Comment▼ CO2—What’s in a name?
W
ill CO2 still “smell as sweet” after the U.S. Supreme Court rules this fall on whether it is a “pollutant”? Perhaps not, if the court decides that it is indeed a pollutant that threatens the “public health or welfare”, according to clear language set forth in the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA). The court will be settling a lawsuit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council to give the U.S. EPA authority to regulate CO2. The CAA specifically includes effects of climate and weather under the term “public welfare”, and the legislation seems to suggest that EPA has the authority to regulate its emissions. President George W. Bush reversed his own campaign pledge in 2001, when he decided to exclude CO2 as a regulated pollutant. Some argued that CO2 cannot possibly be considered a pollutant because it is a major nutrient, utilized by photosynthetic plants and converted into sugars, crops, and biomass. But sulfur dioxide, too, is a nutrient for plants, and it is stringently regulated under the CAA to protect public health. In fact, as 16th-century Swiss-born physician Paracelsus explained, “All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison from a remedy.” Ten states have already decided that CO2 is a pollutant, and they have enacted various laws or rules to decrease its emissions. Why? Because they perceive global warming to be a central challenge to humankind in the 21st century and believe that it is in their own best interests to take early action. Technologies for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including CO2, are key to growing a sustainable economy in the 21st century. At the present time, we are losing the battle. Global CO2 emissions are increasing about 2% per year, and average temperatures have increased more than 1 F in the last century, primarily because of human activities. In the absence of a concerted worldwide effort to reduce emissions, we will inevitably face a much warmer planet in the 21st century, with greater storms and droughts, melting ice, and higher sea levels. Business as usual, defined by the scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2001), would result in an additional average warming of 4.3 F (2.4 C) and a sea-level rise of 0.48 meters by 2100 (central values). Both temperature and sea level would continue to rise ponderously for centuries after that. This represents a “dangerous level of interference” in the climate system and a massive challenge for humankind. To combat global warming, we must decrease our emissions by roughly half over the next 50 years. It’s likely that current patterns of fossil-fuel combustion have al-
ready locked us into an additional warming of 1.8 F (1.0 C) by 2100, according to James Hansen et al.’s “Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study” (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov). Holding warming to that level will require drastic reductions. Still, there is room for optimism about “low-hanging fruit”, such as greater automobile fuel-efficiency standards in the U.S. (which haven’t improved since 1987). Wind, solar power, energy-efficient buildings, and clean-coal technologies could provide GHG reductions for the next 10–20 years, allowing time for other energy technologies to develop. Massive CO2 sequestration and, perhaps, modular nuclear power could be used in the 20–30 years after that. Enter the Supreme Court, and consider the irony that, after all these years, they should decide such a pivotal question affecting the future of life. Congress has abdicated, and the executive branch is in complete and utter denial. Congress voted 95–0 in the summer of 1997 against the Kyoto Climate Convention proposal (unless developing countries like China, India, Mexico, and Brazil were also obligated in the first round of cuts). Some progress has been made—last year, Congress failed to pass the McCain–Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act (“Kyoto light”) by only eight votes. If the Supreme Court decides that CO2 is a pollutant, it means only that EPA has the power to regulate it. It doesn’t mean that it will. So, EPA stands with the devil at two doors. One is marked, “Damned if you do,” and the other, “Damned if you don’t.” Given the choice, let’s hope they choose to regulate. We have waited too long for government to act. We cannot wait any longer. What’s in a name? In this case, everything. Because of our failure to ratify Kyoto and refusal to reduce our own U.S. emissions (4.5% of the people emitting about 23% of the global GHGs), we have broken trust and lost credibility with the world. Our reticence to lead on emission reductions has provided an excuse for others to move more slowly than they otherwise might. But trend is not destiny. Action by the Supreme Court, a surprising source of influence on this issue, could jump-start EPA to fulfill its mission and protect the welfare of our children and our children’s children.
© 2006 American Chemical Society
OCTOBER 1, 2006 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 5825
Jerald L. Schnoor Editor
[email protected]
