Not new news, or any big surprise...more like a bad case of fleas upon the earth that need to be eradicated...

"The Republicans and their business donors are stalling any meaningful attempts to reduce the damage of global warming.

In 1999, President Bush called carbon dioxide "one of four main pollutants" that needed "mandatory reduction targets for emissions." But he changed his position in a 2003 letter that claimed it "is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." (Not surprisingly, the American Petroleum Institute agrees: "Fundamentally, we don't think carbon dioxide is a pollutant.")

Meanwhile, the EPA's own website defines carbon dioxide as "Industrial Air Pollution" that contributes to "global climate change."


http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/38199/

Get off your soap box already.

Another bold piece of ALTERNET HORSESHIT. That website sucks you dumb bitch. Get a job.

Fundamentally, its not a pollutant. Wanna know why? The clean air act doesn't consider chemicals that are found naturally in air as a pollutant (oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide). If its not a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, you can't expect the government to place bans on it because of the Clean Air Act.

Alternet strikes out again...

OK heres what i don't get about those who try to defend inaction on the climate change issue; granted, though there is evidence to suggest that climate change IS happening, and that we are largely responsible, the scientific community has not reached a consensus on the issue. But even if pumping tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere would not effect climate in the least, reducing carbon emissions by regulation of the automobile and energy industries would STILL be a good idea. wanna know why???
look at the big picture, combustion of fossil fuels, especially coal, doesnt just produce carbon dioxide, (possible not a pollutant) but sulfur dioxide, Volatile Organic Compunds, particulate matter, and a whole host of other chemicals that DEFINATELY are pollutants. These chemicals pollute the air we breathe and produce acid rain and smog as side effects. greedy myopic politicians and energy industry executives can try and cast doubt on complex issues that scientests still learning about, but there is no doubt that breathing toxic chemicals is bad for you. Then again these are some of the same people that try to sell us war as "peace" and government surveillance as "national security"

How is that supposed to negate Bush changing his position after he was elected? If your argument is that the 2003 quote is technically correct because it mentioned the clean air act, and the 1999 quote didn't, that's still very deceptive on his part to suggest he had a different position back when he was convincing people to vote for him. Alternet is making two points here, that Bush is not to be trusted, and that the energy industry's opinions are mirrored in public policy; both easy points to make. You suggest they're striking out because they're misinterpreting what the clean air act says, but where in that quote do they make ANY assertions about what is or is not in the act?

I wasn't trying to defend Bush's shadyness, I was defending the choice concerning the Clean Air Act. Bush fucked up and he can deal with it.

The climate change is happenning (there is no question in that), only the cause is. And regulating pollutants is a good thing. But if you don't have absolute proof that the problems are our fault, we shouldn't waste the money. Its not going to hurt Oil companits, Car companies, or any of the other large company... They make too much money. The cost will come out of our pocket.

Carbon dioxide has nothing to do with acid rain, its not toxic (I don't know if you were referring to that, INFECT, but I tossed it out there anyways).


ShadowSD said:

In the section of the quote that HTL posted... No. But read the rest of the paragraph:

"Jennifer Bradley and Timothy Dowling, who have co-written an amicus brief for the case, argue the "EPA's statutory justification depends on a rather tortured reading of the Clean Air Act [PDF]." First, the Act says the EPA must regulate any "air pollutant" that "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." The statute defines "air pollutant" broadly as "substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air." (No doubt carbon dioxide emissions fit within this broad definition.)"

who gives a shit about global warming, when it truely takes affect everyone on this board will be dead anyway

Man_of_the_Century said:


The lawyers are the ones making the assertion about what is in the clean air act. If this issue is as cut and dry as you suggest, why would they bother to write up a whole legal brief based on a false premise that could be disproved by two seconds of looking at the clean air act?

Man_of_the_Century said:

Climate change was happening before I was born, and they've known the cause of it for at least that long, WTF are you talking about? There's absolutely no question about what's causing it, it's quite well documented, has been for decades.

the temperature of the earth has been steadily increasing since the ice age. we of course are helping to accelerate it, but to blame it all on "man produced greenhouse gases" is pretty naive.

george bush isn't such a bad guy,i don,t see why everyones so down on him?

Yeti said:


naive is an understatement for hailtheleaf.

HailTheLeaf said:

Refer to the last link I posted on the last thread about this.