Supreme Court rules CO2 is a pollutant
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
United States
April 2, 2007 9:20pm CST
The US Supreme Court in a 5/4 ruling declared that CO2 is a pollutant. This case was brought to force the EPA to regulate CO2 emmissions. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority ruling. He said the EPA's position was "arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with the law".
I certainly disagree with this. CO2 is not a pollutant. A court ruling can no more make it so than a court can declare a squirrel to be a bird.
CO2 is a part of the cycle of life. Animals exhale CO2 and inhale Oxygen. Plants inhale CO2 and exhale Oxygen. It is a cycle that all life depends upon. It would be much like declaring H2O (water) to be a pollutant. OOPS... wait a minute. Water could be next. You see CO2 is declared to be a pollutant because it is a "greenhouse gas". Well, as it turns out, the most common, most abundant greenhouse gas is, guess what? Water! Will the Supreme Court next declare water to be a pollutant?
Here is an url with more information.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6519923.stm
My question is: "Do you agree with the Supreme Court that CO2 is a pollutant?"
3 people like this
5 responses
@Chiang_Mai_boy (3882)
• Thailand
3 Apr 07
I guess we must all stop breathing. Dose this mean that all carbonated beverages are illegal or is it just against the law to open them because that will release CO2?. When will stupidity be declared illegal?
3 people like this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
3 Apr 07
Wow, talk about unintended consequences. You are right, carbonated beverages could eventually be on the hit list. In addition to the CO2 they could point out the "bad" sugar they contain.
Unfortunately, stupidity will never be declared illegal.
2 people like this
@sapphiresage (431)
• United States
3 Apr 07
I wonder what the penalty for breathing too hard will be?
3 people like this
@shoreboy31 (1433)
• United States
3 Apr 07
Well it certainly sounds to me like any activity at all could be banned, as pretty much anything we as humans do produces CO2 to some degree. Next will be genetic experimentation to alter the gene pool, so that humans, instead of exhaling CO2, will just expel pure clean oxygen right back out.
Or better yet, why not just plant more trees, and better regulate the cutting of those that are already growing? Sounds like a good idea on my end.
2 people like this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
3 Apr 07
WELCOME BACK SHOREBOY! Hey good to see you again. Naturally you are right about the trees. It is a good idea.
@MntlWard (878)
• United States
3 Apr 07
I guess that could depend on the definition of pollution. You bring up water, which is of course necessary for life, but the drowning man might consider it a pollutant in his lungs. Flood victims might say water polluted their homes.
While CO2 is a natural part of our atmosphere, too much of it can hurt our ecosystem, so it does have a potential to be a pollutant. The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA needs to regulate *industrial* CO2 emissions, rather than human CO2 emissions.
2 people like this
@EvanHunter (4026)
• United States
3 Apr 07
This reminds me of the hoax of the petition to ban Dihydrogen monoxide, some student won the science fair by passing around the petition to get everyone to sign it. Lets hope the supreme court doesnt hear about it or we will all be dying of thirst. Makes me wonder what its gona cost to fill up CO2 tanks nxt time I go play paintball.
1 person likes this
