Lack of Specificity in the Globall Warming Controversy

USA Today reports that the US Supreme Court blocked the EPA from requiring permits for greenhouse gas emissions from new or modified industrial facilities. However, this still allows the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from industries already required to get permits for other air pollutants. These generally are the largest power plants, refineries, and other industrial facilities. The net result is that the latest Supreme Court ruling has little effect on EPA’s power to control carbon dioxide g emissions from most industrial operations, which includes power plants supplying electricity to the public.
Is there anything wrong with this? Perhaps so. Let’s take a somewhat deeper look.
Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1963. Wikipedia says it was designed to control air pollution on a national level.
Congress amended the law in 1970 to require comprehensive federal and state regulations for both stationary (industrial) pollution sources and mobile sources (cars). The 1977 Amendment introduced National Ambient Air Quality Standards and areas involved. The 1990 Amendment addressed acid rain, ozone depletion and toxic air pollution, established a national permits program for stationary sources, and a few other things.
The key point here is that when we are talking about pollution, we are talking about chemical substances, which are specific in composition and identity. Only in the 1990 Amendment did Congress come close to a clear definition of pollutants.
Ozone is a distinct chemical compound. Whether it’s an air pollutant is only slightly conjectural. It is a normal part of the environment at high levels of the atmosphere. At ground levels, it can be considered a pollutant, because it has deleterious health effects on humans.
Acid rain is not a chemical compound. It is an obvious pollutant, but trying to regulate it as acid rain is not practical. One must look at the chemical bases. Coal is contaminated with sulfur. When it is burned to produce heat for generation of electricity, it is emitted as sulfur dioxide, which then oxidizes further in the atmosphere. Finally, rain delivers it to the earth surface as sulfuric acid, which we call acid rain. Any legislation involving acid rain, should then not address direct control of acid rain, but rather sulfur dioxide emissions from coal burning operations.
With that background, we can consider that in 2007 the US Supreme Court judged that greenhouse gases qualify as an air pollutant, even though their impact isn't as direct as others. But here, the Supreme Court has fallen into the same trap as Congress had previously fallen into; namely, “generality”. Why not be specific? What chemical compounds qualify as greenhouse gases? What is the definition of air pollutant, and which specific chemicals can be considered air pollutants?
In fact, the EPA and the Supreme Court are talking about carbon dioxide as both a pollutant and a greenhouse gas. However looking at the Clean Air Act and its various amendments, I can’t find any indication that Congress intended for carbon dioxide to be judged a toxic pollutant or a greenhouse gas, with the negative implications thereof. The term “greenhouse gas” seems to be an invention or reinvention of the EPA and apparently has been adopted by the Supreme Court.
Let’s first take up the toxicity of carbon dioxide. For all practical purposes, it is not considered a toxic gas which affects the metabolism of human beings as do hydrogen cyanide or carbon monoxide. Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring substance, as is water. Because carbon dioxide is not breathable, it does not mean that carbon dioxide is toxic. Water is also not breathable. Both can lead to suffocation, but if water is not considered to be a toxic substance, why would one consider carbon dioxide to be toxic?
Let’s now consider greenhouse gases, which seem to be either an invention of the EPA or some pseudoscientist at a university on the government payroll through a grant. The term “greenhouse gas” was apparently invented, or at least reinvented, as part of the Obama Administration’s desire to substitute so-called replaceable energy, such as solar and wind, for fossil fuels.
The theory goes that burning fossil fuels give off carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and leads to global warming. But, what about other gases in the atmosphere, such as the major constituents of nitrogen 78% and oxygen 21%?
The global warming theory handles that by claiming those gases are not greenhouse gases. In so doing, the fact is ignored that they are insulators to the passage of heat, as measured in the laboratory.
Another way to look at it is that on an astronomical basis, the primary atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen on earth is actually responsible for reasonable living conditions. Without those gases, daytime temperatures would be a positive few hundred degrees and nighttime temperatures would be a negative few hundred degrees. Therefore, nitrogen and oxygen qualify as greenhouse gases, impeding the loss of heat during nights.
Since the Supreme Court says that the EPA has a right to control carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, should not the EPA control also emissions of nitrogen and oxygen? Nitrogen is routinely lost to the atmosphere in cryogenic air separation plants. Oxygen is routinely lost to the atmosphere through its use in breathing devices in hospitals.
This may sound kind of silly with respect to nitrogen and oxygen, but no more silly than controlling carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
The answer to avoiding differences of opinion on controls lies in a better understanding of what should be controlled. This can be done on a completely specific basis involving individual chemicals. The EPA is familiar with this in other aspects of its regulatory program. There’s no reason why carbon dioxide should be handled differently when the EPA bans the use of benzene as a toxic chemical compound.
Since the EPA has invented mechanisms to further a particular political persuasion, and the Supreme Court has fallen into the trap of considerations based upon EPA definitions, it seems up to the Congress to develop another amendment to specifically consider carbon dioxide as a directly toxic chemical or an indirect hazard to mankind through its EPA claimed unusual properties as a super greenhouse gas, negatively affecting conditions of life for mankind.