Don't Exhale: EPA Expected to Declare Carbon Dioxide a Dangerous Pollutant

[Patranus]

That advice may need heeding if the Environmental Protection Agency declares carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases dangerous pollutants, a move -- expected in the next couple weeks -- that would require the federal government to impose new rules limiting emissions.

The finding was prompted by a Supreme Court ruling two years ago that said greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and must be regulated if found to be a human health danger.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...bon-dioxide-pollutant/

How exactly is the government going to regulate breathing?

 

[Harvey]

Thanks for trolling. 0/10 :thumbsdown:

 

[0marTheZealot]

By using the same methodology that made second hand smoking the most dangerous thing after nuclear bombs.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

By using the same methodology that made second hand smoking the most dangerous thing after nuclear bombs.

Except that, unlike exhaling CO2, second hand smoke isn't a natural biproduct of animal existence. By your logic, we should outlaw death, too, because all those decaying bodies exude so much methane. :roll:

The good news is, while you're alive, at least, you can hold a match to your ass to burn off the gas when you fart. :laugh:

 

[Patranus]

If the supreme court rules that IT MUST BE REGULATED if the EPA declares CO2 a dangerous pollutant how you can tell one group you have to buy carbon credits to offset that pollution but tell another group that their behavior will remain unregulated?

Sounds like Cap and Trade would be sued out of existence.

 

[MovingTarget]

Thats because in excessive quantities...it is! Same as with any other gas....even oxygen. I guess by that measure we should ban trees.

C'mon OP. You've turned an issue that can be discussed rationally as a matter of policy and turned it into a farce. Nice troll.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Patranus

If the supreme court rules that IT MUST BE REGULATED if the EPA declares CO2 a dangerous pollutant how you can tell one group you have to buy carbon credits to offset that pollution but tell another group that their behavior will remain unregulated?

Sounds like Cap and Trade would be sued out of existence.

Sounds like you're blowing more smoke than Omar's second hand tobacco. :roll:

 

[sandorski]

Welcome to Reality, Deniers. Have a seat and stay awhile.

 

[Vic]

FFS, anti-global warming alarmism is even worse than global warming alarmism. :roll:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Patranus

That advice may need heeding if the Environmental Protection Agency declares carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases dangerous pollutants, a move -- expected in the next couple weeks -- that would require the federal government to impose new rules limiting emissions.

The finding was prompted by a Supreme Court ruling two years ago that said greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and must be regulated if found to be a human health danger.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...bon-dioxide-pollutant/

How exactly is the government going to regulate breathing?

Wow, yet another idiotic post. I guess mercury isn't dangerous, since it's in thermometers - drunk away! Its not exhaled carbon monoxide that's the issue.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Vic
FFS, anti-global warming alarmism is even worse than global warming alarmism. :roll:

this

 

[DaveSimmons]

They'll be regulating dihydrogen monoxide next, testing it for purity before it the pushers sell it to our children on the street.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
They'll be regulating dihydrogen monoxide next, testing it for purity before it the pushers sell it to our children on the street.

Those bastards! :|

 

[soccerballtux]

Next up, Phokus will be suggesting a tax to offset the carbon expenditure due to living.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Next up, Phokus will be suggesting a tax to offset the carbon expenditure due to living.

I invented the paper clip! ha ha!

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Next up, Phokus will be suggesting a tax to offset the carbon expenditure due to living.

I invented the paper clip! ha ha!

Huh?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Patranus

That advice may need heeding if the Environmental Protection Agency declares carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases dangerous pollutants, a move -- expected in the next couple weeks -- that would require the federal government to impose new rules limiting emissions.

The finding was prompted by a Supreme Court ruling two years ago that said greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and must be regulated if found to be a human health danger.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...bon-dioxide-pollutant/

How exactly is the government going to regulate breathing?

when i asee any topic that has been started by Patranus I just know I will get a good laugh!!!!


I see Patranus has been earning his money as the village idiot!!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Next up, Phokus will be suggesting a tax to offset the carbon expenditure due to living.

I invented the paper clip! ha ha!

Huh?

I'm mocking your post as having the same (lack of) mentality as the 'Al Gore invented the Internet!' nonsense and the Republicans attempts at sarcasm quoted in my post.

You made the same sort of nonsensical 'argument', not that it deserves the word, wirh your similarly sarcastic post.

I'm considering using this as a standard response to misguided sarcasm lacking an argument from the right, since it happens a lot.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Patranus

That advice may need heeding if the Environmental Protection Agency declares carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases dangerous pollutants, a move -- expected in the next couple weeks -- that would require the federal government to impose new rules limiting emissions.

The finding was prompted by a Supreme Court ruling two years ago that said greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and must be regulated if found to be a human health danger.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...bon-dioxide-pollutant/

How exactly is the government going to regulate breathing?

Yeah, go get in a tank with a concentration of CO2 that's too high. Definitely a-ok!

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Patranus

If the supreme court rules that IT MUST BE REGULATED if the EPA declares CO2 a dangerous pollutant how you can tell one group you have to buy carbon credits to offset that pollution but tell another group that their behavior will remain unregulated?

Sounds like Cap and Trade would be sued out of existence.

Sounds like you're blowing more smoke than Omar's second hand tobacco. :roll:

Like I said before, you should educate yourself on SHS. I'm not going to derail this thread any further, suffice to say, the methodology behind the SHS smokes are extremely flawed and this has been pointed out by numerous statisticians and epidemiologists, almost none of which have ties to the smoking industry.

 

[deepred98]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

By using the same methodology that made second hand smoking the most dangerous thing after nuclear bombs.

Except that, unlike exhaling CO2, second hand smoke isn't a natural biproduct of animal existence. By your logic, we should outlaw death, too, because all those decaying bodies exude so much methane. :roll:

The good news is, while you're alive, at least, you can hold a match to your ass to burn off the gas when you fart. :laugh:

Uh second hand smoke is a natural biproduct of animal existence. We, human animals, like to smoke cuz it feels goooood, thus second hand smoke is a natural biproduct of our animalian pursuit of happiness.

To the OP: Your "story" is a nonstory since regulating CO2 emissions is a good thing and has been going on for a while. I only venture into P&N every blue moon and it appears that you are currently the wacko troll so congrats.

 

[Toastedlightly]

I'm for regulating emissions, they've been doing it for a long while, but what does the "Dangerous Pollutant" title dictate as far as the regulation?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Like I said before, you should educate yourself on SHS. I'm not going to derail this thread any further, suffice to say, the methodology behind the SHS smokes are extremely flawed and this has been pointed out by numerous statisticians and epidemiologists, almost none of which have ties to the smoking industry.

BULLSHIT! Of course, you could test your lame ass theory by subjecting yourself to SHS 24/7 for a few years. Come back then, and give us your post MORTEM report.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Topic Title: Don't Exhale: EPA Expected to Declare Carbon Dioxide a Dangerous Pollutant
How exactly is the government going to regulate breathing?

We're going to put a meter over you mouth and tax you by the breath

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Like I said before, you should educate yourself on SHS. I'm not going to derail this thread any further, suffice to say, the methodology behind the SHS smokes are extremely flawed and this has been pointed out by numerous statisticians and epidemiologists, almost none of which have ties to the smoking industry.

BULLSHIT! Of course, you could test your lame ass theory by subjecting yourself to SHS 24/7 for a few years. Come back then, and give us your post MORTEM report.

You don't understand that the cancerous effects of smoke are magically transformed into harmless gasses when they go into a nearby person instead of the smoker?