Engineering360: "Solar energy based method could break down CO2 into useful products"

I don't think plants and trees consider CO2 to be harmful.

The word ‘Harmful’ has contextual application .

My science teacher was telling about poisons .He asked us, ‘Is common salt poisonous?’

In one voice, we all answered in one voice ‘No’

He challenged us .’If you eat at a time a handful of common salt, which you all said, is not a poison, I guarantee, that you would die . Any takers ?’

From then, we knew about quantity as a necessity for labelling any thing as harmful.

We have a saying in Sanskrit ,

ATI SARVATRA VARJAYET, meaning, Excess Always Avoid .

Well, let's put it into context then. How much is too much? 400 ppm?

Oops, we're already past that and the world is ending as we know it. Here is a link to a typical breathless exhortation:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/05/13/we-dont-know-planet-co2-levels-hit-415-ppm-first-time-3-million-years

The above article (not the link) has nothing to do with arguments about the ideal or desired concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere.

My main point is that the word 'harmful' adds nothing to the content of this article.

In fact, it detracts from the quality of the rest of the piece because it instead of being a factual reporting on a process, it becomes editorialized. But some people just can't help themselves.

We're all adults here. Everyone understands the arguments on both sides of this issue and there is no need to beat one drum or the other. Agreement, is a completely different story. Each side has their own proof and facts and you won't change the beliefs of the believers or the deniers.

We need to continue to study the issue.

You are right . The word ‘Harmful’ should not have been used .

I think you're quibbling unnecessarily; while it would be far more accurate to say "humanly harmful" for context. When dealing in an unspecified context with words like harmful, beneficial, good, bad, etc the Ockham's Razor default is and should be "humanly". It's not rocket science linguistics - we're human and we're speaking, therefore the first priority.

We can't assume that high CO2 is harmful. As already noted we have to deal with life and decay of plants, and especially ocean CO2 solubility and temperature. Fish breathe, too. It is PC in many circles to attack human activity as cause/cure of global warming and many fight restricting such activity (virus flouters of today). But restriction is necessary for a human to grow from baby to adult. The global warming is real and nonpolitical. Our thermometers are not hacked. We need responsible numbers to judge and act, not make-believers who want to make us believe.