Carbon dioxide (CO2) rules the headlines this week. On Monday, 15 scientists filed a brief with the Supreme Court, claiming that a federal appeals court "misinterpreted science and the law when it ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency does not have to regulate greenhouse gases produced by cars," such as CO2 emissions.

On Thursday, a business group launched ads in 14 markets equating CO2 with "life" not pollution. The group, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), argues in the ads that "some politicians want to label carbon dioxide a pollutant." But it's not a pollutant, they say, because CO2 "isn’t smog or smoke, it’s what we breathe out and plants breathe in."

This argument is akin to saying water can't kill you because it's necessary for life. It is the dose that makes the poison, folks, just like it is the volume that makes something a pollutant. Those household chemicals under your kitchen sink are "hazardous" when present in the environment in sufficient quantity.

Greenhouse Effects Real
The scientists, on the other hand, argue that "the physics of the greenhouse effect -- when gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere cause higher temperatures -- are firmly established. Not only that, the scientists said, they are virtually certain that human activities have increased those greenhouse gases to levels not seen in 'all of human experience.'"

The EPA case illustrates regional political differences. Eleven east and west coast states are part of a coalition led by Massachusetts, which filed the appeal in March. Eleven heartland states are supporting EPA's refusal to regulate auto emissions.

In 2003, EPA said it did not have the authority to regulate CO2 emmissions from cars. However, in 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that "EPA did not act beyond the authority it was granted by Congress when it set more stringent standards for ozone and particulate matter (PM) emissions in 1997... The implication is that a regulatory agency charged with 'protecting the public health' can be given virtually free rein to set new standards which 'accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge.'"

CEI supports the EPA decision not to regulate CO2. “Besides the fact that the plain language of the Clean Air Act grants no powers to the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide, any court-ordered solution to the controversy over greenhouse gas emissions would constitute a violation of the separation of powers," according to CEI Counsel.

Cars are a major source of CO2. According to Planet Ark, cars, trucks and SUVs account for 20 percent of US CO2 emissions. Power plants contribute 40 percent.

Power Company Rule In Play, Also
Also, on Tuesday, the Supreme Court agreed to review a 2005 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling granting North Carolina Duke Energy the right to increase total air emissions. The controversial ruling deals with "new source review." Traditionally, when a plant is modernized or expanded, EPA requires a reduction in total emissions. In this case, the Court ruled that the power company only had to reduce its per hour emissions, with EPA approval.

One of the groups supporting the EPA decision not to regulate CO2 represents power companies, the Utility Air Regulatory Group. In response to the brief filed Monday, a spokesman said, "While climate change is an interesting issue, it's not a legal issue."

See

• An Inconvenient Truth (ClimateCrisis.net)
• Big Business, Meet Global Warming
• Global Warming to Cause 50 Million Refugees by 2010
• Greenland Glaciers Melting Faster Than Predicted
• The Truth About Global Warming
• View the Ads from CEI

Technorati Profile
Technorati tags: Bush, Climate Change, Environment, Politics
gada.be tags: Bush, Climate Change, Environment, Politics

^{Category: Environment}