FEB 21

Yes! Finally. This is definitely a win for us, fellow EcoGeeks. The only thing I have to say is Yay!

I think its a strange designation to give CO2, calling it a "pollutant". We and all other living animals breath it out every day, plants cannot grow and survive without it, and it is naturally produced in many ways right out of our earth. Calling it a pollutant starts to twist definitions, and for a definite purpose, as your article points out. To push an agenda.
I am ALL in favor of renewable energy and see many benefits to going this way. Count me as one of the skeptics to human caused Global Warming though.
When I started reading about all this about a year ago I was terrified by the prospect of massive weather change, "tipping points", and the sea levels rising. I really was scarred by it, and mad at anyone who thought it wasn't real. Slowly though, I began to listen to the other side, at first with deep skepticism. The arguments against the hysteria over global warming was compelling, yet I stayed on the fence for a long time. Now, although I can't say I am convinced absolutely, I very much doubt the slight increase of CO2 (relative to our massive atmosphere and all the CO2 naturally present with out our help) could "cause" a catastrophic shift in temperature and weather patterns. One of the most compelling arguments I've seen is that increases and decreases in CO2 in the atmosphere FOLLOWS temperature changes (by a couple hundred years), rather than leads or causes temperature change. This relationship was misrepresented by Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth".
Anyway, no one who's mind is already firmly closed over this issue will care what I have to say about it. I only wish to offer my evolution in thought about the issue. A lot can be found on the internet on the skeptic's side, for those who want to test their resolve. Try: www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze...re=related
to get started.
BTW, I can't stand G.W. Bush and am delighted over President Obama- for those who would like to pigeonhole me. This is not a political issue.

George Walker Bush and his cronies in the oil,and coal industry will be defeated. We should be able to start closing coal plants every year in this country for the next 20 years.
I hope we don't allow exceptions to built more coal plants in the South.

...how tough the regulation standards will be and whether the EPA will actually be given the means to enforce them. A lot of lobbyists in Washington will be taking up arms against any regulation...

I also have some skepticism about C02 being the most major danger to the planet. By concentrating solely on C02 as the only cause of Global warming, (and the only main cause of environmental degradation,) may take resources away from studying other environmental causes that offer a better return on investment. Desertification, Logging, overfishing, particulate matter and lung cancer, Whaling, etc. all seem to be environmental topics that get pushed aside due to the overwhelming news coverage of Big Bad C02.

Now if regulating C02 cause increases in green-tech energy by pushing coal out of the energy equation then that is fine. Coal is dirty but I would support more of taxing/regulating particulate matter over C02.

As it stands chemically "carbon dioxide emissions are a pollutant and a danger to public health. " is "false". C02 is of such low % of the atmosphere that large increases in it will go unnoticed. C02 makes up ,.03 % of the atmosphere and if it were to go to .04% no's body will notice. Particulate matter (which seems to come hand-in-hand with C02 emissions) harms the body far more.

While we usually use "pollutant" to describe smoke, sulphur dioxide, etc. there is a separate, specific legal definition with repect to the EPA, and has been the subject of a Supreme Court case. The legal definition essentially means a human-caused substance that can cause environmental harm. It's been decided-- CO2 emissions fit the legal definition of pollutant that the EPA is obligated to regulate.

There is so much bogus information on the question of CO2 being a problem, it's almost not worth arguing about. People are going to deny it no matter what. You can find a lot of information by skeptics, but because it exists doesn't necessarily mean it's correct.

Many environmental problems like desertification, logging, etc. are also related to CO2, and yes are also important. We shouldn't stop worrying about habitat loss (including that for humans), worry about particulates, etc. to address CO2 and vice versa.

The word pollutant is not only referred to "toxic checmicals made by men". In environmental sciences, "pollution" refers to something that is added as a new component of a system and wouldn't naturally be there, or something that is increased in a way that would not naturally happen.

So if we add C02 to the atmosphere in ways that would naturally not occure, that C02 is a pollutant.

That's why heat can be a pollutant (and a serious one in rivers for example, from water used in industrial cooling), noise can be a pollutant, and even light can be a pollutant. "But hey, the Sun makes light! Light for solar panels is good!" - that's not an argument and it doesn't change what "pollutant" means.

Let's not ignore the fact that increases in CO2 actually improve plant growth. And, thermal 'pollution' from Florida power plants has had a profoundly positive impact on Manatee numbers.

Finally, the States are getting some sense back into their policies. This is definitely a great step toward curbing warming.

Julian:
By that broad definition we could say that excessive political and financial attention being directed the wrong direction, as toward CO2, might be considered a "pollutant" since it takes away precious resources from other perhaps more important environmental concerns (such as massive deforestation, massive over-fishing of the oceans, and of course chemical contamination of products, buildings, air...).
This is why the definition is important and the issue of global warming is so important. Where do we really need to spend our time and money on this earth?
And Global Warming alarmists are looking for MASSIVE money and attention for this cause.

Not that C02 isn't a pollutant to never be tackled, its just that deforestation is happening more because of the chain-saw and that fish-stock declines are happening because of drag nets, and taking C02 back down to ~.02% isn't going to do squat compared with stopping logging and overfishing.

Working with CSA (the World Secretariat for the development of ISO 14064) to help create its new climate change website, www.csa.ca/carbonperformance, really helped open my eyes to the 'holistic' view we need to take when measuring climate change impacts. You've got to account for all the sources, sinks, reservoirs and directed actions before you can even establish a baseline footprint, let alone know where to work for reductions. By the way, CO2 really should be CO2e in most contexts, since GHGs are measured and reported in CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent). But that's just semantics. Does anyone know if EPA will be examining CO2e, or in other words all GHGs?

Will the EPA examining CO2e, or in other words all GHGs? A very good question considering the overall effect that methane (not even mentioned yet in this stream) has on climate change. Methane heat trapping ability is many times more than carbon dioxide and is a significant contributor to climate change. (especially when you consider that often, we trade CO2 sinks, or trees, for methane producing cows)

Yes, there is a big climate-change happening. At an increasing speed.

Yes, current extremely fast climate-change can hardly be other then man made.

Yes, the climate-change happening is a gigantic threat to a lot of life on earth, including humanity.

Yes, we know many (if not all) of the factors that contribute to current climate-change.

Yes, we have many possibilities to decrease our devastating impact.

Yes, forcefully reducing fossil CO2 emissions will add significantly to reducing speed of climate change.

Yes, we certainly also need to forcefully reduce other factors that contribute to climate change: like save (and replant) our (rain)forests and reduce methane-emissions (cows!).

Yes, this will take time to achieve. But the more we wait for the ultimate proof of devastating impact of climate-change before acting, the harder it will get to stop climate-change at a relatively comfortable level.

Yes, we can.

And yes, we should.

Yes, right now.

Yes, I find it very encouraging the EPA finally will announce 'that for the first time it will regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases':-)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

Yes, it is easy to fool most of the people most of the time. Just ask Germany about the 40's

Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than C02. Which gasses will also fall under the cap and trade system? There needs to be specific guidelines or these problems will end up in a court system wasting time and money there.