Hacker News Reader

Comment by pfdietz | Hacker News Reader

The IRA addressed that ruling by formally stating that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are pollutants. This grants the EPA the authority that SCOTUS said they were lacking.

So, you should have said the EPA "could not do this, but now they can."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/22/climate/epa-supreme-court...

View on HN

If CO2 is a pollutant, then elimination of exhaling humans is a logical focus for Sierra Club.

Except that these CO2 emissions are exactly balanced by CO2 absorption by the plants that produced our food.

If you are objecting to food produced directly from fossil fuels, or methane emissions in agriculture, then yes those are valid targets to be addressed.

CO2 is 0.04% of atmosphere. More atmospheric CO2 is followed by more plant growth, so you are right that it does balance.

"The resilience of Earth’s atmosphere has been proven throughout our planet’s climate history" https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-...

If more CO2 were balanced by more plant growth, CO2 concentration would not be shooting up, decade after decade.

But it is.

> CO2 and other greenhouse gases are pollutants

As an aside, that is going to have some weird unforeseen effects at low levels because it means that almost every car and every dwelling or heated structure emits "pollutants" and there's god knows how many other laws that they therefore become subject to.

Every last thing powered by fossil fuels is a valid target for pollution control, yes. I'm glad you understand the scope of the problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com