything, though, but I seriously doubt they provide all the nutrition humans need).

So no, I seriously don't think they're talking about carbon (C), but rather carbon dioxide (CO2). Whether they're talking about "reducing carbon", it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reducing you.