In light of the recent decision of the Environmental Protection Agency to consider carbon dioxide and five other green house gases a health and environment danger, one researcher says the federal ruling is unqualified.
“I think before we enter into these regulations, we should fully understand the costs and benefits about this carbon dioxide regulation and not necessarily lump it into the black smoke as you always see coming out of factories,” said Nicolas Loris, an Economic Policy Studies research assistant at the conservative Washington, D.C. think tank Heritage Foundation.
“We’re talking about a clear, odorless gas right now,” he said.
The EPA’s current ruling on carbon dioxide as a green house gas emission is Supreme Court-backed because it falls under the Clean Air Act’s definition of an air pollutant, and that means the EPA is obligated to regulate the emission.
Nonetheless, Loris says the implications of the EPA decision are most damaging financially, saying that the department’s rules are already “over-reaching” which “limits economic growth.”
Fears about business regulation are among the top concerns of opponents of the decision, and many of those opponents have reversed the demonization of carbon dioxide, touting the chemical compound as a natural byproduct of the human and animal respiratory system and plant photosynthesis.
Despite the debate on carbon dioxide emissions, nearly 200 countries are currently participating in the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, where international and domestic legislation on how to control emissions is being presented and drafted. President Barack Obama will be at the conference as it wraps up this Friday.
Economic And Environment Researcher Says Carbon Dioxide Debate Unbalanced
In light of the recent decision of the Environmental Protection Agency to consider carbon dioxide and five other green house gases a health and environment danger, one researcher says the federal ruling is unqualified.
“I think before we enter into these regulations, we should fully understand the costs and benefits about this carbon dioxide regulation and not necessarily lump it into the black smoke as you always see coming out of factories,” said Nicolas Loris, an Economic Policy Studies research assistant at the conservative Washington, D.C. think tank Heritage Foundation.
“We’re talking about a clear, odorless gas right now,” he said.
The EPA’s current ruling on carbon dioxide as a green house gas emission is Supreme Court-backed because it falls under the Clean Air Act’s definition of an air pollutant, and that means the EPA is obligated to regulate the emission.
Nonetheless, Loris says the implications of the EPA decision are most damaging financially, saying that the department’s rules are already “over-reaching” which “limits economic growth.”
Fears about business regulation are among the top concerns of opponents of the decision, and many of those opponents have reversed the demonization of carbon dioxide, touting the chemical compound as a natural byproduct of the human and animal respiratory system and plant photosynthesis.
Despite the debate on carbon dioxide emissions, nearly 200 countries are currently participating in the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, where international and domestic legislation on how to control emissions is being presented and drafted. President Barack Obama will be at the conference as it wraps up this Friday.