>>Well it really depends on how pollution is defined. Many things are just fine in some concentrations in some forms, but become problematic in larger quantities or in different venues. For example, radioactive elements in the ground usually isn't considered a pollutant (I know Radon may be an exception) and when properly controlled in a reactor, again not considered a pollutant, dump some in a drinking water reservior, hugh pollution.
>>
>>So if you would provide a definition of what you think pollution is and some examples of what you consider real pollutants, that would be helpful.
>>
>>Bob
>>
>>PS: This graph indicates to me that CO2 risies to a level of concern.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CO2-by-country--1990-2025.png
>
>Oh, it's only the US and China we need worry about then!
>
>There's teh school of thought (based on scientific fact and observation) that an increase in CO2 will be good for the world, in that plants grow big and strong and sturdy when exposed to a CO2-enriched atmosphere. These plants will then transpire more voluminously, thus increasing the water-cloud cover, thus dimming the earth. Also, these bigger plants will be there to feed the burgeoning world population. Also, as an extra "thoughht" of my own, if we go for bio-fuels then this might also help give a bigger crop of fuel.

Its very sound reasoning that should not be ignored (unfortunately that's exactly what's going on). AFAIK, this school appeared in 70s when most popular predictions were for 'global cooling'. This school affirmed that global warming will come instead and that it will be a positive thing.