Sunday, April 19, 2009

EPA Declares the Atmosphere a Pollutant

Heck, why not--the Supreme Court already ruled on it..
Six heat-trapping gases that contribute to air pollution pose potential health hazards, the Environmental Protection Agency said Friday in a landmark announcement that could lead to regulation of the gases...
If CO2 contribute to "air pollution" then God might be the greatest polluter of all time since he made it and placed into the atmosphere. Or if you don't believe in God, then substitute Gaia or that Lizard thing, or Klattu. Whatever the case, air pollution is normally produced by ash, soot, sulfates, black carbon or other smokestack particulates spewing from evil capitalist plants (that save or create jobs), which tends to fan out and hang in the low atmosphere during inversions to produce smog. Like we saw in Red China during the Olympics. CO2 disperses.

Matter of fact in an odd twist of fate the Clean Air Act is the genesis for the current CO2 ruling yet recent research suggests the Act itself might have contributed to global warming simply by clearing the air of pollutants. Imagine CNN's puzzlement. But here's the deal. Pollutants tend to COOL THE PLANET by scattering the sun's rays away from the ground. So in a weird way EPA is responsible for the melting ice caps. Using liberal logic.

Congress is ready to pop on this, of course. The AP has a somewhat misleading article about the pending legislation, tying it with previous bills on air and water pollution as if they're exactly the same. Not really. Back then we had direct evidence--Dennis Kucinich standing in front of a burning river for instance--but fast forward to today and the IPCC still can't tell us the exact percentage of anthropogenic warming versus natural warming.

Nevertheless Waxman's bill will direct a draconian 20 percent cut in CO2 output by 2020 that he says is non-negotiable. So, even though the technology is not here yet we must act. Similar to the closure of Gitmo they're betting on the come. But don't bet against them --as sure as the snow-laden Colorado sunrise we're going to see CO2 regulation.

The article is not without some irony in trying to explain why everybody (bitter clingers) won't be gung-ho to increase utility bills and the cost for everything else during what president Obama described as a worldwide economic crisis:
With climate, “you are asking people to worry about their grandchildren or their children,” he said. “That is why it will be so tough to get something like this through.”
Just ask the tea partiers worried about those trillion dollar deficits their grandkids will be paying back, thanks in part to CO2 regulation.

Anthony Watts has a link on his blog for public comment so feel free to partake--for what it's worth. He also has a quote from renowned scientist Thomas Huxley regards 'settled science':
The pretension to infallibility, by whomsoever made, has done endless mischief; with impartial malignity it has proved a curse, alike to those who have made and it those who have accepted it


Darth Rob said...

I feel that since the jury is still out on global warming, we should focus our attention on the economy and stop worrying about the planet, for awhile. Let things stand the way they are, see what the results are and then when our economy is more stable, decide if any anti-pollutant legislation is needed.

Anonymous said...

The primary government directive ought to be, “First, do no harm.” Realistically, if politicians weren’t gumming everything up, they wouldn’t have anything to do. I could suggest sitting around working crossword puzzles, but I’m not sure that’s a realistic expectation. On the other hand, if “government” is worried about carbon dioxide (needed for the growth of trees and other important vegetation), I suppose we could simply purge ourselves of areas of excessive carbon production … the Middle East, for example.