It's Official: EPA Finds Greenhouse Gases Endanger Public Health

**d.mcc** · April-19-09, 12:13 AM

From Treehugger...via the EPA:

News broke earlier today that the EPA was getting ready to make its long awaited announcementâ€”that carbon dioxide is a threat to human health. Well, the moment has come, and now it's official: the EPA has found that CO2 and six other greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health and welfare. This is huge newsâ€”it will completely revolutionize the way the US views carbon emissions, and it opens the door for the government to take action against greenhouse gases. And it's perhaps the biggest victory in the fight against climate change in US politics yet.

More after the jump:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009...lic-health.php

ccbatson · April-19-09, 11:43 PM

Yes, it is official...the Statists are seizing more power based on a lie.

**d.mcc** · April-19-09, 11:58 PM

is statist a new term I am missing???

Clearly as a doctor, you must know that certain chemicals and pollutants are detrimental to human health...Unless you are that big of an idiot, in which case I question your ability to adequately care for another human...

**jiminnm** · April-20-09, 06:49 PM

I have several questions about this.

Humans exhale CO2 with every breath. Humans constitute the public. Therefore, humans exhale a substance that is injurious to the public health. Most interesting. Does this mean that we will all have to begin wearing some sort of CO2 collection device, or be subject to penalties for discharging a hazardous substance? Or, will we now be required to pay a fee to the governement for a permit allowing our continued discharge [[or be required to stop)?

Since livestock [[mainly pigs and cattle) are estimated to 'discharge' about 30% of methane [[one of the theoretical greenhouse gases) discharged to the atmosphere, will ranchers and farmers be required to equip their livestock with methane collection diapers? Or, will they now have to pay a fee allowing that discharge [[not to mention that livestock also exhales CO2)? I presume wild animals will be excluded from regulation because that would conflict with endangered species laws.

**Johnlodge** · April-20-09, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by jiminnm

I have several questions about this.

Humans exhale CO2 with every breath. Humans constitute the public. Therefore, humans exhale a substance that is injurious to the public health. Most interesting. Does this mean that we will all have to begin wearing some sort of CO2 collection device, or be subject to penalties for discharging a hazardous substance? Or, will we now be required to pay a fee to the governement for a permit allowing our continued discharge [[or be required to stop)?

Since livestock [[mainly pigs and cattle) are estimated to 'discharge' about 30% of methane [[one of the theoretical greenhouse gases) discharged to the atmosphere, will ranchers and farmers be required to equip their livestock with methane collection diapers? Or, will they now have to pay a fee allowing that discharge [[not to mention that livestock also exhales CO2)? I presume wild animals will be excluded from regulation because that would conflict with endangered species laws.

A pointless worry Jim, since humans and animals have existed for years and years. Since we aren't adding any extra CO2 to the environment unnaturally by burning carbon-based materials, nor are we removing the rain forests which have scrubbed CO2 from the atmosphere for millions of years, we have nothing to be concerned about.

**ghettopalmetto** · April-20-09, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by jiminnm

I have several questions about this.

Humans exhale CO2 with every breath. Humans constitute the public. Therefore, humans exhale a substance that is injurious to the public health. Most interesting. Does this mean that we will all have to begin wearing some sort of CO2 collection device, or be subject to penalties for discharging a hazardous substance? Or, will we now be required to pay a fee to the governement for a permit allowing our continued discharge [[or be required to stop)?

Since livestock [[mainly pigs and cattle) are estimated to 'discharge' about 30% of methane [[one of the theoretical greenhouse gases) discharged to the atmosphere, will ranchers and farmers be required to equip their livestock with methane collection diapers? Or, will they now have to pay a fee allowing that discharge [[not to mention that livestock also exhales CO2)? I presume wild animals will be excluded from regulation because that would conflict with endangered species laws.

I'm curious to know if you understand the term "concentration".

Unless, of course, you think you exhale more CO2 than a car or a factory emits.

**Jimaz** · April-20-09, 08:23 PM

I just saw an interesting segment on the History Channel about a company called Planktos. They're experimenting with adding an iron nutrient to shrinking plankton and algae blooms in the ocean. They hope to restore the blooms which absorb CO2. If successful, they'll earn carbon credits which they can then sell to polluters for profit.

**Detroitej72** · April-20-09, 08:33 PM

Wow, what a great capitalist idea. I will egerly wait to hear Bats endorsement of this plan!

**Jimaz** · April-20-09, 09:22 PM

LOL! I won't. LOL!

ccbatson · April-20-09, 10:54 PM

Jimaz...you must check the core premise first....flawed premises cannot lead to unflawed solutions to mythical problems.

**oladub** · April-20-09, 11:18 PM

Estimating that there are 6.6B humans.-

The "human breathing process contributes to about 8.99% [[claim#1) or 5.65% [[claim#2) compared to the fuel burning related CO2."
http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007...arth-annually/

Those figures average is 7.33%. In 1960 there were only half as many people so the actual volume of carbon dioxide from human breathing has doubled since 1960.

Why am I thinking that this EPA's announcement is leading to the construction of a bunch of nuclear power plants?

ccbatson · April-20-09, 11:22 PM

And personal transportation conveyances [[cars, etc) contribute??? That's right, 1.5% of the total of GHGs...which may be neutral, helpful, or [[very unlikely) harmful.

**Detroitej72** · April-21-09, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

Estimating that there are 6.6B humans.-

The "human breathing process contributes to about 8.99% [[claim#1) or 5.65% [[claim#2) compared to the fuel burning related CO2."
http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007...arth-annually/

Those figures average is 7.33%. In 1960 there were only half as many people so the actual volume of carbon dioxide from human breathing has doubled since 1960.

Why am I thinking that this EPA's announcement is leading to the construction of a bunch of nuclear power plants?

Nuclear energy is still one of the cleanest forms of power. As long as we have safe, secure places to store the spent rods, I'm all for it.

**Johnlodge** · April-21-09, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

Nuclear energy is still one of the cleanest forms of power. As long as we have safe, secure places to store the spent rods, I'm all for it.

Too bad we don't!

ccbatson · April-21-09, 10:05 PM

Oh yes we do...kept in mothballs because of radical environmentalists. The goal of these radicals is to reduce, or eliminate human existence.

**Detroitej72** · April-21-09, 11:55 PM

More likely "kept in mothballs", or more precicely, kept in cooling ponds because nobody wants the rods stored in their backyard. Liberals and conservatives have voiced their disdain.

Nice try thought, but once again you are blinded by true facts.

**ghettopalmetto** · April-22-09, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

More likely "kept in mothballs", or more precicely, kept in cooling ponds because nobody wants the rods stored in their backyard. Liberals and conservatives have voiced their disdain.

Nice try thought, but once again you are blinded by true facts.

I think, in his own roundabout way, CCBatson was offering to store the spent rods in his own back yard. You know, in order to save us all from the "liberals who are trying to reduce or eliminate human existence."

**rb336** · April-22-09, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Oh yes we do...kept in mothballs because of radical environmentalists. The goal of these radicals is to reduce, or eliminate human existence.

out of a litany of absurd comments you have made, bats, this one is a new topper. No one in Nevada wants them their, no one ANYWHERE wants them in their state. Some sites are in Indian territory and they sure as hell don't want them there either. it is rational, average humans, hardly radical environmentalists.

**Johnlodge** · April-22-09, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by rb336

out of a litany of absurd comments you have made, bats, this one is a new topper. No one in Nevada wants them their, no one ANYWHERE wants them in their state. Some sites are in Indian territory and they sure as hell don't want them there either. it is rational, average humans, hardly radical environmentalists.

Storing the stuff is not the ONLY issue. Plenty of people aren't too thrilled at the prospect of railroad cars full of the stuff rolling through their cities on their way to this mythical perfect disposal facility that everybody protests being in their state. Also, Nevada has voted Republican 7 out of the last 10 presidential elections. Damn liberals.

**oladub** · April-22-09, 09:49 AM

Nevada voted for Obama 55-43% over McCain in 2008, has 2D and 1R Representatives, and 1D and 1R Senators. Senator Ried and candidate Obama made the more convincing argument that they would protect Nevada from nuclear waste. This despte the fact that Excelon, a nuke laden utitlity, had been Obama's fourth largest congressional contributor with $269,000 of political goodwill.

Since President Obama doesn't want more coal plants built, 'clean coal' isn't here yet, wind power can't replace coal soon enough, and Obama's middle class cap and trade carbon tax will even put a 20% tax on natural gas, that leaves nuclear power. It will be marketed as sorta green energy having no carbon emmissions or taxes. With the imposition of carbon taxes, nuclear fission energy suddenly becomes 20% cheaper than natural gas and 40% cheaper than coal. Think of it; lots of union infrastructure jobs building subsidized 'green' power plants all over the country.

The waste will just have to build up in puddles and pole buildings all over the country for awhile longer.

ccbatson · April-22-09, 08:52 PM

The greens oppose it, it will not become economically advantageous to increase nuclear power.

**Detroitej72** · April-22-09, 09:27 PM

This is one so-called "green" who is not opposed to nukes. I happen to know many others who also share my opinion, so I guess that renders your views as false.

**rb336** · April-23-09, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

This is one so-called "green" who is not opposed to nukes. I happen to know many others who also share my opinion, so I guess that renders your views as false.

This is another one. fact remains, virtually everything is a stopgap measure. replacing all the coal fired plants with nukes would use up the available uranium in around 50-75 years. Coal is nasty stuff, uranium mining is nastier. eventually, we will need wind, solar and hydrogen to replace everything. better to start down that path now than to wait

ccbatson · April-23-09, 03:05 PM

If you can use reason on the nuclear power issue, then you should be able to see through Al Gore's ruse with relative ease.

**Detroitej72** · April-23-09, 06:10 PM

Bats, I think in terms of Gore, your guilty of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you read his book, Earth in Balance, you'd see there is cause for concern about some of the problems he discusses.

In one section, he talks about areas where water was diverted from lakes to irrigate crops, which in turn caused dangerously low lake level and subsequent droughts. This is currently happening to farmers in Texas. How can you say thats no cause for alarm?

It has also been proven that CO2s from arisol cans hastened the depletion of the ozone layer. It was good of the government to ban then because of this.