Posted by
The Blue Eye View of Blue Eye , MO on Wednesday, May 06, 2009 12:22:40 PM
| May 4,
2009 |
|
Carbon Dioxide
by Kerby
Anderson
|
|
Click on the image to view the
video.
|
While Congress is debating
cap-and-trade legislation to deal with climate change, the Environmental
Protection Agency weighed in with their ruling that may have a profound impact
on the debate. The EPA published what is called an "endangerment finding"
stating that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant that threatens the public
and therefore must be regulated under the 1970 Clean Air Act.
So what is wrong with that? First, the EPA has granted to
itself unprecedented power. This finding gives the agency power to impose taxes
and regulations across the economy. This was done without any legislative input
from our elected representatives. So it is effectively "taxation without
representation." That’s a catchy phrase, I wonder where I’ve heard that
before?
Second, the EPA's ruling changes the meaning and intent of
the Clean Air Act. Just ask Representative John Dingell (D-MI) who helped write
the original act as well as the 1990 revision. He says that the act never was
intended to apply to carbon. The major reason for the EPA's action was a ruling
two years ago by five Supreme Court justices calling for the EPA to determine if
carbon dioxide qualifies as a pollutant.
Finally, someone needs to say the obvious. So I will say it.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas that is essential for all
plant life to exist. And since plants and vegetation are at the bottom of the
food chain, it's not really a stretch to say that all of life is ultimately
dependent upon there being carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Perhaps it would be helpful to put a few facts on the table.
Has carbon dioxide concentration increased? Yes, in the last 150 years, carbon
dioxide concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million. But
it is also worth noting that the oceans emit about 96 percent of all greenhouse
gases.
When you look at the scientific facts as well as the
legislative history of the Clean Air Act, it is hard to justify the EPA's
decision to classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant. I'm Kerby Anderson, and
that's my point of view.
|
Point of
View | P.O. Box 30 | Dallas, TX 75221
Editorial Comment from the Blue Eye
View: Mr. Anderson is exactly right here when he states CO2 is not a pollutant.
Since every green plant in the world uses CO2 for fuel, it is silly to assume
nothing can be done about the very slight increases measured in a few specific
places. Fact, CO2 has NOT been measured all over the globe and is NOT the same
percentage in every measurement. The very reason it is refferred to as a
greenhouse gas is that GREENHOUSES all over the world introduce CO2 into thier
environments to SPEED plant growth. Want to decrease concentrations, increase
plants, all of which give off oxygen. YES, that is right, plant trees, increase
agricultural production in preasently barren areas. ANd as a side effect, you
will also increase rainfall in those areas. Yup, rainforests are self immulating
and self-suppying as they suck water out of the ground, exhale it into the
atmosphere (along with oxygen) and saturated air then sends it back as
precipitation. Agricultural science has known this for at least 200 years. Of
course, agricultural growth isn't part of the Environmentalist
Agenda.
I do believe the EPA is now being run
by the communist minded Environmental Wackos. See above for evidence.
Vote for adults to be elected into
congress, vote the Constitutional Party.