Sentences with phrase «co2 as a pollutant»

So, do you suppose the US EPA will undeclare CO2 as a pollutant?

On the CO2 as pollutant vs fertilizer discussion, roughly half of the photosynthesis on earth occurs in the oceans where CO2 is not a limiting factor.

Boxes Out the EPA: To perhaps sweeten the deal for the opposition, the bill promises the EPA will not regulate CO2 as a pollutant, as the agency has announced it was planning to do.

In essence, the EPA can only regulate «pollutants», and so whether they have juristriction of CO2 emissions depends on the definition of CO2 as a pollutant.

Some good news from this research: Nationally, 77 % of citizens support funding research into renewable energy sources, 74 % support regulating CO2 as a pollutant, and 63 % support strict limits on existing coal - fired power plants.

The Supreme Court ruled that EPA «MAY» regulate CO2 as a pollutant; I don't believe they said EPA must.

What I can't work out is why hasn't the Clean Air Act (that classes CO2 as a pollutant but not of course water vapour) got rid of the «bad air» since the 1970s?

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other national agencies are replicating this by identifying CO2 as a pollutant and toxic substance.

======================================================================= The EPA definition of CO2 as a pollutant, legal or not, is a travesty of politics over science.

Here's the suggestion from Hardt and Safina, «The EPA should move forward with including CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Water Act, giving states the authority to enforce CO2 emissions limits.

The EPA is preparing to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and Congress will likely draft cap - and - trade legislation this year.

Considering man - made CO2 as a pollutant is not warranted by the data.

Several states (U.S.A.) are considering listing CO2 as a pollutant.

Consistently irrational EPA, science deficient, stubborn blockheads, out to destroy our economy overegulation of CO2 as a pollutant in our atmosphere.

Perhaps they'd rather forget that as it acknowledged CO2 as a pollutant.

This is why more than just I challenged your question as implicitly referring to Co2 as a pollutant.

As for whether classifying CO2 as a pollutant would stand a court challenge, the reason it IS classified as one by the EPA is because the EPA was sued by several US states and cities under Section 202 (a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7521 (a)(1) to make it so.

Skeptics are winning the battle to reject CO2 as the cause of warming, but losing the war to the misrepresentation of CO2 as a pollutant.

EPA considers CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act has gone too far — becoming an absurd Agency.

On Sunday, Republican leader John Boehner said he thinks the idea of CO2 as a pollutant is «almost comical.»

«The Most Important Decision in the History of Environmental Decisions»: Ed Markey On CO2 As Pollutant Finding [Video]

Calling for a carbon tax on polluters could, feasibly, even become a political winner (the Yale study also finds astonishingly high support for regulating CO2 as a pollutant), as anger percolates at the GOP's intransigence to raising taxes even on the wealthy and corporations.

Not exact matches

As far as green plants are concerned, CO2 is not a pollutant, but part of their daily bread — like water, sunlight, nitrogen, and other essential elementAs far as green plants are concerned, CO2 is not a pollutant, but part of their daily bread — like water, sunlight, nitrogen, and other essential elementas green plants are concerned, CO2 is not a pollutant, but part of their daily bread — like water, sunlight, nitrogen, and other essential elements.

That filing, which has been called the most important environmental lawsuit ever to go to the Supreme Court, demanded that the Environmental Protection Agency regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act — something the plaintiffs saw as a very reasonable request since the Clean Air Act defines a pollutant as a substance that is damaging to humans.

For example, sequestrating short - lived climate pollutants, such as methane and black carbon, yields much faster reductions in global warming compared to reductions in CO2.

California is asking that CO2 be regulated as a local pollutant.

Aggressive measures to curtail the use of fossil fuels and emissions of so - called short - lived climate pollutants such as soot, methane and HFCs would need to be accompanied by active efforts to extract CO2 from the air and sequester it before it can be emitted.

For my post-doctoral project, I decided to focus on the question, «to what extent can atmospheric pollutants, such as CO2 and ozone, exert a selective effect on woody plant species, and how are the resulting changes in the genetic composition of the plant community likely to affect the animals that feed on them?»

Finnish Meteorological Institute has participated in a new study that shows that the atmospheric pollutant mercury shows similar seasonality as the greenhouse gas CO2.

Diesels are a European thing, a misguided policy trying to lower CO2 emissions which is not a pollutant and instead causing massive increases of dangerous pollutants as NOX and particles.

* Under conditions defined by EU law, the Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) laboratory test is used to measure fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from passenger cars, as well as their pollutant emissions.

But emissions have two parts: One is the pollutants that are harmful to people, animals, oceans, etcetera; the other is CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions that are generally considered to be the cause of global warming, which is generally considered to be fact, and that CO2 is produced in direct proportion to how much fossil fuel is burned in cars, as well as buildings, locomotives, planes, and ships.

And far more surprisingly, a whopping 74 % believe that CO2 should be regulated as a pollutant.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the EPA must treat CO2 emissions as a pollutant.

i'm beginning to wonder whether CO2 rather than actual pollutants (after all CO2 is part of the life cycle of living things) has become the problem du jour as a distraction — an incurable problem to inhibit other solutions

The KDHE has denied a permit for a coal plant that would have been more efficient (read, more MWH per ton of coal and less CO2 and other pollutants per MWH) than older plants whose permits they will be renewing as a matter of course over the coming months and years.

Fossil - fueled peaking / backup plants will produce little CO2 output as long as their duty cycle is small, and their other pollutants become more tolerable too.

We are told as Americans, that CO2 is a pollutant and that we release upwards of 20 tons of carbon dioxide per person per year into the atmosphere.

On CO2 as a fertilizer, in the oceans CO2 is acting as a pollutant and is altering the chemistry (the ph) and the emerging data shows a harmful effect on organisms.

This would serve multiple purposes, of (a) weaning us from dependence on foreign oil and simultaneously depleting terror - exporting countries of their revenue stream, (b) reducing other pollutants besides CO2, (c) encouraging a more gradual and less economically disastrous transition from an economony based on a finite resource, (d) slow global warming, (e) move us in the direction of a VAT tax rather than an income tax (actually, personally I don't think e is such a great thing, but as many conversative groups favor it, I don't see why they would oppose a revenue - neutral tax on fossil fuels.

There is no need for debate of denialist / delusionist fringe talking points (such as Globul Coolin», the Sun, CO2 ain't no ding - dang pollutant, Green Fascists, or other FUD phrases), as society has moved on and is debating adaptation and mitigation.

So, whether you want to consider CO2 as an «according - to - Hoyle» pollutant like PCBs or DDT is kind of irrelevant.

It is true that airplanes are serious emitters of CO2 and other pollutants, but building more public transportation, as Wang Suya suggests, is not the simple answer.

CO2 from manmade sources, such as industrial waste aka burnt fossil fuels, is a pollutant.

Noting as we do that atmospheric CO2 concentrations above a certain point rejudice human interests, perhaps it would be better to claim that * this * Co2 (ie the supplemental Co2) is a pollutaCO2 concentrations above a certain point rejudice human interests, perhaps it would be better to claim that * this * Co2 (ie the supplemental Co2) is a pollutaCo2 (ie the supplemental Co2) is a pollutaCo2) is a pollutant.

«But legally defining it [CO2] as a pollutant allows the EPA to e.g. use existing laws to regulate tailpipe emissions.»

The Nature commentary by Penner et al. on which this argument is based actually says that on top of the global warming caused by carbon dioxide, other short - lived pollutants (such as methane and black carbon) cause an additional warming approximately 65 % as much as CO2, and other short - lived pollutants (such as aerosols) also cause some cooling.

k scott denison wrote: «So as a pollutant, David, you surely advocate remove all of the CO2 from the atmosphere, correct?»

I think it will probably take a few more years for this to play out, but, at this point, it appears as if this decision by the Supreme Court will end up having the effect of declaring CO2 to be an «air pollutant.»

I view CO2 as one of the essential ingredients of life, in no way a pollutant; I find the thermostat hypothesis compelling, such that claims against it must be considered extraordinary — requiring extraordinary evidences; and I knew nothing of Lew's survey and didn't participate.