So far, so good. The problem comes from the misdescription of essential trace gases as “pollution” – photosynthesis requires it, aerobic life on earth is completely dependent on it. That misdescription will change this ruling from generally innocuous to absolutely devastating.
A Texas judge has ruled that the atmosphere and air must be protected for public use, just like water, which could help attorneys tasked with arguing climate change lawsuits designed to force states to cut emissions.
The written ruling, issued in a letter Monday by Texas District Court Judge Gisela Triana, shot down arguments by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality that only water is a “public trust,” a doctrine that dates to the Roman Empire stating a government must protect certain resources — usually water, sometimes wildlife — for the common good.
Adam Abrams, one of the attorneys arguing the case against TCEQ, said Triana’s ruling could be used as a persuasive argument in lawsuits pending in 11 other states.
In Texas, though, a ruling to protect air and the atmosphere has added significance. Republican Gov. Rick Perry is one of the most vocal opponents against widely accepted scientific research that fossil fuel emissions are causing global warming. And the state has refused to regulate greenhouse gases, forcing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to work directly with industries to ensure they comply with federal law.
Water vapo(u)r is more of a “pollutant” than CO2.
This judge proves once again that we are governed by the least competent among us.
I’m still not entirely sure of what the resistance to labeling CO2 a pollutant is. Yes, in certain concentrations it’s necessary for life on Earth; but too much causes significant problems. Take any trace element required by a human being- some magnesium, iron, calcium, iodine, etc. are required, but too much causes toxicity. Why exactly is regulating the balance of the atmosphere any different than regulating nutrients in a human?
Major problem with your concept of “regulating the balance of the atmosphere“. Photosynthetic plants evolved with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the order of 7,000ppmv and certainly are most efficient at levels greater than 2,000ppmv. I certainly have no ambition to keep them at the current near-starvation levels and can’t see why you’d want to do so. Humanity has no plausible mechanism of getting “too much” carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, no matter how hard we try or for how long.
The “resistance” to falsely labeling an essential trace gas a “pollutant” is that misanthropes are trying to use that misappellation to impose energy rationing and inhibit human development. That is seriously offensive and worth “resisting” to the death.