CO2 as pollutant for regulation?

I don't know too much, but sounds like the Supreme court will rule in 2007 whether CO2 ought to be considered a pollutant to be regulated by the EPA.

As much as I WANT to be environmentalist, it seems a MISUSE of categories. Mercury is a pollutant because it isn't natural in the environment.

CO2 on the other hand is in a dynamic equilibrium in the environment, existing from life cycles and natural sources.

In order to regulate CO2, it must be seen by its source. Specifically fossil fuel burning (or cement production apparently) release CO2 that comes from sources that are outside natural systems, as compared to the natural net flux.

Regulating SOURCES makes more sense than calling CO2 a pollutant.

Overall it seems a lost cause for me, a straw that environmentalist are reaching for because it FIT within a system, but it WILL fail. I can't imagine the Supreme court ruling in favor of the environementalist side.

Regulation WILL happen, but it'll have to take a harder path than EPA pollution regulation.

Sorry!