CO2 is not a pollutant

[j_b]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=438719

 

US says CO2 is not a pollutant

By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles

31 August 2003

 

 

The Bush administration has decreed that carbon dioxide from industrial emissions - the main cause of global warming - is not a pollutant.

 

The decision by the Environmental Protection Agency - announced with minimal fanfare on the eve of the Labor Day weekend - reverses the stance taken under President Clinton and allows industry to increase emissions with impunity.

 

It is also part of a pattern of casting doubt on scientific evidence, going back to the US's rejection of the Kyoto Protocols in 2001. Earlier this year, the Bush administration excised a 28-page section on climate change from an EPA report. It also ignored a report by the US Academy of Sciences that argued that the evidence of climate change could not be ignored.

 

"Saying that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming is like refusing to say smoking causes lung cancer," said Melissa Carey, a climate change expert with the advocacy group Environmental Defense.

 

Environmental groups are now considering suing the EPA to force the regulation of greenhouse gases.

 

The Bush administration appears to be guided by a leaked memo by the political consultant Frank Luntz, which advised: "Should the public believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.

 

[lummox]

it is not news that the bush administration ignores relavant information that confilicts with their agenda. denial and deception seems to be the status quo. and fuck ashcroft in his moral conservative tight ass.

[erik]

i guess since bushco is a bunch of war mongering idiots that makes us the same?

 

 

[catbirdseat]

Though it pains me to say this, the Bush administration is right on this issue. The statute which estabilished the EPA defined "pollutant" in a certain way. A pollutant is something which directly causes a toxic effect on an organism and CO2 doesn't fit in that category. If we want the EPA to regulate CO2 we'll have to get Congress to amend the law.

[Necronomicon]

catbirdseat said:

A pollutant is something which directly causes a toxic effect on an organism and CO2 doesn't fit in that category.

 

You are a moron.

[Thinker]

It's not a clear-cut issue. web page

 

"The health and toxicity implications of carbon dioxide were reviewed by Michael Hodgson, MD of the University of Connecticut Health Sciences Center. His research indicates that, despite largely untested reports to the contrary, there is no physiological evidence that CO2 has any metabolic influence at concentrations below about 8500 ppm. Between 8500 -10,000 ppm the tidal flow of air through the lungs is increased and above 34,000 ppm the respiratory system becomes more rapid. At 40-45,000 ppm sweating occurs and at about 50,000ppm anxiety is induced. He also reported that in the 19th century, CO2 was used as a narcotic for surgery, where concentrations approaching 500,000 ppm (50%) were needed. Under all but extreme occupancy conditions, therefore, the removal of CO2 from a space on grounds that it in itself influences health cannot normally be regarded as an issue."

 

 

edit: for reference..."Carbon dioxide is a constituent of the outdoor air and evidence suggests that its ambient concentration is gradually increasing. Actual outdoor concentration is dependent on locality and varies from between approximately 350 ppm, away from urban areas, to approximately 400 ppm in city environments."

Edited September 2, 2003 by Thinker

[Thinker]

OK after re-reading CBS's post I'll have to say this, while high levels of CO2 may or may not be toxic to humans, there are many other organisms that are likely more sensitive to it, so I'll not contradict CBS in that regard.

 

I will question the definintion of pollutant, though. Don't the different EPA programs define terms in different ways in some cases? i.e. CERCLA vs RCRA vs CAA vs CWA? I think it's a bit more involved than the simple definition put forth above.

[catbirdseat]

Necronomicon said:

catbirdseat said:

A pollutant is something which directly causes a toxic effect on an organism and CO2 doesn't fit in that category.

 

You are a moron.

Necro, just about all substances are toxic if the concentration is high enough. Even water can be toxic if you drink too much. As Thinker pointed out, CO2 is not toxic at the concentrations found in our atmosphere.

 

Make no mistake (as Bush would say) as a contributor to global warming, CO2 is harmful. It will have to be dealt with, but I still say the EPA doesn't have the authority to do it, in the same way that the FDA doesn't have the authority to regulate "food supplements".

[j_b]

The Plain English Guide To The Clean Air Act:

 

Pollutants (pollution) -- unwanted chemicals or other materials found in the air. Pollutants can harm health, the environment and property. Many air pollutants occur as gases or vapors, but some are very tiny solid particles: dust, smoke or soot.

 

http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/peg_caa/pegcaa10.html

[j_b]

just about all substances are toxic if the concentration is high enough. Even water can be toxic if you drink too much.

 

pollutant is not quite equivalent to toxic but i agree with you that what's a pollutant or not depends on context. within the context of global warming, co2 is a pollutant.

[Dru]

just wait for the revisions incorporating the latest research on hermesis

 

"toxins can be good for you!"

[Sphinx]

j_b said:

The Plain English Guide To The Clean Air Act:

 

Pollutants (pollution) -- unwanted chemicals or other materials found in the air. Pollutants can harm health, the environment and property. Many air pollutants occur as gases or vapors, but some are very tiny solid particles: dust, smoke or soot.

 

http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/peg_caa/pegcaa10.html

Idiot. Remove all co2 from the amosphere since it is 'unwanted'. Great, now we have gotten rid of one 'pollutant'. Now watch all plants die, and we'll follow suit. Your stupidity is astounding. What a jackass.

[j_b]

Sphinx said:

Idiot. Remove all co2 from the amosphere since it is 'unwanted'. Great, now we have gotten rid of one 'pollutant'. Now watch all plants die, and we'll follow suit. Your stupidity is astounding. What a jackass.

 

you failed reading comprehension .... again. has anyone here argued for removing all co2 from the atmosphere? troll.

[Sphinx]

J_B, you seem confused. In your first post you seem to disbelieve the statement that CO2 isn't a pollutant. So in other words, you believe that CO2 IS a pollutant. By your genius definition, a pollutant is "unwanted chemicals or other materials found in the air". 'Unwanted' typically means we'd be better off without it, at least in the language called English. Now, if we're better off without it, it would be preferable to remove it from our atmosphere, becuase it's 'unwanted'. Now you retort "has anyone here argued for removing all co2 from the atmosphere". Yes, you have, by the logic I just pointed out.

 

Maybe I just don't understand you. Maybe you should explain how CO2 is a pollutant, yet we shouldn't try to get rid of it.

Talk about lack of logic.

[j_b]

just try a little harder and you'll get it.

[Sphinx]

j_b said:

just try a little harder and you'll get it.

Typical. Instead of admitting that when taken together your posts are contradictory, you try to blow it off with a senseless insult. This doesn't help your case. You remain a terminal dumbfuck.

[murraysovereign]

I think the case can be made that at a certain concentration, something becomes "unwanted". I don't mind having water come out of the kitchen faucet, in fact some water is an absolute necessity, but when it starts floating the furniture up so it bumps into the ceiling, I'd start thinking of that water as "unwanted". So "unwanted" in this context could be interpreted as "excessive amounts". Same goes for "fire", or "family reunion" or "atmospheric CO2". You can have too much of a good thing.

[Sphinx]

But when a river floods and a town is submerged, it water a pollutant? Not by most people's denfinitions.

[j_b]

Sphinx said:

Typical. Instead of admitting that when taken together your posts are contradictory, you try to blow it off with a senseless insult. This doesn't help your case. You remain a terminal dumbfuck.

 

actually i was being nice (don't ask me why) in giving you the benefit of the doubt. the alternative would have been to assume you were being thick on purpose.

[Sphinx]

j_b said:

Sphinx said:

Typical. Instead of admitting that when taken together your posts are contradictory, you try to blow it off with a senseless insult. This doesn't help your case. You remain a terminal dumbfuck.

 

actually i was being nice (don't ask me why) in giving you the benefit of the doubt. the alternative would have been to assume you were being thick on purpose.

You still haven't responded to your self-contradictory posts. We're waiting.....

[j_b]

go away, troll.

[Sphinx]

j_b said:

go away, troll.

Loser.

[Ursa_Eagle]

schtinx, you're an idiot. you made an assumption about what "unwanted" means and treated it as fact.

[lummox]

cameroon. that about sums it up.

[Sphinx]

Ursa_Eagle said:

schtinx, you're an idiot. you made an assumption about what "unwanted" means and treated it as fact.

This is the first time that I've ever heard that we want unwanted pollutants in our atmosphere.

 

Give me a definition of unwanted, genius.