Erasing the IRA’s “greenhouse gas pollution” words – Watts Up With That?

From CFACT

By David Wojick

The infamous Inflation Reduction Act is best known for throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at green causes. Along the way it also says repeatedly and falsely that carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases (except water vapor) are pollution.

This is important because it is the first time Congress has said such a thing in law. Alarmists are now claiming that this saying somehow certifies the bogus EPA CO2 Endangerment Finding and requires EPA regulation of GHGs. Technically this is not true but a Court might think it is so we need to get that language out of the law.

Fortunately this false language occurs in ways that make it relatively easy to erase. Repeal of major provisions of the IRA, while highly desirable for other reasons, is not necessary. Repeal is hard but making small changes in language might not be especially difficult when these do not affect the cash flow.

Most of the worst green language occurs in a small part of the bill called “TITLE VI — Subtitle A — Air Pollution.” There are 16 sections and a few refer to actual pollution but they are mostly about GHGs so the “Air Pollution” title is already wrong. It should be changed to something accurate like “Greenhouse Gas Money For Nothing.” Such a change would have no effect on the ridiculous law.

The primary wrong is in a definition that appears in a lot of different sections. It says this:

‘‘GREENHOUSE GAS.—The term ‘greenhouse gas’ means the air pollutants carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.”

None of these airborne chemicals acting as GHGs are pollutants so here is the obvious, corrected replacement:

‘‘GREENHOUSE GAS.—The term ‘greenhouse gas’ means carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.”

This is easily done and it has no effect on the law except to stop calling GHGs pollutants. It would be even more correct to add water vapor to the list but there are no billions for reducing water vapor emissions just the listed harmless GHGs.

Another bit of name calling occurs when both GHGs and actual air pollutants are referred to. Here we repeatedly find locutions like this

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

Here the word “other” implies that GHGs are also pollutants. Phrases like this are easily corrected to this:

“…reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants…”

Simply taking out “other” does not change the substance of the law.

It would not be that hard to find every incorrect instance of the words pollutant, pollutants, pollution, etc., and write a simple amendment that corrects their misuse. Careful reading might find other cases that need corrected.

Since this simple change has no effect on the hundreds of billions of wasteful dollars being given away by the IRA it might actually be passable. It would go a long way on the road to reversing the bogus Endangerment Finding.

In fact it would clearly signal that Congress does not consider GHGs to be pollutants.

Related