Eliminate the word “greenhouse gas pollution” from IRA – Watt gets along with it?

From cfact

David Wojick

The infamous inflation reduction bill is known for throwing out hundreds of billions of dollars in green causes. Along the way, it also repeatedly said that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (except water vapor) are contamination.

This is important because this is the first time Congress has said this legally. The sirens now claim that the sentence somehow proves the fake EPA CO2 dangerous discovery and requires EPA regulations on GHG. Technically, this is not true, but the court may think it is true, so we need to get the language from the law.

Fortunately, this wrong language appears in a way that makes it relatively easy to delete. The repeal of the main provisions of the IRA, although highly desirable for other reasons, is not necessary. Abolishing is difficult, but if these languages ​​do not affect cash flow, minor changes can be made in the language.

Most of the worst green languages ​​happen in a small part of the bill, called “Title VI – Subtitle A – Air Pollution”. There are 16 parts, some referring to actual pollution, but mainly about greenhouse gases, so the title of “air pollution” is already wrong. It should be changed to something accurate, like “do nothing”. Such changes will not have an impact on absurd laws.

The main error is the definition that appears in many different parts. It says:

“Greenhouse gas. – The term “greenhouse gas” refers to air pollutants carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons and sulfur difluoride.”

Neither of these airborne chemicals acting as greenhouse gases are contaminants, so this is an obvious, corrected alternative:

“Greenhouse gas. — The term “greenhouse gas” refers to carbon dioxide, hydrofluoro compounds, methane, nitrous oxide, perfluoro compounds and sulfur hexafluoride.”

It's easy to do, it has no effect on the law, it just stops calling greenhouse gas pollutants. It is more correct to add water vapor to the list, but only billions of dollars of water vapor emit only billions of dollars, only the harmless greenhouse gases listed.

Another name call occurs when both GHG and actual air pollutants are mentioned. Here we find this place repeatedly

“…reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants…”

Here, the term “other” means that greenhouse gases are also pollutants. Such phrases are easily corrected as follows:

“…reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants…”

Simply taking out “others” will not change the essence of the law.

It is not difficult to find every incorrect example of words such as pollutants, pollutants, pollution, etc. and write a simple amendment to correct its abuse. A careful reading may reveal other situations that need to be corrected.

Since this simple change has no effect on the hundreds of billions of dollars of waste given by the IRA, it may actually be possible to pass. This will go a long way to go on the road to reversing the dangerous discovery of fakes.

In fact, this clearly shows that Congress does not consider greenhouse gases to be pollutants.

Related