This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
I thought this was satire. I decided to type "EPA to regulate water vapor". I haven't found a press release from the EPA confirming it. I did find way too many blogs seemingly discussing it seriously. Blogs apparently quoting from a press conference.
I am afraid to dig much further. I am terrified to find out that it isn't satire. That would mean that I may actually be living in the Matrix. Suddenly, it is necessary to regulate a substance whose primary source covers 70% of the planet and receives a significant portion of the solar radiation that drives our climate.
Suddenly I am reminded of a free energy machine a professor reviewed. A man had set up a contraption to harness the energy of falling water. The man carried buckets of water to the roof and poured them into the contraption. The man could not understand that carrying the bucket to the roof was an energy input.
Maybe my beloved Presidents 16 handicap is more suspect than I thought. He just doesn't notice the ball magically bouncing back to the fairway...
There is so much peace to be found I vaguely remember the Greenies campaigning against man-made water vapour emissions some years ago, but it was for the limited situation of airliners.
I did some Googling and found this press release from Friends of the Earth in 2007 which mentions the issue:
The relevant bit on water vapour is:
"..Aircraft also emit water vapor at high altitude that forms condensation trails or "contrails." Contrails are visible cloud lines that form in cold, humid atmospheres and contribute to the warming impacts of aircraft emissions. Moreover, the persistent formation of contrails is associated with increased cirrus cloud cover, which also warms the Earth's surface.
Together, these high altitude emissions have a greater global warming impact than if the emissions were released at ground-level. A recent report by the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Protection found that the net effects of ozone, contrail and aviation-induced cloud cover is likely to triple the warming effect of aircraft-emitted CO2 alone..."
The UK environmental advisory body referred to in the above extract is actually called the "Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution". It was originally set up by the Wilson government in 1970, but the Coalition government thankfully abolished it in 2011.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was an environmental report somewhere which claimed that water vapour emitted at ground level increased the amount of cirrus cloud cover as well. But I'm not aware of any political climate policy taking on the idea of it being necessary to curb man-made water vapour emissions in some way.
I vaguely remember the Greenies campaigning against man-made water vapour emissions some years ago, but it was for the limited situation of airliners.