How is carbon dioxide not considered an air pollutant?

Question

I heard that the oil companies are lobbying the government to exclude carbon dioxide from the air pollutants list. If carbon dioxide is one of the main greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, how can the government just ignore it?

Answer 1

The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor.  So by the same reasoning hydrogen powered cars exhausting water vapor would be a more serious polution problem than CO2.

Maybe we should outlaw rainstorms.   I guess have congress reduce the gravitational field while you're at it.  Then we could all get better gas mileage.

Answer 2

Its in fact NOT a greenhouse gas. In the past, 100% of the time, temperature lead CO2 not the other way around. In al gores movie he shown the graph going back for 650,000 years and shown the colleration between CO2 and temperature. He lied and said in that graph CO2 lead temperature but it was the other way around. Also, he failed to mention HOW the CO2 got into the atmosphere.

Here is how:

As the global temperature went up, the sea wasn't able to hold as much CO2 as it normally can when its cool so it releases the CO2 into the atmosphere.

Quick note:

It is an 800 year process.

95% of the CO2 is in the water.

Also, CO2, as we KNOW it, is absolutely NOT a pollutant. It is a gas which plants breath into.

Pollution is a toxic gas released into the atmosphere by humans. That is the definition. If you call a gas that supports life of plants which has a domino effect on humans go ahead. Your just ignorant.

Answer 3

the excess of carbon di oxide is the root cause of global warming and it is the main pollutnat.

Answer 4

By definition, a pollutant is something which humans introduce to the environment that would not otherwise be there and in most cases is undesirable.

This can cover many things, i.e. 'noise' pollution.

The oil industry is trying to do anything they can to slow down regulations and restrictions which could threaten them, and understandably so.  But you need to recognize, that their attempt to say that CO2 is not pollution is a sneaky Big Tobacco tactic.  Of course it is not a pollutant... (uh, unless you refer to what defines a pollutant... under those circumstances, it can be a pollutant, and is considered as such, but is of course being aggressively challenged by the oil and automotive industry, etc.).

This is why... not CO2, but rather, CO2 MADE BY MAN and trillions of pounds of the gas released unnaturally into our atmosphere, every single day... that is a pollutant.  Had we not intervened, it wouldn't exist, instead, the principle properties that help to create it would be safely tucked away, as other forms of liquid, goo or rock, buried deep in the ground, where it has been for millions of years, but through a chemical process, we convert these fossilized elements which are not CO2 (yet), into a gas.  There you go, by pure definition, a pollutant, simply because we put it there.

Furthermore, it is undesirable.  Yes, we live with it, we need it, but at no point in the last half a million years or more (including several cycles of ice ages and interglacial warming trends), have CO2 levels been as high as they are now, not even close, meaning, what we are putting up there from burning fossil fuels, we don't need.  And we know CO2 is a green house gas, which absorb heat, this raises heat both in the atmosphere and in the oceans, the largest CO2 sink which exists.

Everything we do to disturb nature is pollution.  Everything we put into the air that wouldn't exist otherwise, is a pollutant.

The industries are just playing with words and twisting their meanings to get what they want...

Sound familiar?...

"I, did not, have, 'sexual relations', with that woman, Monica Lewinsky!"

- keyword 'sexual relations', because he thought if busted, he could cleverly explain his way out of it by stating how he interprets the definition of the term as meaning by it's full definition... sexual activities which include 'intercourse'.  And as we all would soon see afterwards, he did try to make that case, didn't he...

Same idea... don't buy into it... that's just politics for you.  CO2 does occur naturally, but not in all cases, if we 'manufacture' it and release it carelessly into the environment despite any effect which could and will result... we are polluting.

Best is to go with hydrogen and things like that, less pollution.  (see, you wouldn't even be able to say that in a sentence if anthropogenic CO2 wasn't considered a pollutant, now what's the sense in that??).

Ulitmately, this is all about money, well, and power of course.  "Whoever controls the world's oil, controls the world".  Well, at least they'll still be rich and getting richer, that's how the oil people like it.

But hey... anyone here who can make a good enough case why Anthropogenic CO2 really isn't a pollutant; Exxon-Mobil will gladly pay you min. $10,000... and that, is a fact.  So those of you who are trying... keep it up, maybe you'll hit paydirt!

[Edit]

lol - 5 thumbs down woohoo! thanks... must have hit a nerve with you AGW deniers - good!

[Edit]  

Bob326... let's put this to bed shall we...

YOU SAID: "CO2 is natural, and is necessary for nearly all living things."

RESPONSE: for that, just click here, this totally explains everything, including why or how a question like this one could even come up in the first place... http://www.wunderground.com/education/ce...

YOU SAID: "So, it is just human's that can pollute? Aren't a part of nature? Aren't we an animal?"

RESPONSE: for that, see my response below...

Geography Dictionary: pollution

A substance which causes an undesirable change in the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of the natural environment. Although there are some natural pollutants such as volcanoes, pollution generally occurs because of human activity. Biodegradable pollutants, like sewage, cause no permanent damage if they are adequately dispersed, but non-biodegradable pollutants, such as lead, may be concentrated as they move up the food chain. Within Western Europe, air pollution, associated with basic industries such as oil refining, chemicals, and iron and steel, as well as with the internal combustion engine, is probably the principal offender, followed by water and land pollution. Other forms of environmental pollution include noise, and the emission of heat into waterways which may damage aquatic life. Present-day problems of pollution include acid rain and the burning of fossil fuels to produce excessive carbon dioxide.

A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants. - The American Heritage® Science Dictionary

Common environmental pollutants include: sewage, garbage, radiation, carbon monoxide, automobile exhaust, pesticides, chloroflurocarbons, CFCs, polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs, hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, dioxin, ethylene dibromide, EDB; tobacco smoke, wood smoke, coal smoke; asbestos, lead, chlorine, mercury; noise, nuclear waste, solid waste. - Webster's New World College Dictionary

Major primary pollutants produced by human activity include: "Carbon Dioxide"

Pollutants can be classified as either primary or secondary. Primary pollutants are substances directly emitted from a process, such as ash from a volcanic eruption or the carbon monoxide gas from a motor vehicle exhaust. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_polluti...

On March 13, 2001, President Bush backed away from his campaign pledge to seek cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide -- the main cause of global warming -- as part of a strategy to regulate together, rather than separately, four air pollutants emitted by power plants. In a letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) explaining his reversal, the president cited a recent Department of Energy report that concluded it would be too costly to regulate CO2; Bush also falsely claimed that "Carbon dioxide IS NOT CONSIDERED A POLLUTANT UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT" This, of course, was just a hair-splitting interpretation of current law, one that provided no logical basis for the president to drop his promise to seek a new law to control CO2. But it is worth noting that the president is also wrong in his legal claim.

FACT: From 1970 up to the time that Bush made this statement and excuse CO2 was in fact listed as a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act, as well as in the real world.

How does the Clean Air Act define "air pollutant"?

The act says that an air pollutant is any "physical, chemical, biological, [or] radioactive . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air." (CAA, sec. 302(g))

CO2 is certainly a chemical substance and it is emitted into the ambient air when fossil fuel is burned in vehicles and power plants.

Also... In section 103(g) of the act, Congress explicitly included emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel power plants in a list of air pollutants that it directed the Environmental Protection Agency to include in pollution prevention programs. Section 103(g) of the act calls for "[i]mprovements in nonregulatory strategies and technologies for preventing or reducing multiple air pollutants, including sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, heavy metals, PM-10 (particulate matter), carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, from stationary sources, including fossil fuel power plants." (Emphasis added)

Despite this (determined to be right)...

Shortly after, in 2003, The Bush administration declared that carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" aren't pollutants,

Bush Administration: Carbon Dioxide Not a Pollutant...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/...

However... in 2007, the US Supreme court reversed the Bush Administration's Carbon Dioxide "not a pollutant" policy.

The Natural Resources Defense Council said in a statement that the ruling "repudiates the Bush administration's do-nothing policy on global warming," undermining the government's refusal to view carbon dioxide as an air pollutant subject to EPA regulation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

WASHINGTON (AP)—The U.S. Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental law, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...

Answer 5

i guess one of the reasons is that carbon dioxide exist naturally in air (made up of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapor and noble gases), but pollutants like carbon monoxide, CFC, methane etc do not exist in air and thay are impurities in air, so they are called air pollutants.

Answer 6

carbon dioxide isn't really a pollution gas because the plants can turn it into oxygen for normal the living

and also the most important gas is actually water vapours

but i still agree that the government should NOT ignore it!!

TAX THE OIL COMPANIES ~~

Answer 7

because its naturally in the atmosphere, animals exhale it, and plants need it. excessive CO2 may contribute to global warming but it cant be classified as a pollutant.

Answer 8

LewDeKri.. said:

"Everything we do to disturb nature is pollution. Everything we put into the air that wouldn't exist otherwise, is a pollutant."

So, it is just human's that can pollute? Aren't a part of nature? Aren't we an animal? CO2 is natural, and is necessary for nearly all living things.

Edit:

Wow, a lot of tangents on Bush and the like. If we start pumping tons of oxygen into the air, is that pollution?

And I like your first link--only a fool would compare Earth and Venus in that regard. I can compare planets too, though: Mars also has an atmosphere of over 95% CO2, but with an average temperature well below zero. WOW!!!

Edit:

Fritz,

If you had looked at one of his links you would have noticed them comparing Venus to Earth. That is why I said

"*And I like your first link*--only a fool would compare Earth and Venus in that regard. "

* for emphasis.

The rest of what you say is nearly incoherent--Bush this, Bush that. Just because a group classifies CO2 as a pollutant, it doesn't make it one.

Then fritz says:

"Water's 'green house' properties primarily comes in the form of clouds."

This is false. Water vapor's "greenhouse properties" primarily comes in the form of water vapor, then clouds.

Then fritz says:

"CO2 on the otherhand has unique properties ulike that from water evaporation, that absorb and hold heat (like good insulation). "

Water vapor is a more efficient at absorbing and re-emitting IR. Notice that? CO2 doesn't "hold heat", but rather it absorbs IR and reradiates it.

Then fritz says:

"CO2's properties as a GHG is much, much higher than water."

This is patently false--water vapor is a far more efficient GHG, than CO2. Do a little research.

Fritz says:

"contributes to more hurricanes,"

You want to bet? Do some research.

Fritz says

"You can raise the amount of water or oxygen there is on the planet, that we can deal with, but TOO MUCH Carbon Dioxide which is a mix of harmful gasses in large enough quantities, not to mention, is a powerful green house gas, is NOT GOOD!"

Apart from being very difficult to read, this isn't good logic. Show me empirical evidence that CO2 can cause any warming in the real world. ANY EVIDENCE. Guess what? You won't be able to find any.

P.S. It isn't in the IPCC report.

Answer 9

CO2 is needed for life on earth.... without it there would be no oxygen because there would be no photosynthesis.

the guy above says to tax oil companies... are you kidding?!?!?! You want gas to go up another dollar. We should be getting rid of the gas tax! Taxing everything that is "bad" doesn't help things it makes it worse!

Answer 10

because its in plants so its not exactly polluted if u n wat i mean

Answer 11

Anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide can be considered a pollutant because of the negative implications for society, economics, and the environment.

The government should not ignore co2 but the oil companies have very powerful lobbying powers, and this is hard for politicians to ignore.  Continued pressure from citizens can influence politicians as well, though!

Answer 12

All animals breath. We all exhale co2. All plants need co2 to live. Something that is so important to that circle of life cannot be considered a pollutant.

Without the plants we would have no O2, Without animals the plants would have no co2. It kinda makes sense to allow the process to continue.

I hope you are kidding with your question. It's pretty basic middle school science.

Answer 13

your breathing it out right now. & as a matter of fact you would die with out it.& plants require co2 to live & grow.

its only a trace gas in the atmosphere  less than  4 hundredths of 1%.

methane ,water vapor & sulphur dioxide are much more important greenhouse gasses.

the main EPA arguement for catylitic converters was they change carbon monoxide which is a pollutant into co2 & water which are harmless.

Answer 14

'bob326'



What are you talking about??  Lewdekris didn't say anything about Venus, and he did make some good points there.  But since you introduced making analogies about planets, here's one for you... how about... this whole thing about 'man-made' gasses, particularly GHGs (produced by humans in such high volumes that it would fry one on a planet the size of 'mercury'... like that one?) such as CO2, not being a pollutant, was never a question... until Bush said it wasn't a pollutant as according to the clean air act, which he soon learned, he was dead wrong (how did he s***w that up), then a year later, managed to get it reclassified as 'CO2 not a pollutant' for the first time (he probably simply confused the knowelge where he thought it had already been declassified by mixing it up with one of his items on his 'to do list' while in the White House). that's pretty messed up if you ask me.

Anyway, quick wisdom for you here.. Clean Air Act lists environmental pollutants, includes CO2, 26 years later, Bush slips up and says its not a pollutant, one year later, he's right, five years later, the US Supreme Court rebukes it and it is reclassified as a 'pollutant' in the context, that through human activites, it is 'manufactured' and 'added' to the earth's natural levels of CO2, thus, raising the overall CO2 in the earth's biosphere.

It **IS** a pollutant.  George Bush managed to make it 'not' a pollutant for five years.  Good for him (way to go Busheaa) ...stop being a sheep.



'Roadkill'

Your logic is terrible.



Water's 'green house' properties primarily comes in the form of clouds and it's overall effect on holding heat is sustainable, we're not out there 'adding' another third amount of water to the world, which is what we in fact ARE doing with ancient buried carbon deposits and converting all of it into Carbon Dioxide and other gasses, and then releasing them into the world (as a by-product no less ...which that alone constitutes it as a 'pollutant' btw - case close).  Also, we're not out 'creating' water here, the water which exists today, has been here for millions of years, and we know that we can freeze it and melt it in quantities that can put glaciers over New York City, or make them disappear... and this time around, because we have tripped the planet into a global warming, perhaps entirely from the continent.  We humans should pat ourselves on the back, hey... that's okay, we'll just keep doing it.  Oil business is booming, can't give it all up now...

Fine... we'll go with your logic on this...

CO2 is good, but we are literally 'making' and raising the levels which exist naturally in our enviroment, enourmously.  We will have doubled the amount of CO2 which would have been there without us, in about 25 years.  CO2's properties as a GHG is much, much higher than water.



CO2 on the otherhand has unique properties ulike that from water evaporation, that absorb and hold heat (like good insulation).  Also, the more CO2 builds up in the atmosphere, the more CO2 sinks in the oceans and elsewhere.  However, Oceans have set tolerance how much CO2 it can sink before it becomes a problem and actually starts slowing down how much CO2 in can sink.  The result, aside from rising temperatures in oceans (which expand the oceans) and causing harm to the ecology of the oceans... the added warming of the oceans causes ice to melt faster, changes the behavior of the ocean's conveyor, contributes to more hurricanes, and helps to raised temperatures in the atmosphere.  Adding water to the atmosphere wouldn't do those things.



You can raise the amount of water or oxygen there is on the planet, that we can deal with, but TOO MUCH Carbon Dioxide which is a mix of harmful gasses in large enough quantities, not to mention, is a powerful green house gas, is NOT GOOD!

Answer 15

The question 'if carbon dioxide is one of the main greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming' is  the telling part of the question.

If carbon dioxide is ***not*** one of the main greenhouse gases to global warming then how can the government ***not*** just ignore it?

Guess it all depends on whether you prefer to live by the  observable facts or live your life by the dumb unproven opinions of others.