But WHat about....?

CO2 is "just plant food".

While elevated CO2 levels can increase photosynthesis rates, growth, and yield, there are also many negative effects that can harm plant growth and development, such as decreased nutritional content, thickening of leaves, an imbalance in chemical makeup, negative effects on growth, and unknown effects.

​

CO2 is such a tiny percentage of the atmosphere, how can it make a difference?

A video of a US politician grilling climate scientists and making them all look a bit silly was circulating. Did they know what percentage of the atmosphere CO2 was? Nope. CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of the atmosphere, but you already knew this because you looked at the live CO2 tracker which gives you parts per million and 400 ppm is 0.04%.  Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, but it has "windows" that allow some of the infrared energy to escape without being absorbed. In addition, water vapor is concentrated lower in the atmosphere, whereas CO2 mixes well all the way up to about 50 kilometers up. The higher the greenhouse gas, the more effective it is at trapping heat from the Earth's surface.

At the same time that someone will claim that it is impossible that CO2 could make a difference when it is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, they will ignore that medication, such as aspirin, which is an even smaller proportion of an adult's bodyweight will have a significant impact.

​

Natural disasters have always been happening and climate change is a blip.

While natural disasters and extreme weather events would still occur without climate change, they would be on a smaller scale. Climate change is a shared driver of many natural disasters and extreme environmental conditions around the world.

​

But what about China ?!?

This argument is often rolled out to justify the approach that China and other large nations will continue to grow and building fossil fuel power stations and that we (Canada) are only responsible for 1.5% of global emissions. This seems like a very misleading approach as Canada is probably responsible for 1.5% or less of many less than desirable activities in the world, maybe ivory trading for example? So, should we just ignore that? No. This is a poor reason and excuse for inaction.

​

What’s the point I’m just one person?

This is a commonly used argument for inaction. “Why should I bother when other people are still polluting? Just to focus on three main reasons for acting on climate change:

1. Ethical responsibility. If a person has options to act in a way that reduces harm to others, there is an ethical responsibility to do so. Failing to conserve finite resources, needlessly adding carbon to the atmosphere, and ignoring the impacts of climate change on vulnerable communities are all morally wrong. We know that there people without this who do not share this ethical stance but would you use the excuse that others do it as a reason to knowingly litter, cause harm to others or consent to damaging actions?

2. Individual actions can inspire others and lead to systemic changes. If you are silent, then nothing will change. A single person CAN make a difference.

3. Many, if not most climate actions do not cost more and can actually save you money and make you healthier, such as biking instead of driving, better insulated homes and buildings, vacationing closer to home.

​

I can’t do my errands without a car.

Many of us rely on our private cars and this is a by-product of how we have arranged most of our cities. They are essential in many instances. There are several benefits of biking or walking instead, one study showed reduced heart disease by 30% whilst this study showed that 72% of trips are less than 3 miles and these would actually be quicker to bike or walk rather than drive.  There are also proven mental health benefits and reductions in local traffic and pollution.

​

Here is a nice calculator to estimate the benefits of biking.

​

It’s ok to slash virgin forest because we plant new trees.

Planting trees can be very positive but as with many things, it is always contextual. Ripping out old growth forests and planting monocultures can be very harmful, as can planting trees over other types of natural areas, as can harvesting "sustainably" and transporting the lumber over vast distances. This article explains some of the main pros and cons of different approaches.

​