December 7, 2009

Why doesn't the EPA regulate viruses in the air we breathe?

Although it's something that's been coming since earlier in the year, it's still a bit shocking to see the EPA declare carbon dioxide is a poison the United States government can regulate. Once you realize that carbon dioxide makes up only 0.037 percent of of the Earth's atmosphere... I mean, come on... 1% of a dollar is a penny.... 0.037th of a percent of a dollar is a tiny sliver of a penny.

1. CO2 makes up a tiny, tiny, tiny sliver of the atmosphere... 0.037%

2. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas (see the chart below which expands that "CO2 - 0.037%" category in the chart above)

As you can see below, the oceans and animals breathing make up 95 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere... Mankind (aside from our breath) adds about 5% of CO2 in the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels, etc. So 5% of 0.037% is Man's industrial contribution to the atmosphere -- or 0.00185% -- and the EPA wants to regulate it. They want to regulate a gas that all mammals exhale, a gas that water and earth exhales, a gas that makes plants thrive. This is extremely silly. The numbers are far too small to measure any impact our pointless reductions would have.

The EPA might as well regulate sunlight as carbon dioxide. They could control the diameter of umbrellas over our heads and the number of shade trees we plant. In the end, regulating the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is just as silly as trying to regulate the temperature of the Earth. Wouldn't our founders be shocked to see their government try to control nature herself.

Ask yourself.... the EPA says that CO2 is harmful to humans, so why doesn't the EPA regulate viruses in the air we breathe? Not only would it improve our health, but we could measure our success in ways impossible with CO2. So why don't they? The next time you get a cold or the flu, ask yourself why the EPA doesn't protect you from real poisons in the air. Regulating viruses in the air makes much more sense than regulating carbon dioxide.

No comments: