It wasn't government regulation that scrapped it, but something called return-on-investment.

Thanks General Motors.
See the movie, Fred.

And as to whether EPA considers GHGs as a pollutant, this from their recently leaked DRAFT nopr assessment:

"1. What Is The Air Pollution?

In applying the endangerment test in section 202(a) or other sections of the Act to GHG emissions, the Administrator must define the scope and nature of the relevant "air pollution" that may or may not be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

The endangerment issue discussed in today's notice involves, primarily, anthropogenic emissions of GHGs, the accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere, the
resultant impacts including climate change, and the risks and impacts to human health and welfare associated with those impacts".

Sounds like pollution to me.

What's funny about this (in a sad way) is that it's exactly the argument that EPA tried to make to the Supreme Court in Massachusetts versus EPA. They lost.

http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=5623

The Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are "pollutants" under the Clean Air Act, and as such EPA has a legal obligation to regulate them (determine the danger to human health and the environment, etc.).

"the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects"

the statement "harmful or poisonous" says nothing about weather it is "naturally occuring". In the case of CO2, as well as many pollutants, it is a question of the concentration of the pollutant.

It is true that most pollutants cause direct harm do to a chemical or biological reaction, and that the concentration of CO2 is not high enough to be a problem directly.

Even so, the indirect effects CO2 does have on the earth's climate are real and legally binding based on the Supreme Courts ruling regarding the Clean Air Act. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040200487.html

the answer of course is less government regulation

open up the Continental shelf, open up ANWAR, allow for more refineries to be built, allow more nuclear power plants to be built, allow the free market to determine the best alternative energy combination….solar, wind, etc.

build more coal fired plants….coal is a plentiful resources…make the plants clean in terms of minimal pollution. i don't count CO2 as pollution since it is a naturally occuring gas in the atmosphere,

less regulation is the only way to maximize the future of world and to keep us from moving back into the 19th century.