> That is precisely what they did. It was called the Clean Air Act, and Congress passed it in 1963.
Given that the danger of CO2 was completely unknown in 1963 and green energy technologies almost didn't exist. I'm not sure how you can claim that.
Given that the danger of CO2 was completely unknown in 1963 and green energy technologies almost didn't exist. I'm not sure how you can claim that.
Section 202(a)(1) is pretty explicit that the law does not limit the pollutants under the low to those known to the legislative body[1]:
> The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
Edit: In other words: even if we could show that Congress was unaware of CO2's effect on the environment, it simply doesn't matter. The Act empowers the EPA to identify and address the pollutants.
This is a bizarre claim!
From https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
> In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. In 1938, Guy Callendar connected carbon dioxide increases in Earth's atmosphere to global warming.
Also read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_sc...
Rediscovering old previously discredited scientific papers from the late 19th and early 20th century doesn't make it date all the way back to then.
The CAA empowers the EPA to identify pollutants, and that's what the EPA has (correctly!) done. Whether or not the scientific consensus from the 1960s agrees is immaterial.
Don’t want to talk guns, but want to illustrate the challenges of making such claims
If laws can’t be interpreted to account for new circumstances, then it must be legal to pay to have someone killed as long as you use Bitcoin — after all the law didn’t specifically ban the use of Bitcoin.