A recent Alabama editorial, written by an "energy consultant" (see: http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/03/canceling_clean_power_plan_sav.html#incart_river_index) argues in favor of recent action to roll back the Clean Power Plan. There are cost versus benefit arguments I have seen before and I am not in a position to dispute but suspect some fiddling.
But in rationalizing his argument he says the following:
"In truth, the "pollutant" being regulated under the CPP is carbon dioxide (CO2), the inert gas that all humans and animals expel every day. And while the climate debate is still raging over CO2's potential contribution to a warmer climate, it's simply wrong to argue that it is pollution. "
I am not going to look up what the technical definition of a pollutant is, I just offer the following. Many of the things we think of as pollutants (arsenic, lead, oil, coliform bacteria) are naturally occurring and we are exposed to them daily BUT usually at concentrations too low to be a problem. They become pollutants when there is enough arsenic, lead etc. in the water or the food or the environment. to threaten humans or the environment.
As I pointed out in a previous blog "Social Costs 2" (below) the Supreme Court found that if CO2 causes harm then it is within the scope of the EPA to regulate carbon. EPA did so.
This idea that CO2 is not a pollutant is new kind of climate denial. The writer seems to say that even if CO2 contributes to global warming, we cannot regulate it because its not a pollutant. Very strange logic.
I agree with your wiser logic. It is important to have CO2 in our atmosphere. Plants need it for photosynthesis. But too much causes environmental problems. Salt, too, is essential for life, but too much will kill you. Homeostasis, balance, is what we need.
ReplyDelete