Holtz-Eakin Argues Carbon Dioxide Is Not A Pollutant
Holtz-Eakin Argues Carbon Dioxide Is Not A Pollutant
Yesterday on CBS’s Face the Nation, top McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin insisted that the next president will have to enact “comprehensive policies” to create jobs. After calling for a “real energy policy,” Holtz-Eakin slammed Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) plan to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant:
HOLTZ-EAKIN: And so the question will be: who can most quickly generate jobs in this economy, to keep the unemployment rate from spiking so high? At the heart of that, is having comprehensive policies … that have a real energy policy that would allow us to grow. I mean, you know, Senator Obama has promised that, day one, he would enforce the Clean Air Act, treating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. That runs the economy from the Environmental Protection Agency. It’s a draconian regulatory approach. That’s not a rescue for jobs.
Watch it:
Is Holtz-Eakin suggesting that McCain does not view CO2 as a pollutant? That would be interesting, considering that McCain frequently — as recently as last week — highlights his supposed difference with President Bush on the issue of global warming. But Bush has steadfastly refused to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, strong-arming the EPA into rejecting requests by California and other states to regulate CO2 emissions from cars.
More importantly, Holtz-Eakin seems oblivious to the fact that the EPA is legally required to regulate CO2 emissions, at least according to the United States Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. “Under that decision, the EPA is effectively obligated to begin the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act,” conservative law professor Jonathan Alder explained. “If the law is not amended, and the next Administration fails to act, environmentalist groups will file suit to force their hand — and win.”
Finally, Holtz-Eakin is simply wrong to suggest that tackling climate change is “not a rescue for jobs.” California’s pollution standards have created 1.5 million jobs.
Transcript:
HOLTZ-EAKIN: And so the question will be: who can most quickly generate jobs in this economy, to keep the unemployment rate from spiking so high? At the heart of that, is having comprehensive policies, not just a tax policy that promises great things, but actual policies that don’t spend a trillion dollars — we’ve seen the mistake in the Bush administration. That don’t burden businesses with health mandates. That don’t cut off trade — one in five jobs in this economy are trade related. And that have a real energy policy that would allow us to grow. I mean, you know, Senator Obama has promised that, day one, he would enforce the Clean Air Act, treating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. That runs the economy from the Environmental Protection Agency. It’s a draconian regulatory approach. That’s not a rescue for jobs. We have to do the things comprehensively that’ll help jobs for America.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
40 Responses to “Holtz-Eakin Argues Carbon Dioxide Is Not A Pollutant”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
heard on randi... some may find relief:
http://www.republicansforobama.org/
October 27th, 2008 at 5:41 pmTomorrow's discussion with Holtz-Eakin? "The Easter bunny: fact or fiction?"
October 27th, 2008 at 5:42 pmCarbon dioxide isn't a pollutant in the wingnut-o-shere.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:44 pmor, as randi opines, these are the people (#1) who could have prevented this chaos and disaster... now they are trying to cover their azzes by putting up this website...
October 27th, 2008 at 5:52 pmso, welcome to the big tent... we'll see...
The entire Republican party is a pollutant.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:52 pmWell, should Holtz Eakin ever have difficulty breathing, he should ask the paramedics for some healthy non-polluting CO2.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:52 pmHoltz-Eakin never fails to disappoint. Derpa, derpa, derpa...
Dude, take Environmental Science 101. Not that it will make a difference in your dumbass thinking, but it will keep you busy for a little while.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:55 pmsomebody tell that skeevy s.o.b. to buy a razor
he looks like he ought to be sitting behind the counter at a dog track in florida.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:57 pmSenator Obama has promised that, day one, he would enforce the Clean Air Act...
This knucklehead is warning us that, unlike George W. Bush and John McCain, Barack Obama will enforce the law of the land. Need we say anything more about the Republicans?
October 27th, 2008 at 5:58 pmSenator Obama has promised that, day one, he would enforce the Clean Air Act, treating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
In other words, from day one President Obama would enforce the law. I wish the same could be said of his predecessor. Is this guy complaining because a future president might actually enforce the law?
October 27th, 2008 at 5:58 pmWell, certainly not the EPA under it's current leadership...
October 27th, 2008 at 5:58 pmThere you go, shoeless. :)
October 27th, 2008 at 6:00 pmWayne, great minds think alike, or at least notice the obvious.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:03 pmWhat in the hell good are those jobs going to be when we are all living on a dying planet? What is wrong with these people? Don't they care what is going to happen to their children and grandchildren?
Besides, Obama will create many more new jobs by creating clean energy sources in this country than will be created by "drill baby drill".
October 27th, 2008 at 6:15 pmHoltzy baby! Show us the proper technique for sucking up to big oil! Wrap your lips around that tailpipe and suck it big time! Can you really suck a doorknob right off the door?
October 27th, 2008 at 6:25 pmBurning of hydrocarbons also releases water. For instance, burning one octane molecule releases 16 molecules of CO2 and 18 molecules of water vapor. So is water vapor a pollutant?
If you remove 100% of a pollutant from the atmosphere, things get better, no? That would be the definition of a pollutant. If you remove 100% CO2 and water from the atmosphere, things get worse. Much worse.
Increasing the percentage of these gases in the atmosphere may make things worse for us, but so would increasing the percentage of nitrogen. If you made the atmosphere 95% nitrogen (and 2% oxygen-instead of 70% N2-20% O2) things would be worse, but can you really call nitrogen a pollutant?
October 27th, 2008 at 6:33 pmI mean, you know, Senator Obama has promised that, day one, he would enforce the Clean Air Act, treating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:55 pm..........................................................
Appaently there is a typo in my Voters pamphlet .it lists the responsibilities for the various offices being voted on .....and under president;;;;; the first thing printed there ... to faithfully execute the laws passed by our legislators .
Somebody's screwed up !
Maybe MR Holz-Eakin should spend a hour in his garage, with the car running and read the American constitution .
October 27th, 2008 at 7:13 pmToday, a top McCain economic advisor explained that humans aren't equipped to count to numbers over 20 because they lack sufficient digits beyond their fingers and toes. "Barack Obama's campaign involves economic calculations in billions and trillions of dollars. What kind of a genetic freak has the billions or trillions of fingers and toes necessary to figure out what he intends to do with America? John McCain doesn't need no steenkin' numbers. He'll just let the economy know that he's too tough for it to mess with him."
Roll out your next economic advisor, Johnny boy. We're done with this one too.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:51 pmSo ironic that he's creating co2 while he's saying it's not a pollutant...
October 27th, 2008 at 9:06 pmAlejandro,
You are exactly correct, but don't count on the true believers here to listen to arguments based upon real science!
CO2 is NOT a "pollutant" as any sane person with half a brain knows! Further, CO2 isn't causing any type of catastrophic warming. In fact, increased levels of CO2 are the RESULT of warming temperatures on earth, not the CAUSE.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:03 pmHoltz-Eakin Argues Carbon Dioxide Is Not A Pollutant”? Has this guy been sucking on a tailpipe? Seriously
October 27th, 2008 at 10:08 pmHello troll Vaculik. Not in Virginia handing out "vote on Nov. 5th fliers" today?
October 27th, 2008 at 10:12 pm'smatter, the KKK rally run a bit longer than you thought?
Lone Voice,
Nah, I just got back from voting in Ohio. Two can play that game, my friend.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:23 pmNot your friend, guy. I have higher standards, such as having intellectual conversations not based on racist or religious ideology.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:26 pmPhysicist Gerald Marsh's letter in the December 29 Financial Times:
"Sir, While it is becoming increasingly fashionable to maintain that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, it was rather shocking to see the Financial Times buy into what can at best be charitably characterised as a form of "political correctness" ("The price of carbon emissions," December 27).
Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas that occurs naturally in the atmosphere and helps to maintain the earth at a temperature suitable for life - the principal greenhouse gas is water vapour. Carbon dioxide is essential to the growth of all plants. Without it plants could not grow and all animal life would die. In no way is this gas a pollutant. To call it one is misleading.
Calling carbon dioxide a pollutant is a political statement, not a scientific one. Behind the politics is the claim that the small observed global warming trend is due to the burning of fossil fuels rather than being of natural origin.
Despite popular perception, the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did not show that human activities were responsible for global warming. Its conclusions were based on computer models of the earth's climate. However, the problem is so complex that the art of constructing such models is still in its infancy. The uncertainties are so great that the claim by the IPCC that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" is "likely" to be unfounded. We do not yet understand the earth's climate well enough to be able to assess the long-term effect of the carbon dioxide that comes from burning fossil fuels..."
Gerald E. Marsh, Chicago, IL 60615, US
October 27th, 2008 at 10:44 pmLone Voice,
I've seen evidence of your intellectual level and I'm no impressed. But, hey... you are free to express your opinion like the next person.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:46 pmQuote from Tonto Vaqculik
"I’m no impressed."
"I no impressed" with your cut and paste either.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:50 pmDespite popular perception, the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did not show that human activities were responsible for global warming.
2001 was so seven years ago--get up to speed
October 27th, 2008 at 10:53 pmLone Voice,
Well, every time I come here I'm challenged to "prove my assertions" or back up what I say with some facts.
The very fact you are not impressed with what a physicist has to say makes my point.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:55 pmI guess when you and your ilk are full of shit you wouldn't know the difference!
October 27th, 2008 at 11:00 pmIt's not really that Tim, it is just that you had to have bypassed thousands of articles from scientists with contrary viewpoints from this particular physicist to make a point. Not to mention you had to go all the way back to 2001 to do it. Anyone with a brain knows that a huge majority of scientists all over the world believe that CO2 is trapping greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, creating a spiraling effect on global warming. I just don't know what you profit from supporting such a draconian flat-earth theory.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:06 pmTim Vaculik,
October 27th, 2008 at 11:32 pmyou were joking about that thing about believing the physicist right?
CO2 is not a pollutant, any more than water vapor is a pollutant, or oxygen. It's a component of the atmosphere. When you think of pollutants, you think of toxic chemicals dumped into the water and the air, the basin-wide gyres of trash swimming in the Pacific, mercury in our fish, etc. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. Really, it's not. It's a normal part of our atmosphere. It just happens to be a particularly opaque one in the infrared, which means that, by the atmospheric greenhouse effect, the surface temperature warms, which could have worldwide disastrous consequences. But it's a bit of a stretch to say that this agent is pollution. CO, black carbon, CFC's, NOx, ground-level ozone, those are pollution. CO2 is not. It's not a health hazard; it's perfectly harmless; it won't kill anyone or anything. It just happens to be of the wrong color, so if there's too much of it, bad things happen to us.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:30 ammauro7inf #36--I do believe that too much of anything that causes an effect that is chaotic to the environment is a pollutant in the literal sense of the word. I do understand your reasoning, but CO2 emissions are a major concern without regulation and control. Algae is not a pollutant either, but too much can choke off a river or lake by wrecking havoc with healthy oxygen levels. Nitrogen in itself is not a pollutant, yet emissions from the Mississippi River (runoff from farms) are causing dead spots in the Gulf of Mexico. Because there is too much of it in concentration. Basically, it's too much of what would normally be a good thing in the wrong place.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:55 amIs selenium a poison?
It's required for life.
Take too much (and it's not very much) and you'll die.
The ozone layer is an important protector of life.
So is ozone a pollutant?
Damn straight it is.
Does oil occur naturally? Are there organisms who just lovem love crude oil, who live in it and use it as nutriment? Absolutely
Is oil a pollutant when its buried deep in rock? No.
Should we then not be worried about oil spills? Of course we should.
It's a medieval argument, replete with false equivalences.
'Pollutant" does not equal 'essentially bad". It does not equal 'poison".
It means a substance that in certain situations and in certain contexts, can have bad effects and should be controlled.
Sodium is vital for life. Sodium channels in our cell membranes control chemicals coming in and out.
But if you put a piece of pure sodium in your hand, it'll burn it horribly. If you eat some, you'll die.
Is sodium then a 'poison'? Should we avoid it ay all costs? Do that and you'll die too.
Tough world, isn't it? Especially when you try to treat science like medieval rhetoric.
October 28th, 2008 at 6:50 amSorry. I'll stop shouting.
October 28th, 2008 at 6:51 ampbg--no apologies necessary. You are very astute with your post and I appreciate your comments. Well blogged, good sir.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:48 amSeems that just about the only trools we get around here anymore are those concerned with denying global warming. The RNC seems to have given up, but the Competitive Enterprise Institute and American Petroleum Institute still have plenty of money to fund their propaganda distributors.
October 28th, 2008 at 8:50 amHoltz-Eakin Argues Carbon Dioxide Is Not A Pollutant
October 28th, 2008 at 4:16 pmWell then... lets lock him up in a chamber filled with Carbon Dioxide for a day. If he survives, he is right. If not...