You are hereForums / Issues / Other Issues / EPA declares greenhouse gases a health threat

EPA declares greenhouse gases a health threat

By ReaganFan - Posted on 17 April 2009

 I heard a little disturbing news on the radio today. So I looked it up to se if it was true. And guess what, we are all walking health hazards. So please stop exhaling! You are destroying the ozone with each breath!

The "first step toward possible federal regulation of Carbon Dioxide"? Please tell me they arent going to regulate Carbon Dioxide. I am not a scientist, but isnt Carbon dioxide necessary for plants to live? And dont we rely on plants via photosynthesis for us to live? And hasnt it been proven that the oceans are the biggest producers of carbon dioxide on the planet? So why are we attempting to regulate it?

 "A national goal". Great. Now we have put global warming on the front burner, when there are just as many scientists who say it is a joke, as there are supporting it. Cant we wait until a definite decision is made? Why are we "regulating" and "legislating" based on a theory?

Climate legislation? Excellent. So, those $400 a year tax breaks will be out the window, and then some, the second they pass legislation on Carbon Dioxide emissions. These Carbon credits will be bought and sold at unbelievable costs. And just who do you think will pay those costs? Thats right! The Consumer. You see, corporations do not pay taxes. Not even on Carbon Dioxide emissions! Because as the govt raises their taxes, they raise their prices, passing the cost of the tax onto us.

We all need to respect mother Earth, and be conscious of our environment. Take all thos little measures necessary to help be energy efficient and eco friendly. We all need to be GREEN if you will. But to pass legislation or regulation on Carbon Dioxide based on a "Global Warming Theory" is ridiculous. Until there is concrete evidence that Global Warming is real, I would rather leave the jury out! Too many scientists on both sides of this argument. let them figure it out before we do something this dangerous.

Note from Suzi:  ReaganFan quoted several passages from a site that was not identified nor linked.  I left it up for four hours after requesting that he cite his sources.  I realize that he may have been too busy to comply, but I could not risk the possible legal problems for the RFO site, so I removed the quoted passages.  I think that RF's  comments on the subject give everyone a clear idea of the subject at hand, and there is some good discussion here, so I handled it this way instead of removing the whole thread.  Thank you all for understanding.    Suzi

RF, you must cite and link your sources when quoting them, or  we risk running afoul of of copyright laws, and possible legal action.  Please fix this post, or post the source here and I will fix it for you.   Otherwise, I will have to take it down.  Refer to the TOS and Please Read sections at the bottom of each RFO page. Thanks.

Sorry Suzi. I meant to, I apparently forgot.

 Here is the link.

Yeah plants need Carbon Dioxide, but we produce too much for the plants to cancel it out. Especially when there is deforrestation at the same time.

Yes, because what "deforestation" is a euphanism for is "massive Carbon Dioxide release."

When you burn plants (trees, etc) it releases all at one time their stored carbon dioxide, which is generally released gradually over time through respiration. 

Burning a few leaves in the fall, meh.

Burning hundreds of thousands of acres of ancient forest, CD overload.

I've never in my life heard of a plant dying from lack of CO2, as long as it has a source of sugar and oxygen...

They might no longer be green after a while, but they wouldn't die. Heck, if they need photosynthesis to live, all them maples would die every winter.


It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.

Lewis Black

Plants do not need photosynthesis to live. Plants use photosynthesis to create oxygen. WE are the ones who NEED photosynthesis to live.

 And a lack of CO2 will certainly minimize plant life, if not destroy it, and then what will those treehuggers hug?

Actually, plants don't primarily use photosynthesis to create oxygen-- they use it to create sugars, which they can also use to generate protein and cellulose. Oxygen is a byproduct of the process, not the end product.

And I have a really hard time believing that any government will make even a thousandth of a percent dent in atmospheric CO2, so your implication that CO2 regulation will lead to a "lack of CO2" sounds rather silly. Most climatologists and ecologists say that the CO2 released today will remain in the atmosphere for decades.


It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.

Lewis Black

 My point was, WE, as humans, need photosynthesis more than the plants do. But Plants need CO2 for photosynthesis. Lets not nitpick too much at the science of it.

 And your last point is very interesting to say the least. LEts analyze that!

 And I have a really hard time believing that any government will make even a thousandth of a percent dent in atmospheric CO2

  Then why on earth would they want to "regulate" or "legislate" CO2? If they cannot make a "dent" in atmospheric CO2, why regulate it?  hmmmmm. If they regulate it, then legislate it, and introduce taxes and/or fines on it. Perhaps they can make money on it. That must be the reason why they want to regulate and legislate greenhouse gasses. For money, and perhaps CONTROL.

 Interesting point you make magus.

I probably worded it insanely badly. I meant that given the huge amounts of CO2 we've already emitted into the atmosphere, government regulation of CO2 will hardly lead to such a reduction in the gas to the point where it threatens life on earth.

It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.

Lewis Black

OK. Then I want to know what will happen if we continue to release CO2 at the rate in which we do.

 But I still think this has something to do with money and control. At least a little. Why else regulate and legislate anything based on theory?

Just because,,don't be asking questions.

The amount of INCREASES in greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, particularly since the industrial revolution, is not theory, it's fact.

The effects of this increase, and what may or may not be able to be done about it, is more up for debate.

   Oh so the affects are theory,,ok what I thought.

The whole thing is theory. There is no proof that CO2 is harming the atmosphere. YET, they pass regulation and legislation. WHY?

 I have asked that question a dozen times on this thread. But no one can answer it. They just want to debate global warming.

Most scientists agree that the accumulation of greenhouse gases is having a negative effect on our earth. I did not say that there is 100% agreement.

In 1907, when Albert Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity, he could not prove it. He needed photos from a solar eclipse, to prove or disprove it. It wasn't until 1922, when several expeditions went to Australia for a total solar eclipse, and took pictures, that his theory was proven. The positions of stars appearing close to the covered solar disk were deflected from their actual positions, just as the Theory of Relativity predicted they would be.


Then lets wait for the scientists to return from their expeditions with proof before we regulate and legislate a theory.

How do we know that the increases since the industrial revolution are not one of earths natural cycles? How do we know they are not a coincidence with the industrial revolution in their timing? Wheres the fact on that?

 OHHHHH! We dont have any, because we havent been measuring greenhouse gasses long enough to know. That science is still in its infancy in comparison to the earths age.

 So the facts are in. STILL A THEORY!

 So why are we passing legislation and regultion on a theory?

You still don't understand the meaning of "scientific theory", although it has been patiently explained.....*shrug*

 I do understand scientific theory. But there has not been enough research to make a determination. There is no consensus on CO2s negative impact on the atmosphere.

 The earth is millions of years old. How do we know this isnt one of its cycles? A cycle where it produces more CO2 over a hundred years, then finds a way to reduce it. How do we know that isnt the case? Our intruments for reading and measuring the earths atmosphere and its gasses are only a few years old in comparison to earths age!

 And why cant anyone answer this question; why are we passing legislation and regulation on co2 based on scientific theory?


And why cant anyone answer this question; why are we passing legislation and regulation on co2 based on scientific theory?

Haven't we passed legislation on economic theories in the past(trickle down economic theory). We do these things because we think that it is right and that they will fix things. 


 So we are comparing economic theory to scientific theory now? Come on hope.

 Besides, trickle down economics worked. So "touche" to your point!

 Hi hope. Glad you woke up! I missed ya

But we didn't know if it would work at the time, now did we.

 Well given that logic, we dont know a lot of things. Why dont the government justt start regulating everything and see what works and what doesnt?

 Come on hope. This is such a bad idea. Open your eyes and your mind. Any taxes or regulations on businesses is only going to hurt this fragile economy. And do we realy want to do that based on a theory? Scientific or not?

 Lets err on the side of caution as Suzi suggests. Lets wait until theres more science behind global warming!


Sorry, RF, but in what alternate, Bizarro World America did Trickle-down economics work?!


Sorry! Not trying to be mean but this just gave me the uber giggles!

TC, lets not do this one. I have no toleration for those who swallowed the blue pill and refuse to acknowledge trickle down economics success. Thats ALMOST as ridiculous as those who deny the holocaust as fact.

 Lets not EVER talk on this one!

Actually, TC, trickle down economics did work for a while, but the reason it did (reducing a 70% tax rate for the wealthy to a 50% rate) no longer exists.  Those who continue to call for tax cuts to the highest income levels, thinking it will continue to be stimulative, are hard headly refusing to look at the complete record and results (the big picture).  As the rate dropped to it's current level, the economy grew worse.  It's another example of the far right using Reagan as an excuse to further it's outmoded and outdated agenda, as opposed to proposing new solutions to problems as they exisit today.

It's kind of like using the Reagan quote about government, not being the solution, but the problem.  The right wingers always leave out the prefacing words, which were "In this current crisis", and want to apply the statement across the board.

Go figure.....

You are certainly correct about tax cuts - there is 2 sides to the Laffer curve for a reason.

Have a harder time believing the 2nd piece though.  Government may work but I don't ever believe it will work well.  While not impossible it is highly probable that any large organization has a high degree of inefficiency.  Inherent in the design.  Exactly what incentive do government employees have to improve?  I am doubting Six Sigma is being deployed except for maybe the military complex.

"How do we know that the increases since the industrial revolution are not one of the earth's natural cycles?"

Because we have the planet Venus to totally debunk that nonsense. Venus and earth were once twins, in just about every sense of the word. They are not twins now, because of Venus' greenhouse effect run amok. That was a natural occurrence on Venus. Earth should have behaved the same way (since it is the same age). The only thing that saved earth so far was the additional 27 million miles distance from the sun. But, man-made effects are ALTERING earth's natural processes in a negative way. So we are artificially accelerating the natural processes.


Come on. This is getting silly.

 I respect your thought process here. But answer the question. How can the govt legislate based on a global warming theory? Even if you support it with the twin planet theoory! Which by the way, has more holes than swiss cheese. I mean you are really reaching here, arent you?


How can the govt legislate based on a global warming theory?

The same way religious zealots want the government to legislate based on the Holy Bible theory. Even if you support creationism by suspending all belief and rational thinking! Which by the way has more holes than swiss cheese, I mean you're really reaching here, aren't you?

Golf11, NYC
Vero Possumus

I will say global warming has became a religion for some.


"There are FOUR LIGHTS!"

I agree with you here, Blakey.  Organizations like GreenPeace, Sierra Club, PETA all go overboard IMO.  I believe that we need to protect our planet and it's environment, but we always need to put the needs of it's inhabitants first.  In other words, if it comes down to the spotted owl or the needs of the people, the people should prevail.

There has to be some sane middle ground, based on common sense, between those who believe the whole environment issue is a bunch of hooey, and those who are so extreme on the other side.

     some common ground suzi  Boy Delivering Flowers
Yea, wc, what do you know about it?  You're only a meteorologist, after all.......heheh

I wasnt questioning his knowledge of Venus. I was saying its a stretch to compare the human effect on the earths atmosphere to any other planets atmosphere. Although there are similarities, we really cant compare the 2 planets in this instance.

 Atmospheres, although similar at one time, are not the same. And we are talking about HUMAN imapct on the atmosphere. Im not meteorologist, but I never heard about humans and industry on Venus.

"...I never heard about humans and industry on Venus."

Right! Exactly the point. Venus did not have that. But the last time I checked, earth did and does have that effect. So humans beings, and the man-made processes they bring, are artificially accelerating climate change. I know it's a hard idea to wrap your brain around, RF, since you are philosophically opposed to such an idea, but philosophy and science, while not mutually exclusive, are not one and the same thing. 

 Um .. Ok. Then lets play, shall we?

 What can we learn from Venus, and its atmosphere, that will help explain why the Government should regulate and legislate CO2?

 Help me wrap my simple mind around this idea. PLEASE?!?!?!?!

"What can we learn from venus, and its atmosphere, that will help explain why the Government should regulate and legislate CO2?"

We can learn that since Venus, WITHOUT the input from "intelligent" beings to screw up its climate, got screwed up anyway. And since earth has "intelligent" beings which have unfortunately added significantly to the  natural production of greenhouse gases, there has to be some sort of effort to cut down on NON-NATURAL (in other words, man-induced) production of these gases, before earth ends up like Venus.

Clear enough?

I I think I understood your point very clearly, wc, as you pointed out differences in distances from the sun, etc.   Tell me if my understanding is correct:  We have a 27 million mile advantage, which is why we have yet to go the way of Venus.  By adding to the natural process, we are speeding up that which could be inevitable, eventually.

And still doesnt answer my question!

OK, how about this: because individuals and corporations will not cut down on production of hazardous gases VOLUNTARILY, ergo, government is involved to mandate some kind of standard. If that doesn't answer your question, I don't know what will. Again, I realize you would have philosophical arguments with this (government setting any standards).
They cannot do that wc, esp the corporations, as it would cut into their profits. *gasp*

So how much CO2 do we need to exhale before we can make up the difference of 27 million miles?

Do we even have science on that? I thought it wasnt proven that CO2 actually damages the atmosphere.

 So we return right back to the question, which no one will, or is unable to, answer.

 Why is the govt regulating CO2?

Exhaling isn't the issue......geezum.

Im aware of that. It was just a lot easier than listing all the things that release CO2

GEEZUM is right!

 Sorry, I was gone but have been reading and wanted to throw a LOL in here somewhere.

Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook




RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for We will never share or sell your email address.