I have gotten another assignment from Organizing for Action.
David —
This may sound crazy, but it’s a fact: Today, there are no emission limits on our nation’s single largest source of carbon pollution.
About 40 percent of all carbon pollution in America comes from our power plants, but we don’t have anything in place on a national level to regulate the amount of carbon they put into the air.
That’s why the EPA announced a new proposal to set carbon pollution standards for power plants, the same way we regulate other dangerous substances, like arsenic and mercury. It’s a common-sense way to start to make a very real dent in reducing carbon pollution.
Right now, the EPA is asking for the public’s input on these new limits on carbon emissions — add your name to show your support, and we’ll pass it along.
Climate change is real — there’s no credible scientific debate anymore. We’re seeing its effects more and more every year. That’s why we need to do something about it — that includes taking action to reduce our carbon emissions.
President Obama knows how crucial this is. The Climate Action Plan he laid out this summer set guidelines for these proposed EPA rules and laid out a roadmap for further carbon pollution reduction, expanded renewables, and more energy efficiency projects.
He’s keeping his word on climate change — and now we need to do our part.Add your name today to support the EPA’s proposal to clean up our power plants:
http://my.barackobama.com/Support-the-Presidents-Climate-Plan
Thanks,
Jack
Jack Shapiro
Deputy Climate Campaign Manager
Organizing for Action
By carbon pollution I assume he means carbon dioxide. Mercury and arsenic are pollutants. They are not found naturally in the Earth’s atmosphere in any appreciable amounts and are hazardous to human health. Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring
compound in the Earth’s atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is not hazardous to human health except in concentrations great enough to displace oxygen. Carbon dioxide is essential to life on Earth. Without it, plants cannot photosynthesize and the Earth would be a frozen wasteland. It makes no sense to talk of carbon pollution especially in comparison with arsenic and mercury. Either the people responsible for this e-mail, and the whole talking point about carbon pollution, are ignorant of the science of the Earth’s atmosphere or are dishonest and using semantic games rather than actual facts to convince people. If they want to make the argument for reducing carbon dioxide emissions to reduce global warming, then they should make that argument. The fact that they do not make that argument perhaps says something about their credibility.
As is happens, current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are neither unusual or unprecedented. There is good reason to believe that in ages past levels were far higher than today’s. In the Jurassic Period, carbon dioxide levels were five times the present levels. The long term trend is decreasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and eventually there will not be enough for life on Earth to survive.
Related articles
- One-on-One with Tier One: Dr. Xun Jiang (uhresearchblog.com)
- Pros and cons on proposed carbon emission rules (philly.com)
- House Republicans pressure EPA to drop coal-plant carbon rules (foxnews.com)
David's Commonplace Book 
The climate conferences suggested capping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at a level so low that it would destroy all life on Earth.
It would be hilarious if it weren’t so terrifying that these people are in charge of our future.
LikeLike
Most plants require a concentration of CO2 of 150 parts per million. Grasses can survive on as little as 10 ppm. Obviously they are not going to be able to achieve that kind of reduction any time soon. Time is on their side though. If the Earth continues to lose CO2 at the present rate we’ll reach that goal, in about a billion years or so.
LikeLike