Living in Peace and Wisdom on our Planet

  My Profile  Log In   Register Free Now   
Living in Peace and Wisdom on our Planet Planet Thoughts Advanced       Click to see one of our videos, chosen at random from the database, along with its PlanetThought
 Try a video
Home   About   Books&Media   Resources   Contact  
   News   Quote   Review   Story   Tip   All   Blogs   News   Quotes   Reviews   Stories   Tips
Get Email or Web Quotes
or use our RSS feeds:
New Feed:  Fossil Fuel
 Full  Blog  News
Read & Comment:
A Solar Community In Isr...
'Let's You And Him Fight...
Paul Krugman's Errors An...
Why Climate Change Is An...

Most recent comments:
From Farm To Fork
A Simple List: Things We...
Can the affluent rest at...

Bookmark the site
Contribute $
Easy link from your site
Visit Second Life
Visit SU Blog

Anita Mangels argues tht CO2 is an 'emission' not a 'pollutant'By Brad Johnson

Anita Mangels, spokesperson for California's Yes on 23 campaign, wants to get the message out that greenhouse gases emitted from oil refineries, coal plants, and motor vehicles are not "pollutants," just "emissions". Mangels is working to suspend California's landmark global warming legislation, AB 32, on behalf of the Texas oil company-funded Proposition 23 campaign. In a gracious telephone interview with the Wonk Room, Mangels argued that the "semantics are important," because Prop 23 supporters don't want to be seen as promoters of pollution:

There's a huge misconception about AB 32 and Prop 23 are about when it comes to "pollution." The court made the attorney general rewrite the ballot, which originally talked about "polluters" and "pollution." The judge said that's not right because greenhouse gas reduction is not pollution. It is not in the same league as things that we have been dealing with for years like smog-forming pollutants.

Greenhouse gases — while they may be associated with global warming — have no direct impact on the environment or health in California. The nature of greenhouse gas emissions is not at all compatible with other emissions that have been subject to environmental laws.

I'm not using the word "pollutant." We're talking about "emissions. Language means a lot. You don't see ballot labels being ordered to be changed by a judge very often. The semantics are important.

Although Mangels — a project director for the Woodward & McDowell ballot initiative lobbying firm — accurately described the judge's decision on the ballot language, her conclusion is false. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that greenhouse gases are pollutants by any reasonable definition in 2007. Greenhouse pollution not only raises sea levels, intensifies extreme weather, and causes heat waves and droughts, but also increases allergens and worsens the effects of other pollutants — all described in the Environmental Protection Agency's endangerment finding.

Moreover, new scientific research by Mark Z. Jacobson, finds that carbon dioxide pollution is a two-fold killer — causing not just global warming but also forming "domes" that trap other pollutants in urban areas. Even if "CO2 in adjacent regions is not controlled," Jacobson estimates, "reducing local CO2 may reduce 300-1000 premature air pollution mortalities per year in the U.S. and 50-100 per year in California." Mangels claimed that greenhouse pollutants are "unlike localized emissions that have a tangible impact on the health and the environment — if you spend money on that, you can see a tangible result in that." In fact, greenhouse pollutants are just like other pollutants — they make people sick, they kill ecosystems, and the less that's emitted, the better.

In another demonstration of "semantics," Mangels claimed that "our coalition members do not oppose AB 32." The Yes on 23 campaign, bankrolled by Texas oil companies Valero and Tesoro, just wants to indefinitely postpone the legislation because "it would increase costs by billions of dollars for energy and would probably destroy a million or so jobs" — which would be bad when California has an "economic crisis." Mangels did concede that some economic studies of AB 32 find that California's net jobs would increase, but "there will be a handful of winners and everyone else will be their customers."

When you cut through the greenwashed rhetoric of the "California Jobs Initiative" — the Yes on 23's other name — all that's left is yet another attempt by fossil fuel companies and their ideological allies to prevent the growth of a green economy.

Related reading:
  A Lethal Concentration (Jun-2-2010)
  EPA Not Suited To Protect The Environment, Accor... (Jan-16-2010)
  EPA Considers Stricter Pesticide Labeling Laws (Jan-4-2010)
  Sulfur Cap-And-Trade Lessons Learned: Success As... (Dec-13-2009)
  'Greener, Greater Buildings Plan' Passes New Yor... (Dec-12-2009)
  California Gets Smart-Grid Funds To Bottle Wind (Nov-27-2009)
  How Much Pesticide Is Too Much? (Nov-23-2009)
  EPA: More Than $1 Million for Projects to Improv... (Nov-9-2009)
  California May Regulate TV Energy Consumption (Oct-26-2009)
  Obama's Executive Order Enforces Smart Energy (Oct-6-2009)

Click one tag to see readings related specifically to that tag; click "Tags" to see all related readings
^ top
Add a comment    
  Follow the comments made here? 
  (Please log in or register free to follow comments)
Comment by: City Worker (Sep-7-2010)   
The issue of whether CO2 “emissions” is a “pollutant” is an interesting point, aside from the fact that some are using this semantics issue to postpone actions. I did notice, in the Happy 35th Birthday article that the 1965 “expert report” to President Johnson mentioned CO2 emissions and global warming in a paper by a “Pollution” panel, and the word “pollution”, didn’t sit quite right with me.

Although I don’t have the answer, I think it would be good if someone came up with a new word or words to describe “emissions“ in respect to “global warming” and maybe even a new word to replace “global warming.” Global warming is a serious issue. And “emissions” is a rather general word, often associated with innocuous things. Actually, “global warming” also sounds innocuous. It would be nice if someone would coin a new word or words which would describe what is happening to the environment due to things including emissions, which are a cancer to our planet.

^ top 
About author/contributor GuestWriter welcomes occasional articles and opinion pieces from writers who are not regular contributors. Their contributions will be listed under the "GuestWriter" name, and additional attribution will be shown in accordance with the agreement with the original writer and source of the PlanetThought.

Visit Green Wave Email Marketing
Email Marketing for You and Your Planet

We won a Gotham Green Award for 2010, on Earth Day! Thank you Gotham Networking for this award.

See the attractive event brochure.

Recommended Sites

  Member of:
GOtham Green networking
Green Collar Economy
New York Academy of Sciences
Shades of Green Network

     Members/Affiliates *

Approaching the Limits
    to Growth
Environmental News Network
Heroin and Cornflakes

* Members of PlanetThoughts      
  communities on SU or MBL,      
  and blog article affiliates      

  Other Favorite Blogs
21st Century Citizen
Center for Bio. Diversity
Easy Ways to Go Green
Good Bags
Opposing Views

Valid my RSS feeds

We Do Follow

  Volunteer      Terms of Use      Privacy Policy  

Copyright © 2022 All Rights Reserved.
Except for blog items by David Alexander: Some Rights Reserved.