Richard Matthews posted Sustainability is an Economic Boon Not a Liability at the Green Market Oracle. Here is my comment in response:
There is no scientific consensus that the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis is correct. Most scientists who do say they believe in catastrophic man-made global warming cannot offer a clear explanation of the scientific theory that claim is based on. Those who offer a theory very often disagree with one another. Then there are many scientists who see the hypothesis as false, though many of them believe that carbon dioxide does cause some warming, which may be regarded as beneficial, not catastrophic. Then there are still other scientists, including myself, who understand that the effects of carbon dioxide on the surface temperature are many, all of them very small, and more of them cooling effects than warming effects. The net result is that CO2 has an insignificant effect. This is why the effect of CO2 has not been measurable to date.
There are many benefits to conserving energy. Those real benefits are best achieved by people individually choosing them, not by government mandates and subsidies. Real benefits will be pursued in the free market. It is only harmful energy policies that need to be imposed by government.
The EPA ruling that CO2 is a pollutant is scientifically unsupported. Its claims that mercury emitted by coal-fired power plants was a real danger were also without scientific justification. Years of mercury precipitation data have failed to show any downwind mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants that can be seen above the dominant natural sources of mercury in the USA. If mercury is such a hazard, there are huge swathes of land in the southern American West and Great Plains states that have to be evacuated due to natural sources of mercury. Yet even in those areas of relatively high natural mercury contamination in the USA, there is no epidemiological evidence of harm to people.
The last sentence in blue was not in the original comment.