Yay! Mother Earth 1, GWB - 0Follow

No. See, the problem is that you said everything IS a pollutant, which is false. If you had said everything CAN BE a pollutant, you would be correct. CO2 IS a pollutant. Oxygen COULD BE a pollutant. Do you not see a stark contrast between requiring the EPA to regulate something that IS a pollutant and something that COULD BE a pollutant?

...such as the current amounts of CO2 which, according the the guys in white coats, are directly responsible for our climate issues. Wow, that was easy.

Of course it does. I know you don't think so but, well, there ya go.

Between you and that Borntolandhard guy, I swear -- "You can't think this way! I know you don't really think it! Admit it!!!"



No, I think the SCOTUS was right. Sorry.

Certainly not wanting to speak for Joph. But geesh, it's simple pimple. If we spewed Oxegen into the air, soil, or water to levels where it was threatening peoples health, the environment and/or life on this planet as we know it; as is most likely the case with ghg's then yeah, it would be a pollutant.

Why's that so hard to understand?

At the levels where it is harmful? Sure.

As Smash pointed out, methane is naturally in the air as well but we regulate it.

But... but... how?!?! How can it be that methane is regulated when it's in the atmosphere naturally???. God, this is such a pickle!

Gjabi, you are saying this is absurd, and we are saying that this is exactly right.

In the "wrong" concentration (even at normal sea-level air-pressure), oxygen, or nitrogen, or CO2 are deadly poisons, or can be considered pollutants under any reasonable definition of the word "pollutant".

I don't remember the figures, we need a scientist to reply. But it might be something like when CO2 is at 15% of the air gas mix, humans will keel over dead from CO2 poisoning. There have been several sad cases where the ground has caved in and released underground pockets of Co2 gas, all at once. The local sudden increase in CO2 levels has killed every human and animal in the area, before the CO2 dispersed into the wider atmosphere.

I don't remember the figures for oxygen and nitrogen, but I'm pretty sure that there are levels at which human's cant' survive for very long, without getting very sick, definitely for oxygen.

Given that some industries deal with purified gasses, it's really important that they don't suffer major containment failures, which could theoretically lead to localised hospitalisation incidents, or even deaths. (Most likely of the workers on the site.)

Students, scientists and workers have to be careful that there arent' any invisible leaks of propane, butane, or "gas" into the air of a classroom, laboratory, workplace or hospital. Apart from the flammability concern, there is also a health concern. There would also be a health concern if numerous pure CO2 or oxygen tanks leaked... either a large short leak, or a long term slow leak.

(Yes, long term exposeure to too much oxygen can really damage you! I know It sounds funny)

Now usually we say a chemical is a pollutant when it does short or long term harm to the health of people or animals. Under that definition we would have already had a level at which CO2 would be defined as a pollutant. There were figures which scientists could point to and say: above this amount, CO2 is harmful to human health, and below this other level here, CO2 is also harmful to human health because there isnt' enough of it.

The EPA didnt' have to actively worry about CO2, because nothing much that human activity did reached either of those boundary points of CO2 levels in the wider atmosphere. Therefore, the EPA wasnt actively regulating CO2 as a pollutant.

Now scientists have come back and said, ok, we now think that CO2 is harmful to the very long term health of human beings, at a much LOWER level than the old cut-off point at which CO2 becomes poisonous. Now the EPA has to actively regulate CO2, because this newly discovered level at which there is harm from CO2 DOES occur reguarly from various human activities.

Theoretically, if human activity were to suddenly double the amount of oxygen in the air, I bet the EPA would very quickly be putting it on the pollutant regulation list too. There wouldn't be all this fuss and refusal either, because everyone would be aghast at the sudden increase of catastrophic fires.

Just because something is on a pollution regulation list, DOESN'T mean we are required to drop the output of it to zero. There are a lot of things which are desirable to try and eradicate in human industrial output, but there are thousands of others, which merely have to be reduced to below a certain concentration.

No, you did it again. The court did not rule that CO2 is an air pollutant because it "can be" harmful... they did it because it IS harmful. Now, per your request, O2 is such a chemical that CAN BE harmful but has not been shown to be, even after being left unregulated.



I hope it really goes without saying any more, but what they said was that if it IS harmful, it needs to be regulated. This is not the same as saying that if it CAN BE harmful, it needs to be regulated. You're right... this isn't rocket science. Why in the hell would the EPA regulate something that isn't harmful? Arbitrary reasons? Are you actually worried that they'll start regulating your lawn because of its oxygen production?



I'm quite sure that you're in no position to comment on the intention of the EPA's definitions.

'The hell? Cite? A couple weeks worth of reduced commercial airflight to/from the United States should not have had scientists making global climate predictions much less noting significantly higher rates of ice melting in the poles.Today's remaining old growth hardwood forests are in the Pacific northwest and New England. Corn production is in the midwestern and Great Plains states. Logging is to blame for destroying old growth forests, not corn fields.

Edited, Apr 10th 2007 1:04pm by Jophiel

It's not a global problem though; only certain regions, such as the U.S., create dangerous levels of CO2.

Reducing this to a semantics debate just shows how lacking you are in a valid point.

So is methane and CO. What's your point?