By Kennedy Maize
The Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency is declaring that carbon dioxide, a life-giving and ubiquitous atmospheric chemical, is a threat to public health. That’s a completely illogical determination, but also completely expected.
The notion that carbon dioxide is a pollutant has nothing to do with chemistry or physics or biology or climatology, but everything to do with politics. The life-sustaining molecule makes photosynthesis possible. Without CO2 – as even those who want to limit its role in our atmosphere would acknowledge – life on this planet would cease.
Yet, says the EPA in a proposed determination that completely defies science, CO2 is a killer pollutant, a threat to public health. Why? Because CO2, and other trace gases in the atmosphere, allegedly cause the global climate to warm. The increase in these gases, say the advocates of CO2 reductions, are the result of man-made actions, in the form of coal-fired and natural gas power plants, cars, and other uses of fuels derived from dead dinosaurs. There is, of course, no evidence for this assertion.
And is a warmer climate bad? Absolutely yes, say the would-be regulators, again without empirical evidence. Mankind is altering the climate in ways that we can’t predict, based on physical evidence. But they must be bad, the regulators assert. Numerous studies by credentialed academics predict gloom and doom as a result of a warming Earth. Is there any reality beyond computer projections based on unwarranted assumptions? No.
On the contrary, a warmer climate may be a better climate. It’s not by any means a settled argument. People are moving to Florida, South Texas, and other warmer climes for reasons that make sense to them. Global warming, according to many of the dubious computers models, will mean warmer winters, not hotter summers. Who can object to that?
The policymakers – including the Obama administration — assume that climate warming is universally bad, based in part on bogus assessments from academics who want to prove that their apocalyptic visions are valid.
That’s too bad. One can conjure up many scenarios of the results of climate warming (if it is likely). I suspect that Carl Hiassen and Tim Dorsey would view Florida sinking into the sea as a pretty good idea. It would take a long time, providing the two Florida-based eco-and-wacko novelists plenty of material. Nor would they necessarily object to the final outcome.
Skepticism would be a welcome addition to the Obama administration’s science team. That isn’t in the cards. The global warming religion is triumphant in Washington today; heretics should be burned at the stake, as long as that doesn’t result in carbon dioxide emissions. Former Clinton administration energy official Joe Romm has declared that climate change skeptic Freeman Dyson, one of the greatest physicists of the age, is a fool. Romm, I suggest, is the clown in this act.
I’d like to organize a science curriculum on CO2 for grade schooolers. If I could present it before the kids themselves, I would ask, “Is CO2 bad?” I suspect the answer would be a resounding “Yes.” Should it be eliminated entirely from our atmosphere? I’m sure the answer would be “Yes.”
Then I’d ask, “Do you like trees, flowers, fruits and vegetables?” The kids would probably answer, “Yes.” “Do you like dogs, cats, rabbits, and ponies?” “Yes.”
Do you know that if you eliminate all carbon dioxide from the air around us, you will kill all the trees, flowers, fruits, and vegetables; all the dogs, cats, rabbits, and horses? That’s a true statement. Is that what you want?
The answer would be “No.”
The point I’m trying to make is that carbon dioxide is not a “pollutant” in any sentient definition, but an essential part of life. The convoluted reasoning of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases (primarily, but not entirely, CO2) as pollutants defies logic and science.
One can argue that some CO2 is good but too much is bad. That makes logical sense. Ultimately it’s specious in this case. The attempt to define what is “too much” crashes against empirical reality. There is simply no way to determine how much CO2 is too much, in terms of the concentrations we’re talking about today. Is 300 parts per million too much? How about 350 ppm? How does one determine the impact of the difference?
Today, policy on climate change is based on computer models that have very little empirical support. Even the physical mechanisms that the models claim to understand are flakey. They don’t understand the interrelationships among the terrestrial earth, the aquatic planet (70% of the surface of the globe is water), and the clouds that determine so much of weather. In short, they are crap shoots, not precise predictors.
Climate models are worthwhile scientific enterprises. They can help us understand what we know and don’t know about the climate and direct our inquiries. They are not useful guides to public policy. Indeed, they are largely false indicators. Policy makers should view the global circulation models as interesting, but far from determinative, inputs to policy.
The Obama administration’s attempt to regulate CO2 through the existing Clean Air Act is empty-headed, but may be intended to push Congress to act. I suspect the courts will reject the EPA’s attempt to define a life-giving molecule at one concentration as a chemical life-killer at another, at levels of parts per million.
That would put the issue where it belongs: in Congress. Because CO2 emissions are so controversial, and touch so many industries and congressional districts, many of the solons would have been happy to see the issue defined by the courts, absolving them of the need to grapple with the nettlesome issue.
I don’t think that’s going to happen. Congress is going to have to make the decision here, and I suspect it will be that CO2 isn’t a conventional pollutant, despite the views of the environmental community and many in the Obama administration. Back to regulatory and political square one.
Hi Ken,
As usual, I really don’t know where to start. You’ve thrown around so many assertions with zero proof or references, then you start on about grade schoolers and novelists. Also as usual, there are the standard denialist beliefs stated as fact, for example that its all based on computer models, or that climate scientists are producing “bogus assessments” using “unwarranted assumptions”, just to promote their evil agenda.
Just curious, and I’m not trying to be insulting here, but have you actually read much about current climate science? You would at least know the AR4 WG1 report thoroughly, considering that you write often about climate science…right?
To whom it may concern
I am also a CFD modeler, not a complicated climate modeler though, but I truely believe that “garbage in, garbage out in area of numerical simulation and modeling”, if it is true, and I believe it is true instead of humble gesture from
many people’s beloved AR4 WG1 report :”
“There is still an incomplete physical understanding of many components of the climate system and their role in climate change. key uncertainties inlcude aspects of the roles played by clouds, the cryosphere, the oceans, land use and couplings between climate and biogeochemical cycle. …”
Then I can reach my own judgement, the conclusion of IPCC report is very likely garbage, I don’t need to wait 20 years from now and look back at this stuff, it is for policy and decision maker to read, the conclusion is forgone since it is polical driven
When some people charge other people with scientific disagreement as denier according to “mainstream consensus” , then it is dangerous and no longer pure scientific debate. Just like this country’s majority, mainstream believe in Bible/GOD, does that mean GOD really exist?
LOL
Hi Wayne,
Interesting that the IPCC goes to such lengths to point out the areas of uncertainty, as you’ve quoted. Doesn’t really fit the “hysterical” profile or the “evil conspiracy” idea either — why would they painstakingly outline exactly where they might be wrong?
You do realize that the IPCC has issued reports beginning in 1990, and that temperatures have risen steadily since that time? Try looking up the Charney report from ‘79, or Arrhenius’ paper from 1895 …just wondering what your comment about waiting 20 years is based on.
I understand the dislike of the term “denier”, however, there are certain ideas that keep being repeated long after they have been disproven, or they rely on unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. For example in Will Happer’s testimony — that was praised in this blog — he stated that sea levels are not rising. It is easy to look up these trends and find that they are in fact rising. “Denier” may not be a pleasant term, but it is accurate.
Don:
It’s dangerous to read those IPCC reports as scientific GOSPEL that’s why they claim the great unknown and uncertainty. (even they categorize their confident level in the study in percentage, I don’t think any insurance company will sell that climate product)
Because people’s understanding of nature is ever evolving, sometimes fast (remember the 70’s global cooling propaganda? this can be my 20’s years history look back basis)
Unfortunately, the climate research, it’s complexity, our limited understanding of physics, incomplete define of the whole problem in rather simplified modeling,(no consideration what so ever what’s happening inside planet earth) make the whole climate research very very pre-mature, yet, people like you is already taking it like GOSPEL no mention how many, and more and more scientist disagree with the final word/version of IPCC report, (I do not need to cite you the proof that how final wording is twisted from initial results and conclusion from many author)
I don’t know if because the IPCC report is issued by a grand title “United Nation” therefore makes you fully hearted confident on its conclusion while neglecting how many leading meterologist, climate researcher disagree with it at all. I bet you, if you ask Edward Lorenz (father of Chaos theory and climate modeling, unfortunately he is dead) what his opinion on predictibility of climate, you will be dissappointed.
I do get my denier side of fact from peer reviewed journal and report, it just up to you that choose not to read it, just like religious people, selectively read their bible and gospel while claim they know all and agree all of the what Bible said.
I can recommend you two resource to read, one is physics topic since you claim you are physics trained and see yourself what different understanding you have in the frame work of physics compare to those physicist
New Peer Reviewed Study: ‘Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics’ by Gerlich & Tscheuschner
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
Second reading is Arrhenius’ book, not paper,
“Worlds in the making”, about green house gas study and his conclusion of effect of GHS, if you his cherrish 100 + years old research so much
http://books.google.com/books?id=w8QKAAAAIAAJ&dq=worlds+in+the+making,+arrhenius&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=M64rqGkBhb&sig=FXVTbJBbqoUyPcTyOCimAeRriJA&hl=en&ei=YdXtSZjMLY3KM_mCrP8P&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5
Climate is cycle, so is geological record, sea level rise and drop, it does not suprise me at all, what scare me is what coming out of your Nobel peace winner Al Gore, 20 feet in sea level rise in how many years? 20 or 100 years? I don’t even bother to quote his exact infamous scaring tactic words, maybe you will buy his trend prediction? Everybody except you already see why IPCC and Al Gore won Nobel peace price, instead of physics prize. OK, so long, by the way, one of my peer reviewed fact source (you can call it conservative or right wing whatever you like to name) is
http://www.co2science.org
Enjoy
Don:
Do you believe Nobel PEACE prize winner Al Gore’s trend prediction that sea level will rise 20 feet by 2100? That is 67.73 mm rise per year, does your fact wherever comes from and record support Nobel prize winner’s trend prediction?
There is peer reviewed publication, since you claim to be also physicist, try to debunk this:
Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the frame of physics
The popularized Arrhenius study of CO2 effect is 100+ years old, for completeness of history of his study, please read his book ” Worlds in the making, the evolution of the universe”,
since doomer and gloomer cherrish this century old research proposition, please see his conclusion on benefit of CO2.
Don,
I’ve been following the whole greenhouse debate since Al Gore was a junior member of the House Science and Technology Committee in the early 1980s and tried (and failed) to get his alleged mentor, Roger Revelle, to back Gore’s catastrophic vision of the future.
I was at the Senate hearings in 1988 when Jim Hanson claimed the sky was falling.
I’ve read most — not all — of the literature, including work by Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, et. al., which you appear to ignore or deny.
Finally, what EPA is doing with its endangerment finding has nothing to do with science. It’s pure politics. The administration is trying to put pressure on Congress to act on what I regard as an ill-advised cap-and-trade program with the threat of administrative action. If the administration goes forward with EPA regulation, Obama will be sitting in his presidential library by the time the courts sort it out. Same is also likely with Congressional legislation, of course.
If it is in the national interest to reduce CO2 emissions, and I obviously reject that notion, then the only efficient way to do it is with a straightforward carbon tax. And that’s politically impossible.
So, my prediction (easy to make) is that nothing gets done anytime soon, and I’m glad about that. I like CO2.
Hi Wayne,
Al Gore is irrelevant, to me. If I want to know about global warming the last place I would think to check would be a presentation by an (ex-) politician.
I haven’t claimed to be a physicist ( or in any way claim any personal authority in this subject ). If you are not clear on any points I’ve referred to, I’ll be happy to supply appropriate references — that you can check yourself, and that’s my suggestion anyways.
Regarding Arrhenius, I’m not sure of your point. I don’t pick and choose from his conclusions. He believed that rising CO2 emissions would be a net benefit — but he also believed it would take thousands of years to accomplish it. If he had known that emissions would be as large and rapid as they have been he might well have had different conclusions.
Hi Ken,
You’re doing a lot of hand-waving but not getting any grip on the topic
For example “Jim Hason claimed the sky was falling”. Well, Jim Hansen’s testimony is on record, and it is far superior to Will Happer’s. Care to go through each and see who is more accurate?
Regarding Lindzen etc. the more important question is, why do you feel the need to pick and choose individual scientists at all? Would you promote Lindzen similarly if his work didn’t suit your personal views?
I disagree with your conclusion that the EPA endangerment finding is not science. In fact it is almost purely scientific in basis. Read the “Joint Science Academies’ statement : Global response to climate change” from 2005. Especially, read the technical support document for the proposed EPA finding and compare it to current science. According to you these should not be comparable, but in fact they almost look like they were copied and pasted.
Dear Ken
Without getting into the actual anthropogenic global warming debate itself, I would like to comment specifically on the validity of your argument that carbon dioxide is somehow exempt from being considered a pollutant simply because it is a naturally occurring substance that is essential for plant life — and, therefore, human life. My critique is that by basing your argument so heavily on such a thin argument, you distract attention away from industry’s best interests.
Carbon dioxide is not the first substance with positive use to be classified as a pollutant. While examples may be uncommon in the power generation market, in the chemical process industries (my area of expertise) many well-established precedents exist. At certain concentrations these substances are indeed valuable — if not essential — to human life. Like the current proposals for regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs), the natural existence of these substances is not controlled. And in many cases, the industrial emission of these substances into the air, water or ground is all but ignored up to a certain point (which is usually defined on the basis of concentration or mass). A simple, yet important fact that is seemingly ignored in the argument “CO2 is automatically exempt from pollutant status” is that the distinction of pollutant applies exclusively to human activities that exceed certain emission thresholds.
Perhaps the simplest of these examples is warm water, which arguably is essential to the developed world but is also classified by the U.S. EPA and others as “thermal pollution” when released into a nearby stream, river, lake or ocean. Ozone (O3) is classified as a pollutant even though it naturally sustains life on earth (in the stratospheric ozone layer) and has beneficial commercial applications (such as water treatment). Meanwhile, hydrochloric acid is considered a hazardous air pollutant in the U.S. and elsewhere, yet it is produced naturally by the human body for digesting food. The examples go on and on in the chemical process industries.
Regulated levels for these and other pollutants are determined by what scientists have determined to be harmful or potentially harmful. In fact, in a majority of cases, regulated levels for pollutants fall into the latter, potentially harmful category. Consider that the thresholds defined for most carcinogens and toxic substances are determined in experiments on laboratory rats and then extrapolated to estimate toxicity or carcinogenicity in humans. While this description is admittedly rudimentary, it illustrates that the use of imperfect models for determining regulatory limits is also not unique to the proposed policies for greenhouse gases.
The point is that once again a group of scientists has developed a hypothesis about the potentially harmful effects of human activities and has presented enough supporting evidence to raise concern in substantial numbers of the scientific community and the public alike. Regulation is now unavoidable. Flawed arguments don’t do anything to change that and actually hurt industry’s interests by distracting everyone from the important decisions that are already taking place — how those regulations should be defined and carried out.
Industry advocates should instead focus on helping shape greenhouse gas policies that are both effective and realistic in terms of their immediate and longterm impacts on global economics. In this effort, I agree with the premise that more education on greenhouse gases and their proven or non-proven effects is needed. But, instead of diverting to carbon dioxide’s life-giving characteristics, which are part of most elementary-school science classes anyhow, I suggest, for one, focusing on the costs of auctioning versus allocating carbon credits. If you must focus on the greenhouse gases themselves, how about raising awareness of other, lesser-known greenhouse gases with higher estimated global warming potential. For instance, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride and N2O global warming impacts are estimated to be 298–22,800 times that of CO2 (per unit mass) over a 100 year period.
In closing, I should thank you for your blog entry, because in preparing my response to it I accidentally wrote my May Editor’s Page – a task that usually takes much more hand wringing. In fact, much of my comment above is identical to what will appear in our May issue.
Rebekkah Marshall
Editor in Chief
Chemical Engineering
Hi Wayne,
Thanks, but I am well aware of the items you’ve mentioned and linked to.
I notice you can’t seem to stop commenting on my supposed beliefs, Al Gore etc. You’re wasting your time.
Don:
If you think debate on scientific issue and policy making is a waste of time, you won’t be here either wasting your time. No mention I have the honor to hear and read more scientific and political rational regarding the issue from history-sensitive people as well as high profile scientist.
The point that man-made global warming skeptics want to make is that, no government, business should risk spending trillions of dollors and money on some computer model based theory and further prediction that hypothized by a group of scientist and politician. (what is the AGW evidence? polar bear drawning, and melting north pole?)
US is already producing and exporting financial inflation to the world, they are trying to produce the energy inflation or climate inflation by charging tax on the 400 ppm CO2 you are breathing, it is already political and economical driven based on shaky and premature science.
By the way, to complement the main topic of this blog created by Ken, I will cite some real number of CO2 for life here :
Source: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/faq_othr.html
Levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), a colorless, odorless gas, have been known to reach 3,000 parts per million (ppm) in homes, schools, and offices with no ill effects. The maximum recommended by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for an 8-hour occupation is 5,000 ppm (13 times the current level of 380 ppm). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) also use 5,000 ppm as their threshold for occupational safety.
Over the last 350 million years CO2 has varied by 10 fold, approximately 250 ppm to 2,500 ppm with an average level of 1,500 ppm. This average level happens to be the optimum level for plants, it seems by evolutionary design, and is the reason that this level of CO2 is used in greenhouses Since plants and animals evolved together it’s likely that humans also evolved to function best at some higher level.
Hi Wayne,
I’m sorry, but you are merely repeating yourself, for example again asserting that this is merely a “computer model based theory”. Repetition does not make your points more substantial.
Rebekkah,
Sure, anything is a “pollutant,” in that it can cause harm That applies to oxygen and water vapor..
But the CAA defines “criteria” pollutants for regulation. And CO2 is not among them, the courts notwithstanding.
Rebekkah,
Sure, anything is a “pollutant,” in that it can cause harm That applies to oxygen and water vapor at high levels of concentration..
But the CAA defines “criteria” pollutants for regulation. And CO2 is not among them, the courts notwithstanding.
If Congress wants to regulate CO2 (a truly stupid idea), it should do so legislatively, not through a strained interpretation by an activist Republican Supreme Court.
Hi Ken
I’m just now getting to read your response. Indeed, most of my examples describe pollutants that are defined outside of the CAA. But Ozone (one of the “beneficial” pollutants cited above) is, in fact, classified as a criteria pollutant per the CAA. In any case, my only point here is that I think a precedent has already been set. Still, your ongoing projection of gridlock is the bottom line (and would be hard to refute).