The EPA has been regulating emissions for quite some times. It is mandated with protecting our environment like water and air...
Lately, it had put much resources and emphasis on climate change.
The question becomes is CO2 a pollutant gas and does the EPA have any jurisdiction on its regulation?
The answer to that question may surprise most people.
It is my opinion that the Earth's biosphere is unique and fragile. Any man made activity thatposes a danger, like the ozone crisis of a few years back can have adverse effects regarding life on Earth. To have a profligate and resistant attitude, like hunting a species mindlessly and selfishly to its extinction is at the heart of Conservative type thinking. The sort we can carelessly use and abuse because there will always be more? While I do not qualify as an engineer of any sort in these matters, common sense says that it is stupid to take a cavalier attitude about such things, the ramifications of being profligate and wasteful having yet to be fully appreciated or understood.
We also know that CO2 at elevated levels in the atmospheric mix can be an asphyxiant. Even oxygen,what is it they said about oxygen ' too much will make you high, too little, you die'? The point I make is balance, the current balance works fine, lets not tamper with things unnecessarily, for even a sparrow is smart enough not to fowl its own nest.
I'll have to disagree on your perception of conservatives. I don't know where you get the idea that conservatives are not for preserving our environment. We belive thst God gave man dominion over the earth and that includes taking care of the animals and the land...and air...
After all, we live here just as everyone one including liberals...
With regard to CO2 and climate change, that is also where we disagree. God gave us fossil fuels because it is the most efficient form of energy. It is cheap and easy to transport and allow many people around the world to improve their living standards.
It is arrogant for some humans to believe we can control the climate when it us complicated and vast.
It is a free country and we are going to disagree.
First of all what has God has to do with it? This is your God based on YOUR interpretation of scripture. My God says to me that we are stewards of the Earth and woe to those that 'hurt it'.
My grandmother used coal to heat her house, we don't generally today
I lived in The Inland Empire, east of Los Angeles during the seventies and the air pollution was horrendous. Thanks to the EPA, which the conservatives seem to hold in derision, the area has finally been witness to blue skies again.
Use is not abuse. God also gave us brains to evolve and improve. If many of the developing societies like China and India wanted American style standards of living the pressure on global natural resources would be intolerable. Can we rid the world of dependence uponfossil fuels which really is technology of the past and move toward the future overnight? No. But, what makes me a liberal is that I recognize that we need to be going in this direction toward cleaner energy sources and sources without a prospect of being depleted in the forseeable future as the energy demands of the world continues to increase. Not accepting the status quo as a given.
I am still looking at biomass forms and the elusive nuclear fusion which seems to ALWaYS remain 'just around the corner'
That's the difference between liberals and conservative. We believe in proven technologies and not wishful thinking like solar and renewables. Without the subsidies, those technologies will not be competitive for a very long time. I do believe we are talking about the same God. Who created the heaven and the earth and all the animals and plants to us... conservatives does not believe in waste and abuse no more than liberals. We just don't think the EPA has the mandate to shut down coal plants due to climate change.
credence2, I noticed you have not answered my original question. What do you think about CO2? Is it a pollutant or not?
CO2 is a waste product of the human body. Regardless of how other organisms might like it (plants love CO2, for instance), for our purposes it pollutes our environment just like any waste produce we produce.
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is part of the Carbon cycle for life on earth. A more potent greenhouse gas is water vapor and Methane. The whole fossil fuel debate has been politicized by the environmental green party. CO2 has little to do with the environment. We can protect our air and water without cutting out fossil fuel as a cheap source of energy.
So is feces (a part of the cycle of life on earth). But put it into a stream, or anywhere else it can come into contact with people, and it's instantly a pollutant...to humans. To the bacteria that live in it, not so much.
The ubiquitous plastic in our lives is great...until it is waste, whereupon it's a pollutant. The tin can holding our food is wonderful...until it's waste, whereupon it's a pollutant. The point is that anything we consider "waste" is a pollutant to us, and that includes CO2.
Here is air pollutants according to the EPA -
http://hubpages.com/education/forum/140 … ost2878958
I qualify the answer, it CAN be a pollutant if it is found in excess quantity in our atmosphere beyond its current trace amount.
You do realize you and I and all animals exhale CO2.
Of course, Jacklee, that is basic biology. But you miss my point and Wilderness touched on it, too many waste products in the environment constitutes pollution. That is CO2, human wastes etc., we produce those as well, but would you have a problem safely living in a cesspool? The balance works to sustain life here on Earth and we need to adhere to it closely. Ever been to Venus? Most of its atmosphere is CO2.We can see there what CO2 does as a greenhouse gas. So this gas in excess is anything but harmless.
Yes, but what is the degree. The earth has experienced warming in the past with higher CO2 levels, We have had natural cycles of ice ages... In fact, we are heading for another ice age in the next 1000 years or so...did you know that? The climate change debate has been politicized so that people are focusing on the wrong thing. I was in China last year where they rely heavily on cheap coal for energy. It is unfair to them that they cannot use the energy in the ground so that we here in the west can feel good about ourselves...It is the UN and IPCC that is dictating these policies. Meanwhile, people like Al Gore ad Leneardo DiCaprio fly around in private jets telling us we need to reduce our carbon foot print.
Jacklee, you asked to what degree?
What is an acceptable trade off for you regarding the issue of productivity verses preserving the environment? This is directly from China, what price is it willing to pay to provide everybody a chicken in the pot and a car for every garage? I never saw anything approaching this level of pollution in LA or in the US for that matter. And things did not move forward toward cleanup here because of the grace of the capitalist class, of that you can be sure.
Premature deaths and respiratory distress are not fair either, so again a balance needs to be struck.
Good question. Here is where I draw the line. If the energy source is local and cheap, and the people cannot afford alternatives, I would allow them to continue. If countries like Australia and Europe wants to limit their CO2 voluntarily, so be it.
It they choose to pay more for wind and solar power, and less reliable power, it is their choice. If France wants to build nuclear power plants, it is their choice.
If Amazon wants to burn forests to survive, it is their best interest.
To each his own...
Contrary to the climate change crowd that want to impose their view of reducing fossil fuel by cutting back on SUV...
Jacklee, Degradation of the earth's biosphere respects no international boundaries. We need global solutions not just national and regional ones. I am not generally going to make a fuss about a house hold burning wood for heat or energy. I just remember that in Denver many years ago a city ordinance was passed forbidding the old house hold incinerators that everyone used to dispose of rubbish. Now you pay to have rubbish properly removed and subsidies were available for those households that could demonstrate that they could not afford it, as the alternative of just discarding their rubbish anywhere was against the law.Was there a reason for this? Yes, air pollution was reaching intolerable levels in the city. So, your individual rights ends where my nose begins. We just can't all just do as we want without regard for our neighbor. But of course, for you guys, that is 'Socialism'.
Being clean and keeping things clean is a virtue, do they not refer to such things in your scriptural studies?
Why do you insist on confusing the environment with climate change?
As a conservative, I am all for conservation and protecting the environment.
I am just not buying into the CO2 fossil fuel causing climate change theory...
The two issues are separate in my mind and the environmentalist like to combine them into one as if they are related. They are not.
We had clean air and water policies in NY for many years since the 1970s... long before climate change.
You asked about CO2 being a pollutant and I said that it could be. I am not qualified to weigh in on climate change except for the fact that those in the Affirmative far outnumber those who say otherwise.
Are you qualified to raise a dispute with the scholarly environmentalists?
It is an attitude thing, and the naysayers regarding climate change are in the vast minority. I am going to accept the preponderance of scientific opinion over those who insist despite all evidence that the moon is made of green cheese i.e. Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh.
Here's more, it is funny how the largest polluters in this area, the U.S and China have the least concern about the issue, is that mere coincidence?
http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/11/05/glo … emissions/
Here is CO2 concentration in the atomosphere - 400 ppm (400 parts per million)
Major constituents of dry air, by volume
Name Formula in ppmv(B) in %
Nitrogen N2 780,840 78.084
Oxygen O2 209,460 20.946
Argon Ar 9,340 0.9340
Carbon dioxide CO2 400 0.04
Neon Ne 18.18 0.001818
Helium He 5.24 0.000524
Methane CH4 1.79 0.000179
Not included in above dry atmosphere:
Water vapor(C) H2O 10–50,000(D) 0.001%–5%(D)
The first graph is rather interesting in that it shows only a very rough correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration. Certainly nothing significant.
Any thoughts as to why that is, given that the gas is the primary contributor to global warming? Or is that assumption false?
The new EPA head Scott Pruitt does not believe that carbon dioxide causes global warming. I don't believe that either.
What the charts demonstrate to me is that climate variability is the par for the course in all human history. We may only have a small part in it. It also shows that our climate is much more complex than just co2 concentration which is the focus of current thinking...our current climate model is incomplete and I would not trust any predictions made by those models. They have been erring on the high side again and again. We need a new effort such as the Apollo moon project to come up with a better universal climate model.
You want to be careful with that "human history" thing. Particularly the first graph has only a small portion of it showing human history. The second one, though, DOES pretty plainly show that temperatures even during the eye blink of human history is still quite variable.
This is in line with my own thoughts - while the world is warming (as we enter an ice age) it's pretty difficult to attribute the majority of it to CO2 from man's activities.
While we are developing the 'new model' maybe caution is in order as a wrong
assessment and subsequent wrong take on what acceptable levels of pollution are
could be taking us down the wrong course.
When the majority of climatologists tell me that this is all a hoax, perhaps, I will turn a ear. But until then......
Credence, I am not saying it is a hoax. I am saying the current climate change science is too focused on Man-made theory and the models they created are incomplete.
Why are you saying this? What makes you think you are qualified to comment on a subject of such importance? Do you wander into operating theaters and offer surgeons advice?
Populism has serious limitations.
I am not just anybody off the street. I have study this and followed the science for quite sometimes. I wrote about it on some of my hubs. You can check it out before making judgement. I also attended talks regularly at the Lamont Doherty campus of Columbia U. What I am saying about this is not unique. There are plenty of scientists that agree with me. It is just they are not given the attention by our biased media and in fact the biased peer review boards of many technical journals. The fact they claim 97% of scientists consensus is just that. It is not true science.
Here is my hubbook on climate change -
Here is one assessment -
https://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_ … al_Warming
'Biased peer review' board gives me my answer. You are in thrall to the conspiracy theorists.
The conspiracy theorists are supported (or often sponsored) by those industries who make money from the oil and coal industries and do not care about the future of humanity.
Those industries exploit ordinary Americans sense of inferiority and all of their resentments to paint concerned scientists as evil elites. Then they use the enraged herd to trample anything that might harm their profits.
Lol, your country is a mess.
Belief it or not, I used to buy into the climate change theory... until I started doing my own research. I have no interest in any oil company or their profits...
I was looking purely for evidence. Does the predictions of their models agree with reality?
The answer is no.
Anyone looking at this objectively would have to conclude we have a lot of unknowns. The models are incomplete.
Before making charges against my country, you should look in the mirror.
What have your country done in recent years that made you proud?
You just had another terrorist incident. Who is fighting the war against ISIS?
My country is in a better shape now with the election of President Trump.
Which of these was involved:
You conducted lab experiments on greenhouse gases,
Studied raw data from satellites, ground stations, oceanographic survey ships,
Ran computer simulations,
Consulted with thousands of scientists around the world,
Attended conferences to present your evidence
You read WND, Breibart, and the plethora of other ideologically weird outlets designed to enrage and confuse your population?
Unfortunately, I didn't do all that. All I did was research the predictions made by these climate scientists 25 years ago... and checked the actual outcome. Guess what, they were off by an order of magnitude...
I am an engineer by training, when something does not pan out, I look for alternative solutions. Unlike the climate scientists, who come up with excuses and with the revelation of climategate...apparently they reveal their own doubts... Then with NOAA manipulating the raw data to make it seem the recent warming is worse than it appears... I could go on but I am not going to convince an ideologue who bows at the alter of climate change as if it is a religion. Have a nice day.
Again with the conspiracy theories (NOAA is evil), and the little home grown theories.
You ain't qualified. Simple as that.
Leave it to people who know what they are doing to produce the facts. Then demand your politicians act on the facts, not the needs of investors or workers in oil and coal.
The sulfur and other noxious gases spewed by deep volcanic vents, or even the surface water in Yellowstone, that gives life to bacteria or higher animals is a pollutant, but certainly not to that bacteria or tube worm. The oxygen we live by was a pollutant to cyano-bacteria and eventually killed it all.
You're right - we not only need, but require a balance of chemicals around us. A balance that was not always there, but is now and is what we evolved to need.
Just for background reference -
Here are some other greenhouse gases -
NF3 is on the rise from all those solar panels the EPA wanted to reduce CO2.
1,057 percent increase in US annual emissions of NF3 from 1990 to 2015 compares to an increase of 5.6 percent in carbon dioxide.
* http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/01/solar … -than-co2/
Turns out NF3 is 17,200 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Oops! ... (More truth bombs will be coming out, I'm sure...sure are a lot of them lately.)
Incompetence? I'm not so sure. I do now that when Trump won the election the heads of the EPA were scared.
by My Esoteric8 months ago
There are two major would shaping forces at risk with a Trump presidency; an economic meltdown brought on by a sharp decline in American productivity, and, a much more important one, the environment. I will leave the...
by SparklingJewel9 months ago
from the patriotpost:::a new study out of England, where scientists are relying not on computer-generated models of the Earth, but the real thing.Wolfgang Knorr of the University of Bristol's Department of Earth...
by usmankhan16 years ago
This is a very serious issue which i wanted to raised among all the people who are member of Hub Pages. We can suggest some new, useful and good ideas about how to save the world from global warming.What are you waiting...
by Liwayway Memije-Cruz2 years ago
Almost everyone is already alarmed by the impacts of climate change. Several initiatives by scientists, climatologists, educators, researchers and environmental advocates on the issue of climate change are so many and...
by Sychophantastic2 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not...
by Kevin Peter3 years ago
If your answer is “Yes” then, why aren’t the birds that nest on trees not affected by the carbon dioxide produced by the tree at night?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.