On the recordFebruary 17, 2011
So much to say, so little time. Mr. Chairman, first, let me point out that CO<INF>2</INF>, the greenhouse gas that is most under discussion, is not a pollutant under the classical definition of the Clean Air Act. I am creating CO<INF>2</INF> as I speak. The gentleman from Washington, who was just speaking, as he spoke, was creating CO<INF>2</INF>. If you have a carbonated beverage, the reason it bubbles and it is called ``carbonated'' is because of CO<INF>2</INF>. Greenhouse gases are necessary to human life. They're what keep the planet warm. They're what trap heat so we have an atmosphere that we can exist in. There is not a definition of a health exposure to CO<INF>2</INF>. The theory that CO<INF>2</INF> is harmful is based on a theory that the amount of greenhouse gases, specifically CO<INF>2</INF>, in the upper atmosphere, as it increases, so many parts per billion somehow affect the ability of the Earth to accumulate or dispense heat. It is a theory. There is nobody in this country or anywhere in the world who has been harmed because of manmade CO<INF>2</INF>. You cannot point to cases of CO<INF>2</INF> poisoning. So, when my friends who oppose this amendment talk about carbon pollution, they're using a definition that is very loose and very nebulous.
