Is CO2 a Pollutant?

Dear Editor,  August 19, 2025

News for the past few weeks announced the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) plan to repeal the “Endangerment Finding” and reported the release of a Department of Energy report –both provide rationale to scientifically challenge the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Amendments to the Clean Air Act (1970, 1977 and 1990) gave the EPA authority to regulate air pollution. That authority did not extend to GHGs. A 2007 Supreme Court decision ruled that GHGs are pollutants even though they don’t contaminate the air but are part of a complex, dynamic system.

That decision was POLITICAL, not SCIENTIFIC--it adopted without data, research, or scientific discussion, the climate narrative that weather events are caused by man and, therefore, we must reduce CO2 emissions. Thus, they labeled CO2 and 5 other GHGs as “pollutants” that threaten public health and welfare.

But is CO2 really a pollutant? Let’s also consider water vapor (what we know as humidity), a more prevalent gas than CO2 in our atmosphere. It represents 0-5% of our atmosphere while CO2 is about 4/100ths of 1% (a trace gas). Also remember that approximately 96% of atmospheric CO2 occurs naturally.

· CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but so is water vapor. In fact, water vapor is a much more predominant and effective GHG. But CO2 is labeled a pollutant, water vapor isn’t.

· Plants grow using the process of “photosynthesis.” That process requires both CO2 and water to support plant growth. But CO2 is demonized, not water vapor.

· Three compounds—oxygen, water, and CO2—are absolutely necessary for life on earth. All three occur naturally—logically, none of them should be considered pollutants.

· CO2 is released by in the burning of fossil fuels and is also the gas that most animals, including humans, exhale. Water vapor is the other major product from the burning of fossil fuels but has never been considered a pollutant.

· There is only intermittent correlation between CO2 concentrations and atmospheric temperature, and certainly no evidence of causation. In fact, many data analyses show that rises in CO2 concentrations FOLLOW rises in atmospheric temperature, not the other way around.

· Many of the alarming predictions about climate change and CO2 concentrations come from computer models. Those models have consistently overestimated the significance of CO2 and have proven to be inaccurate and unreliable. We all need to focus more on the actual data, not the results of the climate computer models.

So, just looking at this simple comparison, it would be hard to justify calling CO2 a pollutant and not also include water vapor. If CO2 is not a pollutant, then it and all other GHGs should be removed from EPA regulatory jurisdiction, and the Endangerment Finding repealed.

Christopher Wright, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, recently wrote:

“Attribution of climate change or extreme weather events to human CO2 emissions is challenged by natural climate variability, data limitations, and inherent model deficiencies… Climate change is real, and it deserves attention. But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity. That distinction belongs to global energy poverty… I know that improving the human condition depends on expanding access to reliable, affordable energy. Climate change is a challenge—not a catastrophe. But misguided policies based on fear rather than facts could truly endanger human well-being.”

The time has come to end expensive and ineffective policies designed to control and/or reduce our CO2 emissions.  Instead, we should be looking to support our citizens with the inexpensive and reliable energy that is needed to improve our quality of life and improve our ability to adapt to ever-changing weather conditions.

John S.S. Kim,

Retired Meteorologist, Chemist, and Educator

Honolulu, Oahu

  *   *   *   *   *

Bill 59 Could Have Stopped Homeless Panhandling in Traffic

Dear Editor,  Aug 8 2025

I am very disappointed Mayor Alameda vetoed Bill 59. This proposed legislation would have addressed the homeless individuals that actively solicit money at intersections.  The mayor’s reasoning for vetoing this bill was on free speech grounds. I can see the logic behind his decision, but it puts the community back at square one.

Bill 59 was flawed, but at least it would’ve created a path to address this public safety issue. The majority of these homeless individuals don’t want help and rather live on the streets soliciting money from the public.

As a result, this isn’t free speech activity like soliciting donations for a sports team. It only benefits the homeless individuals seeking a handout.

I hope the county council overrides Mayor Alameda's veto of Bill 59.

Aaron Stene

Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  *   *   *   *   *

Support Veto of Bill 59

Dear Editor,  August 9, 2025

While I completely agree with Aaron Stene about the panhandling on busy intersections, there are other people using narrow (or not existent) sidewalks. I live in upper Hilo where marginal at best sidewalks exist on the makai side and drainage ditches on the mauka side.

We also have 'flag stops' where people can wait for the public bus system and flag them down - on the same roads.

Many roads, public or not, in Puna are served by school  buses as well - when drivers are available - and those roads do not have sidewalks.

The same is probably true in at least Ka'u and South Kona in a lot of places.

Thank you, Councilwoman Jenn Kagiwada and Councilwoman Michelle Galimba, for voting against it, and Mayor Kimo Alameda for vetoing it.

Aloha,

Maren Purves, Hilo, Hawaii

RELATED: Mayor Vetoes Bill Regarding Roadside Soliciting