T Nation

CO2 to Became Public Danger


WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will early next week, possibly as soon as Monday, officially declare carbon dioxide a public danger, a trigger that could mean regulation for emitters across the economy, according to several people close to the matter.

Such an "endangerment" decision is necessary for the EPA to move ahead early next year with new emission standards for cars. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said it could also mean large emitters such as power stations, cement kilns, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants would have to curb their greenhouse gas output.

The announcement would also give President Barack Obama and his climate envoy negotiating leverage at a global climate summit starting next week in Copenhagen, Denmark and increase pressure on Congress to pass a climate bill that would modify the price of polluting.

While environmentalists celebrate EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it has caused many large emitters to cringe at the potential costs of compliance.

According to a preliminary endangerment finding published in April, EPA scientists fear that man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are contributing to a warming of the global climate. Senior EPA officials said in November the agency would likely make a final decision in December around the time of the summit.


I get it, we are going to reduce the CO2 as the earth is cooling then tell everyone that we cooled the earth.

I wish nothing but bad things on those who work in the EPA.


I will be calling the EPA to let them know they are all retarded.


..once again; destroying our rainforests does not help earth to deal with CO2 levels...


I wonder if there has ever been serious effort to even try to argue that it's constitutional for regulatory agencies to exert this much power and in this manner.

Even if one claims that it's really an act of the President, since when did he get to write laws?

Which in effect these regulations are.

(Yeah yeah yeah, it would be argued that back in the 70s or whenever Congress voted to establish the EPA, but that is stretching it to a degree that I can't call serious effort at showing this to be constitutional.)

Not that not being constitutional has ever stopped the government in remotely-recent decades.


Once again you can not prove that CO2 does anything. All the science that supported the sky is falling is now been proven to be junk.


So are you actually advocating for pollution?


Not at all, I am saying CO2 is not pollution. Is this really where the debate's are going to head too. EnviroNazi's lost their ability to debate Global warming(I mean climate change) with facts so now we are going to turn to this.

If you believe CO2 is pollution then please stop breathing. You are killing mother earth.


Are you equating the CO2 production from civilization as the same as normal respiration (or expiration to be more accurate)?

If you are, then don't reply because you and I will never be able to come to any semblance of agreement.


Just out of curiousity, do you think they are different molecules?


We are not going to come to any sort of agreement because I have the facts that say that man made climate change is a scam. Perhaps you are aware of Climategate?


your ''facts'' are very ideologically driven and overall they are corny.


Turns out so are the facts of the "global warming" crowd.

He however does not want to implement an ecological dictatorship.


It's a greenhouse gas.


And what does it do? We can see it doesn't raise temperatures because if it did the "scientists" wouldn't have had to create a bunch of fake data.


No. What you have is a 20 year old, narcissistic opinion. Get over yourself.


You are framing the question to suit your opinion. Do I think they are diffent molecules? No.

Do I think industrial releases (of which I work in and have worked in many others, so don't try to tell me it's theory) are the same as expiration from life forms? Uh...no.

More importantly, I NEVER once stated that I believe in the global warming ya'll are taking about. Not once. But since John S. obviously have some major axe to grind, he assumed that's what I was getting at with my very simple question.

Do you think man-made methylcobalamin is the same as B12 in, say, liver?


Nope, and you cannot be too precise a thinker given that you came up with that one.

Don't imagine that there's no one that would, though.

Wow, you truly are not a precise thinker.

You think the molecules are the same, but now you say that industrially released CO2 is different than CO2 expired from life forms.

What, you think it's the "same molecule" but with different vibrations or something?

Yeah, I do think that methylcobalamin is methylcobalamin. Obviously you don't.

I challenge you to name an objective test that can discern the difference between one methylcobalamin molecule and another, or one group of them and another.

Mysterious vibrations detectable only on the ethereal plane I suppose? Or maybe the test in which you hold it in your hand with your arm stretched out and if you get weak, it's the bad kind?


By the way, as a sidetrack, Vitamin B-12 is not made in the liver anyway. It is produced by bacteria. This is true regardless of whether, for example, methylcobalamin is found in food or in a vitamin product.

Methylcobalamin is the same molecule with the same properties regardless of origin. Molecules of the same structure don't store or contain differing information or have differing properties depending on their origin.


You obviously do not see where I'm coming from or what I'm trying to get at. Do I think that there is a difference on the molecular level? NO!

Do I think that industrial releases and life expiration are the same thing? NO!

This really isn't that hard to grasp.

And I wasn't talking about the B12 production in the liver....I was getting at that there is a difference between taking B12 in supplement form and eating B12 in foods LIKE liver. Similarly, there is a difference between expiration of CO2 from life forms and the CO2 that is released from industry. It may not show up in quantitative studies, but there IS a difference nonetheless.

If you still can't see what I'm getting at, I'm sorry. Maybe I'm not articulating it well enough and we should just drop it and move on.

For your further posts, I would also advise against acting like you're 16 years old and you just got your own laptop. If you don't agree with what I'm saying...fuckin'-a. Just don't treat people like they're retarded.

Edit: Here, maybe this will help.

Industrial/Technological civilization-Bad


True, given the complexity of the human body I would not be surprised if it matters when, where and under what circumstances a molecule is introduced.

Maybe the same is true for ecological systems.

It could also be dose dependent, we just dont know.