Which is worst-CO2, mercury or heavy metal polution for the environment?

Question

Which is worst-CO2, mercury or heavy metal polution for the environment?

Answer 1

The metals are toxic to living organisms, but CO2 is a necessity for life. If you could remove all the metals, no harm would be done. If you removed the CO2, life would cease.

Answer 2

Definitely mercury.  It's a shame that the democrats passed the bill to force everyone to buy those CF lights that contain mercury.

Granted, it's only a small amount, but multiply this by millions.  You will never be able to eat fish again!

Answer 3

Well actually Mercury is a heavy metal.  Short term, probably the metals.  Long term the CO2, beyond question

Answer 4

In terms of toxicity per unit of measure, mercury is first, heavy metals second and CO2 third.  Mercury is the most toxic of the three.  Heavy metals as a class also include the transition metals, some metalloids, lanthanides, and actinides. Some of these are necessary for humans and the ecosystem in small amounts and some such as iron are relatively non-toxic.  Nevertheless they are more toxic as a class than CO2.  The overall CO2 impact on the ecological system may be large as it relates to global wrming/climate change issues.  It may be the largest overall in the long term but I don't know the overall effects as of yet.

Answer 5

The order is clear.  It's not a close call.

CO2.  It's the most damaging, and the hardest to deal with.  No one is talking removing it entirely.  It will take many years of hard work to get it back to natural levels.

Next, heavy metals.  They're limited in most modern democracies, but emerging nations are discharging them in larger amounts.

Last mercury.  Everyone understands the hazards well, and it's pretty well under control.