The Silly EPA Decision

So a divided Supreme Court has decided that the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 gases or prove that they do not do any harm to the atmosphere. 

A Supreme Court ruling Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases galvanized groups that have long sought to limit emissions from new cars and trucks.

The 5-4 decision in the court’s first-ever case on global warming forces the EPA to re-evaluate whether its regulation of tailpipe emissions should include carbon dioxide. It also adds momentum to congressional and state efforts to address climate change.

The opinion could ultimately affect whether automakers are required to build higher-mileage vehicles that emit less carbon dioxide. The court emphasized the link between increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and rising temperatures.

A group of lawyers, no scientists mind you, has decided that CO2 MAY be harmful to the atmosphere and that the EPA has the authority to regulate those emissions, along with other "pollutants".  Such as water vapor.

I kid you not.

Will the CO2 we breath be regulated next?  The human species spews forth 2 billion tons of CO2 per year, if this is a pollutant then shouldn’t our breathing be regulated?

IMAO has some examples of the coming regulations:

* Ban on Jogging: Jogging does nothing but cause the jogger to breathe heavily, and thus it is an assault on the Earth’s climate. If you see anyone jogging, report him or her to the police. If you see police chasing a jogger on foot, report them as well.

* Ban on Strenuous Activity: Any physical labor can induce excessive breathing. All physical labor should now be done by carbon-neutral robots. These robots should be compliant to Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, though non-compliant robots built in 2006 or earlier can be grandfathered in.

* Ban on Sports: Sports involve a lot of heavy breathing from physically-taxed athletes as well as greenhouse contribution from shouting spectators. Only non-strenuous sports — such as chess tournaments — and polite clapping by spectators are allowed.

* Ban on Passionate Love Making: Passionate sexual activity results in unsafe amounts of breathing. Love making should instead be conducted in a businesslike and formal manner. Any other types of love making should be discouraged. If you know of any instances of passionate love-making, make sure to inform everyone.

* Ban on Creepy Phone Calls: Creepy phone calls with heavy breathing contribute greatly to greenhouse gases. If a creepy phone call must be made, simply hang up when the other party answers or use something to hide your voice while making creepy statements.

* Ban on Nagging: One of the largest contributions to greenhouse gases is the amount of exhaling done from women when nagging men. Since the men were most likely never listening in the first place, nagging is a complete waste that damages the environment. Women are strongly encouraged to stick to passive-aggressive behavior.

* Tax on Obesity: The obese tend to become short of breath more often leading to excessive breathing and thus damage to the environment. While obesity can’t be outlawed, it can be taxed. Also, environmentally concerned citizens are encouraged to promote healthy weight by referring to the obese as "Fatty Fatty Fat Fat."

* Ban on Ax-Wielding Maniacs: People chased by ax-wielding maniacs tend to breathe at an excessive and environmentally harmful rate, so ax-wielding maniacs are banned until further notice.

Yes, silly….but as silly as this ruling.

Roger Pielke studied the questions of the case over the last few years and wrote a couple of good opinions:

The question is: How does atmospheric carbon dioxide fit into this definition? Carbon dioxide does occur naturally, of course, and is essential to life on Earth, as it is an essential chemical component in the photosynthesis process of plants. This is in contrast with other trace gases in the lower atmosphere such carbon monoxide, ozone, and sulfur dioxide which are have direct health and environmental effects on humans and vegetation. Indeed, when combustion is optimized, less carbon monoxide and more carbon dioxide are produced. There are no positive effects that I am aware of at any level of these pollutants in the lower atmosphere.

Thus, it is more informative to define anthropogenic inputs of carbon dioxide as a climate forcing, as was done in the 2005 National Research Council Report. This provides the recognition that carbon dioxide does not have direct health effects as implied by the news article that carbon dioxide “fouls” the air, but it does significantly affect our climate. Of course, carbon monoxide, ozone and sulfur dioxide are also climate forcings. When these other atmospheric constituents are referred to in news articles and elsewhere, we would benefit by a distinction between an “air pollutant” and a “climate forcing” depending on the context.

and:

There are, therefore, several conclusions from such studies with respect to the question of whether CO2 is a pollutant.

1. Atmospheric CO2 is essential for vegetation growth, and is not an air quality pollutant in the same context as the EPA Criteria pollutants.

2. Elevated atmospheric concentrations of CO2 affect vegetation differentially, with the result that species compositions should be expected to change.

3. High (doubled from background free atmospheric concentrations) of CO2 are routine in forests.

4. We do not know what (or even if) there is an optimal level of CO2 in the atmosphere with respect to vegetation. It appears there are a wide diversity of optimal conditions for each vegetation (and perhaps even genotype), weather, latitude and soil conditions.

Focusing on CO2 as a pollutant is, therefore, counterproductive if the goal is to limit its increase by human activities. The added CO2 is a radiative and biogeochemical climate forcing, and it should be communicated to policymakers in this context. We do not use the term “pollutant” when referring to land use/land cover change yet this is just as much a climate forcing as CO2.”

CO2 wasn’t the main cause of global warming in ancient history, it’s not the main cause today.  This ruling has opened up a pandora’s box of sillyness.  Will they now regulate the pollution caused by making batteries for electric powered cars?   How about how we heat ourselves during the winter?  Natural fuel, fuel oil, butane, propane, all generate CO2 and water vapor once burned….will the EPA now regulate that?

I mean come on…..

But reading the actual opinion made me sleep a little better:

EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, … or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 42 U. S. C. §7607(d)(9)(A). We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns can inform EPA’s actions in the event that it makes such a finding. Cf. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843–844 (1984) . We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.

While the MSM paints a bleak picture of enforced regulations and more taxes to pay for stricter measures of car building the actual opinion states that the EPA doesn’t have to make an endangerment finding, only that they have to state why they can’t decide whether greenhouse gases cause global warming.

But I’m not holding my breath (pun intended), get ready for more idiotic regulations which will eat up our pocket book even further….

Wonderful.

Other’s Blogging:

• Hot Air
• The Volokh Conspiracy
• Judicious Asininity
• Moonbattery
• Newsbusters
• SCOTUS Blog
• Penraker