I don't see the point of trying to redefine "pollution" to include CO2. We have been discussing climate change for decades, but it was only recently that people tried to shoehorn CO2 into category of "pollution." It just takes a category where society has some consensus and then shoehorns some new disputed idea into existing category. It's an end-run around the process of building consensus around the new thing.
I think you miss rayiner's point. He's not disputing whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas. He's saying that doesn't make it a "pollutant" as the term was understood at the time, say, the EPA was created. There was no congressional legislation that said that it was something the EPA was empowered to regulate. Then the EPA decided to regulate it anyway (and, yes, won the court case about whether it could). But it was still shoehorned in, as it was not considered a pollutant in the way that NO2 or particulates or chlorine were.
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
Rygian · · focus · HN ↗
That page is from 2002.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenhouse_gas&oldid=2889" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenhouse_gas&ol...
AnimalMuppet · · focus · HN ↗