This may come as a surprise to some. An overwhelming number of Republicans in the recent South Carolina primary wanted action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, according to a report by the radio program Living on Earth.Scientifically speaking, it's nonsense to describe carbon dioxide as a pollutant. As the news media and various public figures keep using the term so casually, though, many people with little science background will come to make the association without realizing it. Of course, pollution is bad -- we must do all we can to minimize it. And presto, public support for the AGW agenda.
UPDATE: More thoughts on the notion of CO2 as a pollutant: With any other pollutant, you could take an air sample and distinguish pollutant particles from the remainder of the air sample. How do you do that with carbon dioxide? Further, if CO2 is a pollutant, the earth's atmosphere has been polluted since before man first rubbed two sticks together.
UPDATE 2: I left a comment on the Baltimore Sun blog objecting to the use of the "greenhouse gas pollution" term. I was reminded in an e-mail reply that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide is in fact a pollutant. The courts have spoken. If I had any sense, I would just shut up now. Being a "denier", though, I'll probably just come back and say (with raised eyebrow): If all you have to go on is a court ruling, I daresay the science behind such a claim is a bit shaky.
UPDATE 3: Reader Tigger23505 pointed me to this wonderful quote from Justice Scalia's dissent in Massachusetts v. EPA, the aforementioned USSC case. Responding to the logical gymnastics employed by the majority to allow the designation of carbon dioxide as an air pollutant, Scalia remarked:
It follows that everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies as an 'air pollutant'. This reading of the statute defies common sense.Quite.
Headlines via e-mail
5 comments:
Well, that is sure to rank somewhere in the all time worst decisions by the Supreme Court. With some of the all time great ones: Dred Scott; Plessy v. Ferguson and Kelo v. City of New London
It is sure to stop development of fuel cell vehicles in its tracks as well, since the all emit, what is arguably the king of greenhouse emissions water vapor. As usual we have a marvelous legal decision based on garbage science.
Exactly! They've been trying to regulate *alcohol* levels in our bloodstreams when we drive, even though we all know that alcohol is a naturally occurring substance. Who is to say how much is too much?
And the same is true of the CO2 released by my coal-to-energy plant.
Mr. Heretic, I raise my glass and burn a metric ton of coal in your honor today. Let's end the senseless regulation of both alcohol and CO2.
Sensors indicate a note of sarcasm in your post, slclemens. :-)
In the spirit of your question, let me ask you: What is the ideal level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere? How do you know this?
Tim, no sarcasm here. Maybe just some CO2 or something in the bloodstream. ;)
Quite seriously, in response to your question: I say there is no "ideal level" of CO2 in the atmosphere, just as there is no "ideal level" of clouds in the sky on any given day. If there is no ideal level of CO2, there can logically be no unacceptable level of CO2 in the atmosphere either. Enviros should take a deep breath: we can put all of the CO2 we want in the air without any bad side-effects.
Saying that there could be an ideal level for CO2 would mean that at some point it would become a pollutant. And you're right: it's not a pollutant. There are kids at our local high school who like to hold their breath and build up CO2 in their lungs for fun. It makes them feel good. Try telling them that CO2 is a pollutant!
Post a Comment