In my previous post, I made an argument against an editorial which proposed that CO2 was not a pollutant. In that brief post I did not mention recent observations on the gradual change in pH of ocean water (ocean acidification). The above graph (a little fuzzy) shows the increase in atmospheric CO2 (red line) since the 1950s as measured at the same location in Hawaii, The green shows increasing amounts of CO2 in seawater near Hawaii and the red shows the decline in pH (more acid). The decline is small but remember the pH scale is logarithmic. While there is not a lot of solid information on the current effect of declining pH there is plenty of concern for the future based on our knowledge of how shrimp, crabs, oysters, corals etc. react physiologically to lower pH.
It seems pretty logical to me that if a gas (CO2), at unusually high concentration, causes a decrease in the pH of water it is a pollutant.
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.
