Romney: Carbon isn't a pollutant, not exactly, not quite

Romney: Carbon isn’t a pollutant, not exactly, not quite

His latest weasel on global warming

Environment • July 2011 • Views: 1,205

In New Hampshire, to an audience question about the EPA, Romney tries yet again to have it both ways but to move away from his own former stance about greenhouse gases:

“Do I support the EPA? In much of its mission yes, but in some of its mission no. The EPA getting into carbon footprints, and… [APPLAUSE] I think we may have made a mistake, we have made a mistake is what I believe, in saying that the EPA should regulate carbon emissions. I don’t think that was the intent of the original legislation, and I don’t think carbon is a pollutant in the sense of harming our bodies.”

In the sense of harming our bodies? So what does that mean, Mitt? That is truly some new height of weasel.

thinkprogress.org

Recent Pages by elizajane:
We are Having the Wrong Immigration Debate From the Annals of Chutzpah: Paul Ryan's Latest Ornstein on The Republicans' Sabotage Efforts on the ACA The Insanity of the NRA The Lies that Bind

Jump to bottom

7 comments

Achilles Tang Mon, Jul 18, 2011 2:51:14pm

Another example of leaders who follow instead of leading. Romney knows exactly what AGW is about.

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Mon, Jul 18, 2011 3:37:44pm

Doesn’t harm our bodies? I’m sure the residents near Lake Nyos would disagree.

Of course he’s just submitting to the will of his base. He knows perfectly well that AGW will not only harm individuals but the entire biosphere. Which means he is willing to do what’s popular instead of right - not the kind of person I want as president.

lostlakehiker Mon, Jul 18, 2011 3:49:51pm

Romney is factually correct. Water, of course, can also hurt your body, as the residents of Fukushima can testify. The EPA does not deem water a pollutant.

It’s all about how much. The CO2 levels we’re talking about cannot asphyxiate people.

The EPA wasn’t given the authority to regulate water.

If we want to regulate CO2, and it’s probably a good idea we do, then a law tailored to that end should be passed, rather than pushing the edge of the envelope with regard to what words mean and what regulatory authority was granted the EPA in the first place.

Such a law might better involve a tax on CO2 than outright bans, for which exceptions would have to be made. A legal system in which no one can manage without breaking laws, and can only plead for exemption on a case by case basis, is not a system, it’s just a mess.

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Mon, Jul 18, 2011 5:22:11pm

re: #3 lostlakehiker

That’s ridiculous. The EPA isn’t about regulating poisons/toxins that harm humans, it is about regulating pollutants. Pollutants are substances that harm ecosystems. What’s the distinction between a toxin and a pollutant? Pollutants can include things that would otherwise be good in different circumstances. For example fertilizer is good for plants, but if an excess of fertilizer makes its way into an aquatic ecosystem it could cause significant damage.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Mon, Jul 18, 2011 5:27:19pm

re: #3 lostlakehiker

The EPA wasn’t given the authority to regulate water.

Comparing CO2 to water is stupid.

lostlakehiker Mon, Jul 18, 2011 7:30:03pm

re: #5 Obdicut

Comparing CO2 to water is stupid.

The idea that any law, no matter its actual meaning, can usefully and therefore justly be reinterpreted to say anything that it would be convenient for it to have said, is stupid.

If the law under which the EPA operates were to be applied to CO2, to the letter, no coal fired power plant could operate today. This means that putting CO2 under the sway of that law will not be, and cannot be, done forthrightly. Instead, the release of CO2 will be allowed, to some extent, law notwithstanding. Who gets the exemptions, though, will be a political process, not a legal process.

The quantitative limits spelled out in the EPA’s regular notion of pollutant are tiny in the context of water, or CO2. The smallness of the numerical limits on allowable releases demonstrates that no chemical that exists naturally in massive quantities and that is bound up in ordinary operation of industrial civilization was intended to count as a “pollutant”.

The “end justifies the means” attitude toward how the EPA should treat CO2, if it prevails, will prevail more widely than in its application to CO2.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Mon, Jul 18, 2011 7:43:44pm

re: #6 lostlakehiker

If the law under which the EPA operates were to be applied to CO2, to the letter, no coal fired power plant could operate today.

What law is this? What are you even talking about?

The quantitative limits spelled out in the EPA’s regular notion of pollutant are tiny in the context of water, or CO2. The smallness of the numerical limits on allowable releases demonstrates that no chemical that exists naturally in massive quantities and that is bound up in ordinary operation of industrial civilization was intended to count as a “pollutant”.

Where is this spelled out? The EPA has vastly different regulations for vastly different stuff.