From CNN:

An interesting point in the opinion regarded the test the EPA must pass in order to avoid regulating greenhouse gases. From CNET.com:

Questions for Debate:

1) What, if any, impact will this ruling have on the EPA's regulatory activities regarding greenhouse gases during the remainder of the Bush Administration?

2) Will this ruling allow states like California more leeway in adopting their own guidelines?

3) With the new Democratic majority in Congress, will this ruling generate new Clean Air Act revisions? Why or Why not?

Topic note: Note that none of these questions or the ruling make any normative conclusions regarding global warming or greenhouse gases. Please restrict your answers to the topic at hand and do not be tempted to turn this into another general global warming debate. Thanks

1) What, if any, impact will this ruling have on the EPA's regulatory activities regarding greenhouse gases during the remainder of the Bush Administration?

2) Will this ruling allow states like California more leeway in adopting their own guidelines?

3) With the new Democratic majority in Congress, will this ruling generate new Clean Air Act revisions? Why or Why not?

I can answer all the questions together. The Executive Branch is the executor of the laws of the land. This Supreme Court decision really does not mean anything in the grand scheme of things and can hardly been seen as either a victory or a defeat. Just because the EPA is now allowed to regulate carbon emissions...doesn't mean that they will. The whole "not authorized to regulate" rhetoric was a smokescreen first and foremost. Now without that smokescreen, Bush will probably just do nothing citing economic/foreign policy concerns.

I beg to differ. Your linked quote says the exact opposite:


1) What, if any, impact will this ruling have on the EPA's regulatory activities regarding greenhouse gases during the remainder of the Bush Administration?

Quite little. For one thing, the current conclusion of the EPA (the "official stance") is that greenhouse gases are "likely1 mostly as a result of human activities", but not conclusively. They quote the NRC's paper from 2001, saying:


Until this conclusion changes, the policy is unlikely to change. A change could only be forced with a new study and it is doubtful that such a study would be finished in the next year and a half.

2) Will this ruling allow states like California more leeway in adopting their own guidelines?

The current suit may force the EPA to do additional studies required to determine if CO2 emissions, particularly from power plants, are pollutants.

Of course, the state Attorney Generals who brought this suit seem to be woefully uninformed. New York state AG Eliot Spitzer said : "At a time when the rest of the world is taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions, our nation is not even attempting to slow the rate of growth in its emissions. Individual states simply can't address the problem alone. Instead, it is imperative that the Bush Administration establish a responsible and forward-looking national environmental policy."

Ah, so the real motive is revealed. But Mr. Spitzer should note that the rate of growth of CO2 emissions in the US is lower than many other countries, even those with "forward looking" environmental policies. Of course, China's growth is unsurpassed.

Global emissions of greenhouse gases are up 3.2% since 2000. The US is doing better than that.In the US, greenhouse gas emissions are up only 1.6%.


3) With the new Democratic majority in Congress, will this ruling generate new Clean Air Act revisions? Why or Why not?

This is quite likely. The current Clear Air Act gives the EPA certain discretion to make determinations about what is a pollutant and what isn't. Congress can certainly mandate that CO2 is a polluting gas, basically forcing the EPA to do something about it.

I wonder if the SCOTUS thinks that CO2 is a criteria pollutant or a hazardous pollutant. Hazardous pollutants limits are set by what are called National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for pollutants that may cause an increase in fatalities or in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness.

So, I'm assuming a criteria pollutant. If so, then the EPA would be forced to come up with a NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standards ) if CO2. I wonder what the primary threshold should be. That is, what level causes immediate human health hazards? What should the secondary threshold be? That is, what level constitutes a hazard to property or to the environment?

It's interesting to note that the threshold limits for other criteria pollutants were established in the CFR. These limits would need to be created by the EPA in regards to CO2. But who can say what the limit of ambient CO2 is the "correct" one? For most other pollutants, a zero ambient level is the desirable one. I doubt anyone hopes for a zero ambient CO2 level, however. Perhaps we need a band of upper and lower limits for this "pollutant".

I think the biggest problem with this story, and the countless articles I've read describing the decision as a slam against Bush and the EPA, is that the SCOTUS did not declare the EPA must create CO2 emissions guidelines. In a strange twist, it was the liberal judges who favored a strict interpretation of the Clean Air Act. Since the Clean Air Act allows the administrator (I believe this refers to the EPA) to decide which gases qualify as pollutants, the primary question before the court was whether or not the EPA had the authority to regulate CO2 emissions. The decision was not to push the EPA to do so, but to provide a clear ruling that the EPA indeed had the power to do so, should they choose to do so.

I've heard liberals argue that this is a win for environmental causes, while conservatives lambast it as another sign of judicial activism. Neither case is true. Frankly, this is one of the more absurd debates there have been concerning a SCOTUS decision. The court's majority decided that the Clean Air Act granted the EPA to investigate and determine the classification of greenhouse gases. Since this is exactly what the section 202(a) says:

I see nothing wrong here. The court essentially told the EPA to do their job and investigate whether CO2 can or should fall under regulatory guidelines. I highly doubt they will come to this conclusion, but they would not be doing their job if they simply passed it off as "not their job".

How can a non-toxic gas that is essential for all living plant matter to exist be called a pollutant?

You know, in the good ol' days of leaded gas and no emissions controls, the miracle of the catalytic converter was discovered. It is a device that, when coupled with unleaded gas that would not degrade the catalyst, changed lots of poisionous emissions into, simply, water vapor and carbon dioxide, both HARMLESS gases. I emphasize the word HARMLESS. How can the EPA now argue that this essential life force, C02, this "oxygen for trees", is in fact harzardous? In fact, most cars today are ULEV or better, meaning opening a paint can typically pumps more hazardous gases into the air than driving to work.

The solution is to plant more trees and plants, and indeed to engineer and plant trees that use much more carbon dioxide that their natural bretheren--problem solved.

I'm sorry, did you just call CO2 non-toxic? Lets play a game, you go breate a mixture of air that is just 5% CO for 10 minutes, THEN come back and tell us all how 'non-toxic' it is.

Yes, CO2 is absorbed by plants and through photosynthesis converted into Oxygen. So what? What on earth does that have to do with the nature of CO2 as a greenhouse gas? How is that even remotely relevant to the conversation at hand?



Well, your first suggestion is correct, that will help. Your secoind suggestion comes from you watching too much Star trek, and has little basis in reality.

However, the fact is that humanity dumps an enormous amount of this greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, and even more so, if we look at core samples of human climactic history, incresed levels of CO2 in the atmosphere ALWAYS link to increases in global temperature, the cause and effect there is undenyable.


Now then, to return to the topic in a (likely vain) attempt to have this NOT degenerate into another Global warming thread:


I agree with lederuvdapac, practically I don't think this decision will change anything, nor will Democratic or Presidential legistalition be enacted regarding it.

It's called too much of a good thing. Yes, we need CO² to survive in our environment. But too much of it can be toxic to the environment. It's called balance. Life works best when balance is maintained. Oxygen can also be toxic if it becomes to concentrated.

I agree that this decision does nothing but tell the EPA that they can't claim it's not their job.

Because a gas is not breathable by humans does not make it toxic. Water vapor, if breathed in sufficient quantities, will kill you, too, as it deprives the body of oxygen. Water vapor is NOT toxic, just as water is not toxic. We drink soft drinks (and breathe the fumes from them) daily that are filled with C02 to create the carbonated fizz--if CO2 were toxic, it would kill us. It does not. It is not toxic, but it will not replace oxygen in breathable air. Big, big difference, my friend.





Oh, really. The Univ of Georgia forestry dept has engineered trees to clean mercury from soils and they are working on high CO2 trees as well, my pointy-eared, but not so well-read, friend.

"Biotechnology...may provide just what's needed to help reverse global deforestation and industrial pollution while satisfying increased demand for wood and paper products. The Pentagon is even tinkering with pine trees as possible warning systems against germ and chemical attacks.

Fruit-tree farmers could also benefit from the creation of hardier crops. "


http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinno...mod-trees_x.htm


You really need to do your research.

No, it has simply not reached toxic levels. Water kills us by asphixiation, its not the water its the lack of oxygen. CO2 at 5% is toxic, and will kill you even in air with 21% Oxygen as normal. The fact that it requires a certain concentration does not make it non-toxic: any poison is non-toxic if you ibject it in below toxic levels. Once it reaches toxic levels, you die.

And perhaps you missed the second part of my statement, as you ignored it. I shall repost it, for your convenience.

"Yes, CO2 is absorbed by plants and through photosynthesis converted into Oxygen. So what? What on earth does that have to do with the nature of CO2 as a greenhouse gas? How is that even remotely relevant to the conversation at hand?"




Perhaps you could take a moment away from being snide and patronising, and help me out. Could you point to where in the link you provided it says ANYTHING about engineering trees to consume more CO2? That was the point you were trying to support, wasn't it?

I did my research thank you, and could find not a hint of evidence to support your claim. The closest was to genetically engineer trees to grow faster, which has limited to no value as they also suvive only briefly and rot faster, releasing stored CO2.

Well, if you breathe CO² at toxic levels, it will kill you. Oxygen is not generally toxic, but there is something known as oxygen toxicity that can be deadly. So it is not the fact that a particular gas is something we breathe everyday that is of concern... it is the increasing concentration of that gas in the atmosphere... the effect that said concentration has on the environment and on our health.


On a side note: every had a Werner's Ginger Ale? Pop open a bottle of that, place your mouth near the opening and breathe. Wow! Not good.

I agree that this Supreme Court decision will have little practical effect in this administration other than moving the situation back toward the 1998 situation when the Clinton EPA classed CO2 as a pollutant only to be reversed during the Bush Administratin.

Turning to the subject of trees and their effect on CO2 levels and global warming, I have seen this addressed as a solution over and over on this forum. This is a phony argument. Vegetation including trees only sequester CO2 while the plants are undecayed or not burned. Expanding forests and maintaining them can secure some of the CO2 present in the atmosphere but there is a limit to how much forests can be expanded and a steady state condition will soon be reached. The total impact of additional forests in temperate areas is also problematical since snow covered areas reflect far more radiation back into space than dark forests. The CO2 trade off between new forests and the vegetation they replace also needs to be addressed. Tropical forests, on the other hand, not only lock up a fixed amount of CO2 but release water vapor forming low clouds that reflex radiation back into space. Tropical forests are rapidly being depleted for building materials, palm oil plantations, cattle ranches and to grow other crops like soy beans. The industrial world would do well to subsidizes tropical countries to maintain and expand their forests.

Here is one source to consider,

See Article.

Stand near a vat of fermenting beer or whiskey and put your face near the top (where the CO2 is released), and it literally knocks you down. I've seen big strong men fall backwards to the floor, trying to disprove me on that and act tough!



CO2 increases are linked to warmer periods, yes, but undeniable Cause and Effect? Someone somewhere has a model where they increase the CO2 and warming follows? I could be wrong in this specific case, but correlation does not equal causation. Unless you believe that the NFC winning the Super Bowl causes a bull market on Wall Street?

Is it worth mentioning that CO2 emissions in the United States fell last year? Or that Kyoto signatory Canada has had its greenhouse gas emissions increase at a rate 50% higher than the US since 1990? Or that GHG growth in the USA has been slower than the EU 15, despite significantly higher economic and population growth, since 2000? All that, despite the evil Bush emascuating the EPA?

Do you not know how to use a browser?

This stuff about plants and trees engineered to inhale C02 is all over the net; here is one more example http://www.ncpa.org/pi/enviro/march98g.html :

"Now scientists at Japan's Toyota Motor Corp. are conducting genetic engineering studies in an effort to develop trees that consume even more pollution than standard varieties.

It takes 20 regular trees to absorb the gases of one car in a year.

Toyota's researchers report they have improved that performance by 30 percent.

The scientists report that doubling the number of chromosomes in experimental trees widened the tiny air inlets on stems and leaves -- allowing them to absorb more nitrous oxide.

So far the process only works on six types of seeds out of every 100. "

I will continue to hit you with snide remarks when they are appropriate. Often, they are with you.



You and I are not operating under the same definition of toxicity.

Toxicity for humans means a substance is fatal or very harmful when humans are exposed UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS. C02, by even the most liberal of definitions, at worst would be called very mildly toxic in very high concentrations. We exhale the stuff, with our exhaled air being about 4.5% C02. Without C02 in our blood, our blood supply will not correctly regulate--hardly toxic. Oxygen, which no one would ever call toxic, can be deadly in greater than normal concentrations, as can consuming too much water in a short period of time, which can cause a potentially fatal condition known as hyponatremia. Water is absolutely essential to all life--hardly toxic--unless misued, and C02 falls into this category.

If you still want to call C02 "toxic", then you should also call water and oxygen toxic as well. C02 is harmless until the concentration gets way, way above normal levels. C02 is usually found in air at about 300 to 600 ppm. Concentrations many times that--in the several thousand PPM--would be required for any meaningful toxicity.

Oh so now it's my fault that the evidence you produced did nothing to prove your point, and I'm supposed to do your work for you?


Here you presented evidence which gave an example of an experimental bit of work that causes some trees to absorb more NO2, not CO2, but at least you are getting closer. As I said, despite it being 'all over the web', I'm still unable to find any evidence of trees consuming more CO2, and after several attempts, apparently so are you. Though you failed again to provide any evidence to support your point, I will grant you that it seems that genetic engineering of trees is more advanced than I had originally thought.



That's how you justify your completely unwarranted and unjustified ad himinum attacks in this thread? Guess what Quick, they certainly weren't 'necessary' in this thread, you just chose to be like that: a fact that reveals far more about you than it does about me.




No, we aren't using the same definitions.

I am using the actual definition. I have no idea what definition you are using.

From Dictionary.com
Capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical means; poisonous: ex: food preservatives that are toxic in concentrated amounts.

What on earth does 'in normal amounts' mean? What is a normal amount of Arsenic? Of chlorene? Both of these are safe if ingested in small amounts. Your definition has nothing to do with the definition of toxic, sorry. The actual dictionary definition proves you wrong, as food additives are not toxic in 'normal amounts', only when present in high concentrations.

But don't trust me, just look it up, it is, to paraprase, 'all over the web'.

CO2 safety: Carbon dioxide in high concentrations is toxic to humans.
http://www.airproducts.com/nr/rdonlyres/65.../0/safety18.pdf
Industrial Hygene: Carbon dioxide is one of the most frequently overlooked of all toxic gases.
http://www.rimbach.com/scripts/Article/IHN...r.idc?Number=92
Ananlox air controlers: Carbon Dioxide - Danger: Carbon Dioxide is toxic.
http://www.analox.net/site/content_HOSP_co2.php
Everything.com: Carbon dioxide is toxic in relatively high concentrations.

Normal CO2 levels in the environment are between 350-500 parts per million (PPM). Plants directly benefit from
increased levels up to 1500-2000 PPM. At 3000 PPM, CO2 becomes toxic to plants, and at 5000 PPM, it becomes toxic
to humans.


ANYways, I am forced to repeat myself a third time, as you apparently missed my posting and reposing the comment previously...

"Yes, CO2 is absorbed by plants and through photosynthesis converted into Oxygen. So what? What on earth does that have to do with the nature of CO2 as a greenhouse gas? How is that even remotely relevant to the conversation at hand?"

----------------------------------------------------------------



OK, you got me, it is of course impossible to prove direct causality, simply because you cannot conduct an experiment on that scale. Indeed we have repeated correlation in the historical record. Note: repeated, identical correlation. In the ice core samples, when CO2 increases, there is a global temperature increase which follows shortly afterwards, every time, at a rate constant to the increased concentrations of CO2 and with an identical time lag. Correlation, not proven causality, but lets just say that would be one HELL of a repeated, identical set of coincidences, more than enough to meet the standard of evidence for any argument.



Not really. Canada sucks at this at the moment, no question. What is worse, if you go province by province emissions have either increased very little or in a few cases gone down: until you hit Alberta, where emissions skyrocket. largely due to extraction and tar sand development.

Your own link points out the transitory reasons for this "reported" decline.



Canada is a special case with major extractive industries serving foreign (primarily US) markets. The growth in oil extraction from tar sands alone accounts for a significant increase in emissions. Please provide a reference to your EU US comparison. It doesn't jib with anything I can reference. However it is clear that no major country is taking the serious steps we all have to take to avoid serious climate change.

The outsourcing of American manufacturing also helps hold down emissions within our borders but not the emissions we are responsible for through overall consumption. Here is a somewhat dated reference which would be even more significant now.

NCAR Report.

Speaking as a welder- CO2 will knock you right dead, real quick, above around 5%.

Some gasses are non-toxic by themselves, but displace oxygen- like Argon- will kill you dead as well.

Welders have a very healthy respect for CO2 as a TOXIC gas. Says so right on the bottle

Questions for Debate:

1) What, if any, impact will this ruling have on the EPA's regulatory activities regarding greenhouse gases during the remainder of the Bush Administration?
Very little since they will need some time to consider what if anything they should do. Most states have a CO2 limit for cars now and verify same with testing.

2) Will this ruling allow states like California more leeway in adopting their own guidelines?

Hopefully not. Although they are often the driver in this type of issue.

3) With the new Democratic majority in Congress, will this ruling generate new Clean Air Act revisions? Why or Why not?

Hard to say. Depends on how it effects those who give the most $$$$$ to the Party. Certainly no one has touched power plants in the last 2 decades and they are right up there with cars for CO2 production, and the Congress, despite promises to “lead” bla bla has not to my knowledge approved a single nuclear power plant.

So far Congress is all talk - no action



CO2 can never get even close to this level and at the ranges we are discussing is NOT a pollutant or poison gas.

Did you not read the link? We are talking C02, Red One. While the article does mention NO2, it also mentions the engineered trees absorb gases discharged from cars, period, and C02 is one of those gases, and happens to be the primary gas absorbed and used by trees for their own feeding.

Again, use that browser. It's really easy.

There is a ton of work being done on engineered plants to eat C02 AND LOTS OF OTHER GASES AND OTHER POLLUTANTS:

"The Japanese scientists want to use the engineered organism to extract C02 from exhaust gases in factories-simultaneously reducing emissions of a greenhouse gas while making a useful product. The cyanobacteria are usually found on beaches and use light and C02 to produce glycogen. The researchers have inserted a gene from the bacterium Alcaiigenes eutrophus, which itself usually produces PHB from hydrogen gas, sugars and water." Peter Hadfield, Tokyo


In fact, if we could just get the Sierra Club-types to get off of their high horse regarding genetically engineered plants, we could likely solve with technology any global warming concerns (if they are not just a pretense for global reallocation of resources) before breakfast tomorrow....