The Sierra Club has brought suit against the EPA, claiming that it isn’t properly enforcing the Clean Air Act. The reason: the EPA has not come up with standards for CO2 emissions for automobiles. Why regulate CO2? Well, in Bill Cosby’s routine about Noah asking God why he should build an ark, Bill Cosby’s God character responds, “Well, how long can you tread water?” Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it causes global warming which threatens human health by changing the climate and causing low areas to flood. To regulate autos’ CO2 emissions, the EPA would have to classify CO2 as an air pollutant. Take a look at the story from a month ago: http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/25/news/economy/pluggedin_gunther_epa.fortune/
If the Sierra Club is correct, then the EPA would have to go far beyond regulating auto CO2 emissions. A lot of important processes besides automobile combustion produce CO2. If the EPA labels CO2 as a pollutant, it will be able to regulate all processes that emit CO2. I have a hint for you about one of the important processes that they could then regulate: “how long can you hold your breath?” Classifying CO2 as a pollutant would mean that exhaling, an act necessary for human life, would be deemed dangerous to human life and subject to EPA regulations.
Morris Coats
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, November 29th, 2006 at 12:54 pm and is filed under General, Political Economy.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
November 29th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Does this mean the government will be banning sex and other forms of heavy breathing if this thing goes through?
November 29th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
The government can’t go so far as banning breathing, but I’m sure something will go through concerning big businesses and vehicles. If Walmart can limit it’s CO2 emissions, why can’t everyone else? Sooner or later, they will have to. As the article stated, walmart sees which way the wind is blowing, and how fast the ice is melting.
November 29th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
Hi Earl,
I am not sure. If they would only ban the hot air that comes from D.C., I would be pleased, except that they would have the power, then, to also ban the hot air from White Hall at Nicholls. I just don’t see the point in reducing emissions of a GLOBAL pollutant in just one country (or one state, such as CA) would do anything to reduce global warming.
Morris Coats
November 30th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Elimimating breathing is a very extreme way of dealing with the problem of CO2. I am sure there are other ways for them to control the emmisions without going to such an extreme level. If several large businesses are willing to back the regulation then I think everyone should at least be willing to try. I mean it can’t get any worse by trying.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Hello and let me begin by saying that I do not take a stand for either side of this matter. However, I will attack the proposed platform that C02 is contributing to “Global Warming”. Global Warming was introduced as a phenomenom that was essentially caused by humans lack of regard to nature. Let me posed this question to you as a person who had to walk to class in Va’ s dredful cold winter. Don’t you like warmer weather? I personally really like warm weather and would be pefectly content with it remaining a balmy 72 year round. Billions and billions of dollars have been dedicated to prove that Global Warming is degrading our planet. BUT recent research has shown that the glacier are NOT melting at an alamzing pace, the oceans temperatures are NOT rising dramatically and for the most part life on Earth is good. Now, don’t you think a notion of limiting CO2 emmisions, even in large industrial areas, is a radical idea. How about we just let the satus qoa continue while we consumers enjoy the luxury of life with cheaper goods produced by those CO2 emitting fiends.
Jacob Charpentier Econ 255 2M
December 10th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
I just came across this and thought it was appropriate. The biggest cuplrit in greenhouse gas production, says this report, is not Man, but Bovine: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece
December 11th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
I haven’t read the last article, but I hope it is not a follow up to Earl’s comment.