There is renewed emphasis on the need to regulate CO2 as a pollutant; e.g. see
Climate Science has weblogged in the past on this issue:
The regulation of CO2 will open a pandora’s box with respect to government regulation. The text in the most recent weblog on this subject stated that
What the listing of carbon dioxide as a pollutant would do is to implicitly declare that any human activity that affects climate could be considered a pollutant. This would logically mean, for instance, that the EPA could regulate land use since, as extensively documented in the peer reviewed literature (e.g. see), landscape change is a human climate forcing.
This plan to regulate CO2 as a pollutant (since it is a human climate forcing) would give them the legal rationale to permit the implementation of additional federal regulations for other human climate forcings including the zoning of how land is developed. Everyone should realize the implications and significance of this potential expansion of federal authority. There may be societal benefits to such broad climate regulation authority, however, this issue should be more effectively discussed and debated than it has been up to the present.