By Dr. Robert Thorson

Take a deep breath. That’s oxygen going in. Now exhale. That’s carbon dioxide going out. Did you just pollute the atmosphere? I don’t think so, unless you have halitosis.

Yet attorneys from 12 Northeastern states and several environmental organizations are suing the federal Environmental Protection Agency to classify CO[subscript 2] — the second half of the breath of life — as a pollutant. The case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

I support the CO[subscript 2] lawsuit, not in principle, but in practice. The gulf between principle and practice on this issue is just the latest evidence of the need for a Supreme Court of Scientific Common Sense. Such a court could also decide on political hot potatoes such as stem cell research, a human settlement on the moon or the definition of death. Here’s the principle on the CO[subscript 2] issue.

Every creeping thing exhales carbon dioxide, including the fish, the fowl and the beasts of the Earth. The God of Genesis created animals to help cycle carbon moving between land, sea, life, air and rock … not to pollute the Earth. And if CO[subscript 2] is such a bad thing, then why did every green leaf in the Garden of Eden go after it with a vengeance? They did so to make organic matter — including the forbidden fruit — so that animals like Adam and Eve would have food, fiber and fuel.

Even the landscapes on Earth are products of carbon dioxide. Bacteria living within the forest floor release CO[subscript 2] when they respire. There, it combines with infiltrating rain to make carbonic acid, normally required to weather rocks into mineral soil. Without soil there could be no land of milk and honey.

Without soil, earth could not be carved by wind, rain and water to make valleys or to deposit beaches. Without soil, calcium could not be washed to the sea to make coral reefs or, for that matter, the shells and sands of tropical paradise.

A supreme court of scientists would argue that carbon dioxide is what it is — a chemical compound, a trace gas, a requirement for photosynthesis, a byproduct of respiration and combustion and an important greenhouse agent.

Nevertheless, with the exception of a few scientific whores, those seeking notoriety or those playing devil’s advocate, the de facto court of national, member-elected scientific organizations is resolute that a large and growing surplus of carbon dioxide is indeed a major problem. The downhill path toward climate change is paved with medical, political, economic, ecologic and religious human impacts more dramatic than the world has seen since the Ice Age.

Here’s the practice. Lawyers and politicians, not scientists, wrote the U.S. Constitution. Each of the three branches of government has a built-in problem when it comes to environmental affairs.

The legislative branch is forever beholden to the guy on the street whose highest priority is to make ends meet and who cannot fathom a greenhouse future.

The executive branch is empowered more by issues of the heart (religion, old-fashioned patriotism and taxation) than of the head. One of the president’s most important jobs is to appoint directors of domestic agencies such as the EPA, as well as ambassadors to global organizations — most of which have recently been blatantly obstructionist on this issue.

The judicial branch culminates with the U.S. Supreme Court. It consists of nine smart lawyers, seven of whom were nominated by one political party. In the mental culture of justices, legal precedent and courtroom rules are paramount, even in unprecedented circumstances.

Alas, we’re stuck with constitutional reality. Judgments about complex natural systems will forever be decided by politically appointed courts of lawyers, rather than by scientists. So, setting real reality aside, let’s decide that CO[subscript 2] is a terrible pollutant. Not because it’s bad, but because the lawyers say so.

Perhaps then the U.S. can make some real progress on limiting carbon emissions, which are committing future generations to a slow broil.