{"id":368555,"date":"2025-03-04T10:30:18","date_gmt":"2025-03-04T09:30:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=368555"},"modified":"2025-03-04T10:30:19","modified_gmt":"2025-03-04T09:30:19","slug":"hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=368555","title":{"rendered":"Hey, EPA, Why Not Regulate Water Vapor Emissions While You are At It?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Roy Spencer, PhD<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

March 3rd, 2025 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I will admit that the legal profession mystifies me. Every time I say anything related to environmental law, one or more lawyers will correct me. But I suppose \u201cturnabout is fair play\u201d, since I will usually correct any lawyers about their details describing climate change science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lawyers aren\u2019t like us normal people. Their brains work differently. I first suspected this when one of my daughters took the LSAT and gave me examples of questions, most of which my brain was not wired to answer correctly. I became further convinced of this when she went to law school, and told me about the questions they deal with, how lawyers can impress judges just by being novel in their arguments, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I know I could never be a lawyer (even after staying at a Holiday Inn Express), and I never even played one on TV. But I did co-author a paper<\/a> in Energy Law Journal<\/em> (relating to the Daubert Standard) on my view that science cannot demonstrate causation in any rigorous way in the theory of human-caused climate change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regulating CO2: Is the EPA Really Trying to Help Us?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The regulation of CO2 emissions (and some other chemicals) by the EPA has also mystified me. However, many of the EPA\u2019s ~185 lawyers worked on the\u00a02009 Endangerment Finding<\/a>, they must have known that regulating CO2 emissions from U.S. cars and light-duty trucks would have no measurable impact on global climate, including sea level rise (which was a major argument in\u00a0Massachusetts v. EPA<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

None.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But apparently actually trying to \u201cfix\u201d the climate \u201cproblem\u201d is not the EPA\u2019s concern.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Their reason for existence is to regulate pollutants (and it doesn\u2019t matter if Nature produces far more of a \u201cpollutant\u201d than people produce). And once they start regulating it, they won\u2019t stop with certain thresholds. They will keep lowering the threshold. This keeps everyone in jobs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I know this is the case. I once attended a meeting of the Carolinas Air Pollution Control Association (CAPCA), and the keynote speaker (from the EPA) stated, \u201cwe can\u2019t stop making things cleaner and cleaner\u201d. There was a collective look of astonishment in the audience, which was primarily industry representatives who try to keep their companies in compliance with state and federal environmental regulations. I assumed their real-world experience told them it is impossible to make everything 100% clean (what would it cost to keep your home 100% clean?).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And we wouldn\u2019t want to anyway because (as Ed Calabrese has explained in many published papers), it is necessary for resilience in biological systems to be exposed to stressors. I almost never get sick, which I attribute to a pretty filthy childhood of playing in heavily bacteria-contaminated waters, not washing my hands, etc. I was sick a lot then. But not later in life. This is why the EPA\u2019s reliance on the \u201clinear no threshold\u201d assumption (simply put, if a gallon of something can kill you, then one molecule is also dangerous) has little to do with our real-world experience and common sense. Kind of like the legal profession.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, is the EPA really trying to help us? I increasingly believe they are not. They are trying to keep their jobs (and grow even more jobs; coming from NASA, I know how that works). The law (and regulations) are tools to accomplish that. Yes, the EPA has accomplished needed pollution controls through the Clean Air Act. I\u2019m old enough to remember driving through Gary, Indiana in the 1960s, trash lining the highways everywhere, waterways choked with pollution and even catching fire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But at what point does the Government say, \u201cOK, we fixed the problem. Good enough. Let\u2019s not throw the baby out with the bathwater with damaging over-regulation.\u201d No, that doesn\u2019t happen. Because of the perverse way in which environmental regulations are written.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, EPA, What About Regulating Water Vapor Emissions?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EPA regulating CO2 emissions has a few problems, which seem to have not stopped the legal profession from doing what they do best. As I mentioned above, U.S. CO2 emissions from cars and light-duty trucks will have no measurable impact on global temperatures or sea level rise.. You could get rid of them completely. No measurable effect, Yet, here we are\u2026 regulating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since these are \u201cglobal\u201d problems, it has long been known that the EPA (and maybe even the Supreme Court\u2019s Massachusetts v. EPA<\/em> decision) could be on shaky ground, and maybe these are matters better left to legislation by the U.S. Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But what about water vapor emissions from such vehicles? Now, there is a real possibility! Burning of any fuel (especially if we have hydrogen-powered vehicles) produces water vapor. And on a local basis (in your town or city) this extra water vapor will increase the heat index in the summer. And, and as everyone knows, \u201cit\u2019s not the heat, it\u2019s the humidity\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s a local problem caused by local sources of pollution, and seems to be much better suited for regulation by the EPA, which is a U.S. agency, dealing with U.S. pollution concerns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The climate scientists who publish papers about the supposed dangers of greenhouse gas emissions make sure to exclude water vapor from their concerns, claiming CO2 is the thermostat that controls climate. I have commented extensively<\/a> on the sleight of hand before. The vast majority of climate scientists believe CO2 controls temperature, and then temperature controls water vapor. CO2 is the forcing<\/em>, water vapor is the feedback<\/em>. But this argument (as I have addressed for many years) is just circular reasoning. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (did I forget to mention it\u2019s our main greenhouse gas?) is partially controlled by precipitation processes we don\u2019t even understand yet. The climate modelers simply tune their models to remove water vapor (through precipitation processes) in an arbitrary and controlled way that has no basis in the underlying physics, which are not yet well understood. Often, these simplifying assumptions translate into assuming relative humidity always remains constant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But I digress. What I\u2019m talking about here isn\u2019t regulating water vapor emissions for global climate concerns\u2026 it\u2019s to reduce their impact on summertime heat, especially in cities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But why stop at vehicle emissions? Humans exhale lots of water vapor (joggers even more!). Maybe we should limit jogging and the sale of bottled water? Not a big enough problem, you say? Or maybe that\u2019s an FDA thing? I don\u2019t know\u2026 I\u2019m just a simple country climate scientist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As attorney Jonathan Adler commented in response to my recent blog post<\/a> on the Endangerment Finding,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The problem is, the concerns you raise are not relevant in making an endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act. The textual standard is precautionary and does not allow for any cost-benefit balancing or consideration of other trade offs. All that is required is that the EPA administrator can reasonably anticipate some threats from warming to health or welfare, the latter of which is defined quite broadly.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

So, we are back to the regulatory fact that if a \u201cpollutant\u201d (whatever that means) causes any level of threat, discomfort, worry, anxiety, then the EPA is compelled to regulate it. How convenient. Well, I would argue water vapor emissions, especially in the summer in cities, are better suited to regulation under the Clean Air Act than CO2 emissions are.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So Why Hasn\u2019t Water Vapor Been Regulated?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clearly it\u2019s not because water vapor is \u201cnecessary\u201d to the functioning of the Earth system, since CO2 is necessary for life on Earth to exist<\/em>. Which brings me back to my question, is the EPA really trying to help us<\/em> when it comes to climate-related regulation?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019m increasingly convinced that science has been hijacked in an effort to (among other motives) shake down the energy industry. This has been planned since the 1980s. It makes no difference that human flourishing depends upon energy sources which are abundant and affordable. It doesn\u2019t matter how many people are killed in the process of Saving the Earth. The law demands regulation, and that\u2019s all that matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have evidence. In the early 1990s I was at the White House visiting Al Gore\u2019s environmental advisor, Bob Watson, a ex-NASA stratospheric chemist who was just coming off the successful establishment of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer<\/em>. He told me (as close as I can recall), \u201cWe succeeded in regulating ozone-depleting chemicals, and carbon dioxide is next<\/em>\u201c.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keep in mind this was in the early days of the IPCC, which was tasked to determine whether humans were changing the climate with greenhouse gas emissions. Their work was just getting started, including the scientists who would assist the process. But the regulatory goal had (wink, wink, nod, nod) already been established.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, I don\u2019t believe the EPA is actually trying to help Americans when it comes to climate regulation. I\u2019m sure many of their programs (waste cleanup, helping with the Flint, MI water problem, and some others) are laudable and defensible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But when it comes to regulation related to global climate (or even local climate, as the government tries to pack even more people into small spaces, e.g. with \u201c15 minute cities<\/a>\u201c), my experience increasingly tells me no one in the political, policy, regulatory, legal, or environmental advocacy, side of this business really cares about the global climate. Otherwise, they would admit their regulation (unlike, say, regulating the precursors to ground-level ozone pollution in cities) will have no measurable impact. They wouldn\u2019t be trying to pack people into urban environments which we know are 5-10 deg. F hotter than their rural surroundings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s all just an excuse for more power and vested interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I will admit that the legal profession mystifies me. Every time I say anything related to environmental law, one or more lawyers will correct me. But I suppose \u201cturnabout is fair play\u201d, since I will usually correct any lawyers about their details describing climate change science.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":368556,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691824714,691833636,691829997,691833637,691833292,691819359,691822277],"class_list":{"0":"post-368555","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-15-minute-cities-2","9":"tag-2009-endangerment-finding","10":"tag-carbon-dioxide-co","11":"tag-carolinas-air-pollution-control-association-capca","12":"tag-epa-environmental-protection-agency","13":"tag-the-clean-air-act-caa","14":"tag-water-vapor-wv","16":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0roywspencer_13617_sceintists_in_white_lab_coast_standing_in_a_c_443462b3-17d6-4888-82f0-fd56cb3f2561.webp?fit=1398%2C699&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1xSr","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":426833,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=426833","url_meta":{"origin":368555,"position":0},"title":"Endangerment Finding Rescission Victory for Science and Law","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"18\/02\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"On February 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Administrator Lee Zeldin in the Trump administration, finalized a rule rescinding the 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding.","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328-1.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328-1.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328-1.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328-1.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":365658,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=365658","url_meta":{"origin":368555,"position":1},"title":"Erasing the IRA\u2019s \u201cgreenhouse gas pollution\u201d words","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"11\/02\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The infamous Inflation Reduction Act is best known for throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at green causes. Along the way it also says repeatedly and falsely that carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases (except water vapor) are pollution.","rel":"","context":"In \"CO2 Endangerment Finding\"","block_context":{"text":"CO2 Endangerment Finding","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=co2-endangerment-finding"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0205048825_m.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0205048825_m.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0205048825_m.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0205048825_m.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0205048825_m.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":426214,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=426214","url_meta":{"origin":368555,"position":2},"title":"Trump Administration Ends Obama-Era Climate Finding, Repeals Vehicle GHG Standards","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"14\/02\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"On February 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Administrator Lee Zeldin and alongside President Trump, finalized a major rule that revokes the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, a landmark Obama-era determination that greenhouse gases (GHGs) like carbon dioxide endanger public health and welfare. This finding had served\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Biden and Obama administrations\"","block_context":{"text":"Biden and Obama administrations","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=biden-and-obama-administrations"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328-1.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328-1.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328-1.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328-1.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":206864,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=206864","url_meta":{"origin":368555,"position":3},"title":"Massachusetts v. EPA: Where are we now? (the left view)","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/07\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Pamela King reports for the Green Wire\u00a0Massachusetts v. EPA: Where are we now?.\u00a0 Excerpts in italics with my bolds. Environmentalist David Bookbinder:\u00a0 We\u2019re in a really good position because we\u2019ve defined a word (\u201cair pollutant\u201d), and courts are reluctant to redefine a word.\u201d In a\u00a0scathing dissent\u00a0yesterday, Justice Elena\u00a0Kagan rebuked\u00a0her conservative\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/05a1johntennielhumptydumpty.jpg?fit=865%2C1023&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/05a1johntennielhumptydumpty.jpg?fit=865%2C1023&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/05a1johntennielhumptydumpty.jpg?fit=865%2C1023&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/05a1johntennielhumptydumpty.jpg?fit=865%2C1023&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":253132,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=253132","url_meta":{"origin":368555,"position":4},"title":"Oral Argument In CHECC v. EPA: The Issue Of Standing","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"16\/04\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Meanwhile, EPA\u2019s energy transformation imposes its inevitable costs on consumers of electricity, likely to be at least in the hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions \u2014 without doubt the single most costly regulatory initiative of all time \u2014 and the DC Circuit appears to be struggling over whether\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Biden Administration\"","block_context":{"text":"Biden Administration","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=biden-administration"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/020786.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/020786.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/020786.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/020786.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/020786.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":225450,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=225450","url_meta":{"origin":368555,"position":5},"title":"How Many Lawyers Does It Take to Save The Planet?","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"24\/10\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"In-house lawyers are key to shaping green initiatives within their organisations.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-1138.png?fit=1200%2C628&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-1138.png?fit=1200%2C628&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-1138.png?fit=1200%2C628&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-1138.png?fit=1200%2C628&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-1138.png?fit=1200%2C628&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/368555","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=368555"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/368555\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":368559,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/368555\/revisions\/368559"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/368556"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=368555"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=368555"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=368555"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}