"You're a bit too literal."
And you are a bit too soft-headed, at least on this issue.
"Noise pollution," "heat pollution," and "light pollution" also involve an excess of something that naturally occurs in the environment.
And all three are BS terms. Marketing terms, where they verbally associate item X with item Y even though it does not belong, simply because they believe it will provoke the emotional response they want. THIS is real pollution - of the language. This fits in the same bucket with the 'wars' on 'drugs' and 'terror'- it's language being used to prevent, not to facilitate, accurate thinking and accurate communication.
This is where effective manipulation of the population starts, and this is where it needs to be rejected.
Excessive noise, excessive heat, and excessive light are perfectly accurate terms. The 'pollution' variants are inaccurate, marketing terms, chosen to provoke an emotional response in a desired direction. Lies, to speak plainly.
"So it's a bit naÃ¯ve to claim that just because something naturally occurs in the environment, an excess won't be bad for society (and shouldn't be controlled)."
It would be, except I made no such claim. Go back, re-read my post, as many times as you want. It simply does not say that.
This is how bad you (and it's not to pick on you personally, this is a general pattern today) have had your own head loused up at this point with marketing-inspired BS that you automatically read that claim into what I said, and responded to it, even though I did NOT say it and did not even imply it in any way.
I simply pointed out that CO2 is not a pollutant. And then moved on to my main point. And both the replies I get ignore the main point entirely and respond, not to what I actually wrote, but to some sort of pre-programmed straw-man image of what I *must* believe, no matter that it is completely inaccurate.