Comment Re:Ah yes, the EPA (Score 1) 34
To prove to me that CO2 is not directly harmful to humans, I'm gonna need you to put your head in an airtight plastic bag and seal it against any outside air intrusion that might invalidate this scientific proof.
Go on, I'll wait. About six and a half minutes with your head inside the bag should prove my point, but I'd encourage you to do an overnight test, just so we know for sure that CO2 is entirely safe and could never ever in any way be harmful to humans.
No? Okay, so now that we're done being silly about the very real risk of CO2 directly harming humans (in the long run), are you ready to discuss how some of the currently active CO2 increasing behaviors of various industries might fall under the premise of an act that regulates the save levels of a given harmful air pollutant?
Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but from a logical standpoint your underlying premise (CO2 not harmful, therefore not governed by CAA) seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of exactly how deadly carbon dioxide actually is when excessively ingested by the human body. Because once we've established that as a fundamental fact, let's talk about how industrial CO2 externalities are indirectly-killing-humans in the short run, because that looks like something the CAA also regulates.
And lastly, regarding "scope of the law", I would remind you that what is right and what is legal have diverged wildly in these times of baby-eating billionaire clubs who actively wield corporate-funded lobbyists that maintain a stranglehold on literally the entire sanctioned government structure of multiple nations. Ask yourself, should we be good stewards of the planet for tomorrow's children, or are we going to be baby-eating billionaire apologists?
Go on, I'll wait. About six and a half minutes with your head inside the bag should prove my point, but I'd encourage you to do an overnight test, just so we know for sure that CO2 is entirely safe and could never ever in any way be harmful to humans.
No? Okay, so now that we're done being silly about the very real risk of CO2 directly harming humans (in the long run), are you ready to discuss how some of the currently active CO2 increasing behaviors of various industries might fall under the premise of an act that regulates the save levels of a given harmful air pollutant?
Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but from a logical standpoint your underlying premise (CO2 not harmful, therefore not governed by CAA) seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of exactly how deadly carbon dioxide actually is when excessively ingested by the human body. Because once we've established that as a fundamental fact, let's talk about how industrial CO2 externalities are indirectly-killing-humans in the short run, because that looks like something the CAA also regulates.
And lastly, regarding "scope of the law", I would remind you that what is right and what is legal have diverged wildly in these times of baby-eating billionaire clubs who actively wield corporate-funded lobbyists that maintain a stranglehold on literally the entire sanctioned government structure of multiple nations. Ask yourself, should we be good stewards of the planet for tomorrow's children, or are we going to be baby-eating billionaire apologists?