NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/04/todays_us_supre.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200704/NAT20070402b.html


So now that CO2 is a pollutant. I'm sure there will be the usual cheers and jeers from the usual people. It won't be too long before someone decides to start fining people for owning pets or exhaling and I'm sure someone will try to stop them but don't hold your breath.

[Edit]
Fixed the links.

-http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/04/todays_us_supre.html
-http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200704/NAT20070402b.html

So now that CO2 is a pollutant. I'm sure there will be the usual cheers and jeers from the usual people. It won't be too long before someone decides to start fining people for owning pets or exhaling and I'm sure someone will try to stop them but don't hold your breath.

One could argue that anything is polluting in a sufficiently high quantity.

Also, why no URL tags around the addresses?

I hate to break it to you, but Co2 is only one small part of the category of "greenhouse gas" emissions.

The Supreme Court can still occasionally get things right, even if the "usual suspects" dissented. Justice Kennedy is the swing vote, replacing former Justice O'Connor.

Does this mean that theres going to be an annual breathing quota?

So now that CO2 is a pollutant. I'm sure there will be the usual cheers and jeers from the usual people. It won't be too long before someone decides to start fining people for owning pets or exhaling and I'm sure someone will try to stop them but don't hold your breath.

say, how are things over in rightwinglunaticland these days?


did you freak out when we decided that fecal matter shouldn't be dumped into rivers too? or when we started banning the right of people to use naturally occurring lead in any way they pleased?

CO2 is a pollutant as well as a resource. We could use that CO2 to produce clean biofuels and enhance oil production, providing a use for it and encouraging companies to sell their CO2 or sequester it for economic purposes rather than just put it in to the air. A hope is that regulation like this requires companies to start using these methods, which would obviously be beneficial to us from an economic as well as environmental perspective.

I could see some major economic opportunities in the CO2 recovery sector. Why throw away a perfectly good feedstock for biofuels?

You know, I'm surprised I saw no hint of a "leftie liberal conspiracy LOLZ." I applaud you sir. Even if I strongly, strongly disagree with you.

Anyway, it's where the CO2 comes from that really matters - when it's a by product of fossil fuels processing, then it is polluting because it's an increase.

But CO2 from breathing was CO2 in the past. It then got converted to O2 by plants before being turned back into CO2 by aerobic respiration, etc.

Well...I guess I can just give up breathing for the next few generations...at least until the human race adapts the ability to absorb 100% of the compounds and elements in the air, and exhale nothing.

But then of course the lack of CO2 would slowly kill off the plant life...but I think we will have been living in a vacuum by the time that happens...

say, how are things over in rightwinglunaticland these days?
I wouldn't know, you'd have to ask someone who lives there. How are things in leftlunaticland, Free Soviets?

did you freak out when we decided that fecal matter shouldn't be dumped into rivers too? or when we started banning the right of people to use naturally occurring lead in any way they pleased?
Fecal matter is a perfectly good fertilizer, a resource like any other and should be used never have been wasted. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a resource and should be used, not wasted. Fear and ignorance should never stand in the way of progress and the efficient utilization of resources.

Second, as you correctly pointed out, lead does occur naturally and exists in nature so it's not a world-ending disaster when a minute amount is released back into the environment it originated from.

Third, I didn't want to start a debate on this. I just posted a news topic I heard on the radio this afternoon having not seen it posted by anyone else. If you come to this thread seeking conflict from me then you will be disapointed.

Third, I didn't want to start a debate on this.

You started a thread on General and hoped NOT to get a debate? I thought you would know better :p

You started a thread on General and hoped NOT to get a debate? I thought you would know better :p
What? I can't post news without a flame war ensuing?

Fecal matter is a perfectly good fertilizer, a resource like any other and should be used never have been wasted.

its use as a fertilizer is one of the main ways it gets into the water...

Second, as you correctly pointed out, lead does occur naturally and exists in nature so it's not a world-ending disaster when a minute amount is released back into the environment it originated from.

yes, there are certainly no adverse consequence to it at all...

[LIST]
I'm sure someone will try to stop them but don't hold your breath.


*Cutest pun of the day award* :D

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/04/todays_us_supre.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200704/NAT20070402b.html


So now that CO2 is a pollutant. I'm sure there will be the usual cheers and jeers from the usual people. It won't be too long before someone decides to start fining people for owning pets or exhaling and I'm sure someone will try to stop them but don't hold your breath.

[Edit]
Fixed the links.

The coal companies have said CO2 is unfairly characterized as a pollutant. Bullshit, and ha ha, in your face!

the key, for anyone still wondering, is that 'pollution' is a context dependent term

the key, for anyone still wondering, is that 'pollution' is a context dependent term

Yeah. For example, a natural lead deposit isn't a pollutant but lead leaked in to the environment from mining or from burning leaded gasoline (which is almost totally phased out) is a pollutant.

Same is true of uranium, methane, and a ton of other natural compounds in use today.

Yeah. For example, a natural lead deposit isn't a pollutant but lead leaked in to the environment from mining or from burning leaded gasoline (which is almost totally phased out) is a pollutant.

Same is true of uranium, methane, and a ton of other natural compounds in use today.

The ruling takes this into account, right? CO2 is only being ruled as a pollutant in terms of actually being a pollutant rather than being regarded across the scale as a pollutant, right?

Because if that's true, then I have no problem with the ruling. If, on the other hand, they rule all CO2 as a pollutant, I have a major problem with it.

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/04/todays_us_supre.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200704/NAT20070402b.html


So now that CO2 is a pollutant. I'm sure there will be the usual cheers and jeers from the usual people. It won't be too long before someone decides to start fining people for owning pets or exhaling and I'm sure someone will try to stop them but don't hold your breath.

[Edit]
Fixed the links.

I HAVE TO HOLD MY BREATH I KEEP BREATHING OUT POLLUTION!!

The ruling takes this into account, right? CO2 is only being ruled as a pollutant in terms of actually being a pollutant rather than being regarded across the scale as a pollutant, right?

I think the suit was about automobiles, so yes. It gives the EPA the power to regulate emissions produced by vehicles (and presumably other parts of the economy).

So don't worry about being forced to hold your breath.

I HAVE TO HOLD MY BREATH I KEEP BREATHING OUT POLLUTION!!

I kinda have to wonder. Not saying anything about you personally, because I don't know you IRL, but maybe humans are causing global warming partially because we talk to damn much?

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/04/todays_us_supre.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200704/NAT20070402b.html


So now that CO2 is a pollutant. I'm sure there will be the usual cheers and jeers from the usual people. It won't be too long before someone decides to start fining people for owning pets or exhaling and I'm sure someone will try to stop them but don't hold your breath.

[Edit]
Fixed the links.

Well at least CO2 can be absorbed by plants and turned to oxygen, thats more than I can say for other "pollutants"

The ruling takes this into account, right? CO2 is only being ruled as a pollutant in terms of actually being a pollutant rather than being regarded across the scale as a pollutant, right?

Because if that's true, then I have no problem with the ruling. If, on the other hand, they rule all CO2 as a pollutant, I have a major problem with it.I HAVE TO HOLD MY BREATH I KEEP BREATHING OUT POLLUTION!!A pollutant (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Pollutant) is anything that contaminates (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contaminate) something. A teaspoonful salt won't contaminate an acre of forest, for example, but 500 tonnes will contaminate it rather thoroughly. It doesn't mean salt is a pollutant, just that it can be in some instances.

I didn't actually read the links yet, but unless the ruling changed the English language, it's all rather inane. Nothing's a pollutant under all circumstances, and almost everything can be under the wrong circumstances.

A pollutant (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Pollutant) is anything that contaminates (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contaminate) something. A teaspoonful salt won't contaminate an acre of forest, for example, but 500 tonnes will contaminate it rather thoroughly. It doesn't mean salt is a pollutant, just that it can be in some instances.

I didn't actually read the links yet, but unless the ruling changed the English language, it's all rather inane. Nothing's a pollutant under all circumstances, and almost everything can be under the wrong circumstances.

Californian lawmakers need to get brains. The only one doing a good job so far is good Arnold.

Californian lawmakers need to get brains. The only one doing a good job so far is good Arnold.

Good Arnold? lol

Good.

Californian lawmakers need to get brains. The only one doing a good job so far is good Arnold.

Indeed? We've had tougher auto emission standards here for years...no one else wanted to go to the tougher California standard, now lo and behold automobiles are made to meet California emission standards. Californians in general, could care less what you do in the privacy of your own home, and actually accept gay men and women walking down the street holding hands and kissing each other goodbye as NORMAL. So does Ah-nuld, BTW. Industry here has to meet tougher occupational health and safety laws than national standard, we have a higher minimum wage and even IF the national standard is eventually raised to 7.25, by then we will be paying 8.00 per hour. By golly we even have unions here.

California is by no means perfect, we pay higher prices for real estate to go along with our higher standard of living. The folks who live in the large cities pay higher auto insurance prices, but you get that in NYC and other major metropolitan areas too.

Point is, California is a pretty cool place to live, but it wouldn't be so cool if we had a bunch of yokels who spout off the bullshit about unions being evil and social justice is just a myth and we don't need no stinking HIGHER emission standards, because after all, auto pollution is just a myth.

Yep, our lawmakers are pretty darn stupid. But ours beat yours on any day and twice on Sunday.

Oh, and a person who lives in California is a "Californian," a lawmaker in California is a "California lawmaker."

A pollutant (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Pollutant) is anything that contaminates (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contaminate) something. A teaspoonful salt won't contaminate an acre of forest, for example, but 500 tonnes will contaminate it rather thoroughly. It doesn't mean salt is a pollutant, just that it can be in some instances.

I didn't actually read the links yet, but unless the ruling changed the English language, it's all rather inane. Nothing's a pollutant under all circumstances, and almost everything can be under the wrong circumstances.

The ruling isn't all that bad, actually. The question for the court was if CO2 was a pollutant that the EPA could regulate. Seems that the EPA argued that they didn't have the authority to do so, without justifying their position further.

As the Washington Post writes:
"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. The agency "identifies nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPA's power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants," the opinion continued.
The case dates from 1999, when the International Center for Technology Assessment and other groups petitioned the EPA to set standards for greenhouse gas emissions for new vehicles. Four years later, the EPA declined, saying that it lacked authority to regulate greenhouse gases and that even if it did, it might not choose to because of "numerous areas of scientific uncertainty" about the causes and effects of global warming. Massachusetts, along with other states and cities, took the agency to court.

The court majority said that the EPA clearly had the authority to regulate the emissions and that its "laundry list" of reasons for not doing so were not based in the law. "We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding. . . . We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for actions or inaction in the statute," Stevens wrote.

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/04/todays_us_supre.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200704/NAT20070402b.html


So now that CO2 is a pollutant. I'm sure there will be the usual cheers and jeers from the usual people. It won't be too long before someone decides to start fining people for owning pets or exhaling and I'm sure someone will try to stop them but don't hold your breath.

[Edit]
Fixed the links.

So does that mean we have to stop breathing?

So does that mean we have to stop breathing?

No, it means that the EPA has the authority to regulate emissions of CO2, and is requred to give a lawful reason if they choose not to do so. But you already knew this...

Fecal matter is a perfectly good fertilizer, a resource like any other and should be used never have been wasted.

And it doesn't belong in the river, since it's a pollutant.

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a resource and should be used, not wasted.

It is a pollutant.


Second, as you correctly pointed out, lead does occur naturally and exists in nature so it's not a world-ending disaster when a minute amount is released back into the environment it originated from.

No it's not "world ending." It just kills innocent people, including children. No biggie.

Third, I didn't want to start a debate on this.

Heh heh heh heh.