Over-regulation much?

[jackofallgeeks]

Actual arguments about Global Warming aside, This sounds to me like pure mania. My thoughts can generally be summed up with this paragraph, from the article:

Unlike particulate matter and smog-forming chemicals, carbon dioxide can't be filtered or trapped. The only way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to burn less fuel.

Comments

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Being the case that the argument is over what CAA does and does not say, there is a legislative solution -- amend the act to specifically designate Co2 as one of the emissions that the EPA is to regulate. I don't think that's quite the same as "no, seriously, implement the Clean Air Act."

But I see your point -- if the issue is clearing up what the law says, that's what the Courts are for. As far as that goes (and be mindful of my general ignorance on the issue), I don't think it's unreasonable for the Courts to say, "no, Co2 doesn't qualify" on the basis of the fact that the EPA generally regulates directly-harmful particulates and poisons.

You can argue, as many would, that C02 is a dangerous gas by virtue of Global Warming, ie. that it causes solar energy to stay trapped in our atmosphere and boil us like proverbial frogs. and this may well be the case, but I refuse to get into a discussion on Global Warming (I haven't the strength nor the interest). however, I think it's a bit of a far-cry to say that Co2 is directly harmful (unless it's, say, the only thing in your lungs and can't get out, but even then I'd argue not -- it's the lack of oxygen and not the presence of Co2 that kills and, unless I'm wrong, Co2 doesn't cling to the lungs the way deadly CO does). So I don't think the EPA is responsible. But that's the issue at hand, I suppose.

Not to say I don't think it should be regulated; just not by the EPA. The DoT already does fuel-efficiency regulations, and since that's the only way to regulate Co2, just take it up with them. I don't think the EPA should have to say, "OK, guys, we'll talk to DoT for you." Just go directly to them.

So perhaps I'm more irritated by the apparent misdirection of this suit.