A common right-wing talking point against regulation of carbon dioxide is that it is equivalent to government control of your breathing. The argument is that since we exhale it, regulating its release is absurd. Even those who are concerned about climate changed caused by human activities sometimes cite greenhouse gases emitted from livestock.
But comparing those to fossil fuels is a false equivalence (and not because of magnitude).
Consider this analogy: Your child has playroom with 100 toys...
Your child has a playroom with 100 toys, and since you want it to be habitable, you have a rule: No more than five toys at a time may be outside of their proper storage area.
Now, consider the following scenario: Your child's playroom has five toys which are not properly put away. She goes into her playroom, takes her favorite toy, plays with it for a while, then tosses it on the floor and leaves. Did she violate your rule?
The answer, of course, is that we don't know. It depends on where she got the toy. If she took it from a bin, then yes, there are now six toys on the floor. However if her favorite toy was on the floor to begin with, then no, there are still only five toys out.
Yes, we exhale carbon dioxide. But where did we get that carbon? From the food we eat. and where did the food get it? From the plants which extracted it from the air. It's a cycle.
The problem isn't the carbon we circulate. The problem is releasing carbon which was stored over millions of years, making our planet suitable for human life in the process, in just a few hundred.
So the next time some right-winger mocks regulation of greenhouses gases as government regulation of your breathing, explain to any reasonable person who will listen why not all carbon dioxide is the same. Ask them to consider the source.