We exhale pollutants
That is why leftists want us dead.
I have known leftists who have been talking like this ....ie wanting humans to die since the seventies.
And they were antiwar at the same time.
Yes, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today, drawing on the statutory definition of "air pollutant" as affirmed by the Supreme Court in its Massachusetts decision, we do indeed. I suppose all mammals do. Methane is also considered an "air pollutant" under the same rationale. Which is why cattle are currently in the crosshairs of those pushing the radical "climate agenda."
I suppose I should add that EPA also considers water vapor to be an "air pollutant" under the Clean Air Act, although it has yet to take action to regulate the emission of such as a so-called "greenhouse gas."
Anyway, below is how the Clean Air Act defines "air pollutant," as that term is used in the Act:
"The term 'air pollutant' means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Such term includes any precursors to the formation of any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term 'air pollutant' is used."
In Massachusetts, the Court opined: "The statutory text forecloses EPA's reading. The Clean Air Act's sweeping definition of 'air pollutant' includes 'any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical... substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air ....' ยง 7602(g) (emphasis added). On its face, the definition embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe, and underscores that intent through the repeated use of the word "any."[25] Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt 'physical [and] chemical ... substance[s] which [are] emitted into ... the ambient air.' The statute is unambiguous."
You see, at issue in the Massachusetts was the decision by the EPA under the George W. Bush administration that it could not regulate the emissions of so-called "greenhouse gasses" because GHGs didn't constitute "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act. But, as, um, explained here, the Court said that EPA was wrong. That is to say, back in the day, the Bush EPA tried to do the (obviously) correct thing, but the Court wouldn't have it.