EPA to “listen” to (then presumably ignore) the public on power plant CO2 emissions

I’m posting this list of meetings at major cities around the USA in case anyone wishes to go and make your case. Based on my previous experiences, in my opinion, the EPA only does this for show, and they aren’t really interested in listening to the public’s ideas and concerns, but they have to keep up appearances.

OTOH, climate issues have turned sour in the last couple of years, so it is possible they might detect the change, especially if enough people voice negative opinions. It might make some difference to this draconian organization, though when they can’t even get the terminology right, and use “carbon pollution” instead of carbon dioxide, I have my doubts. It might be more satisfying and effective to show up with some rotten fruit and vegetables and pelt them from the audience like in the old days when people didn’t like the show.

There is a place to email comments if you can’t or don’t wish to show up in person.

EPA to Hold Public Listening Sessions on Reducing Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants

Release Date: 10/18/2013
Contact Information: press@epa.gov

WASHINGTON – Following through on President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will hold 11 public listening sessions across the country to solicit ideas and input from the public and stakeholders about the best Clean Air Act approaches to reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants. Power plants are the nation’s largest stationary source of carbon pollution, responsible for about one third of all greenhouse gas pollution in the United States.

The President’s Climate Action Plan takes steady and responsible steps to cut the harmful carbon pollution that fuels a changing climate while continuing to provide affordable, reliable energy. The feedback from these 11 public listening sessions will play an important role in helping EPA develop smart, cost-effective guidelines that reflect the latest and best information available. The agency will seek additional public input during the notice and comment period once it issues a proposal, by June 2014.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions. Before proposing guidelines, EPA must consider how power plants with a variety of different configurations would be able to reduce carbon pollution in a cost-effective way.

For more information on these sessions and to register online, go to: http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/public-listening-sessions. For those who cannot attend these sessions, input can be e-mailed to carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov by November 8, 2013.

More information about EPA’s carbon pollution standards for the power sector: http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards

Public Sessions on Reducing Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants (all times are local):

DATE: Wednesday, October 23, 2013
TIME: 9:00 am – 12 Noon; and 2:00 pm – 5:00 pm EDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 2
290 Broadway, Room 27A
New York

DATE: October 23, 2013
TIMES: 2:00 – 5:00 pm; and 6:00 – 9:00 pm EDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 4
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
Bridge Conference Rooms
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta

DATE: Wednesday, October 30, 2013\
TIME: 9:00 am – 5:00 pm MDT (last 2 hours for call ins)
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street
Denver

DATE: Monday, November 4, 2013
TIME: 4:00 – 8:00 pm CDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd.
Lenexa

DATE: Monday, November 4, 2013
TIME: 10:00 am – 3:00 pm EDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA New England
Memorial Hall
5 Post Office Square
Boston

DATE: Tuesday, November 5, 2013
TIME: 9:00 am – 4:00 pm PDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco

DATE: Thursday, November 7, 2013
TIME: 9:00 am – 8:00 pm EDT
LOCATION:
US EPA Headquarters
William Jefferson Clinton East
1201 Constitution Ave.
Washington, DC

DATE: Thursday, November 7, 2013
TIME: 10:00 am – 3:00 pm CDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 6
Auditorium- 1st floor
J. Erik Jonsson Central Library
1515 Young St.
Dallas

DATE: Thursday, November 7, 2013
TIME: 3:00 – 6:00 pm PDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 10
Jackson Federal Bldg.
915 Second Ave.
Seattle

DATE: Friday, November 8, 2013
TIME: 10:00 am – 4:00 pm EDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 3
William J. Green, Jr. Federal Building
600 Arch Street
Philadelphia

DATE: November 8, 2013
TIME: 9:00 am – 4:00 pm CDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 5
Metcalfe Federal Building
Lake Michigan Room
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago

About these ads
This entry was posted in Carbon dioxide, Coal, Energy, EPA and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

128 Responses to EPA to “listen” to (then presumably ignore) the public on power plant CO2 emissions

  1. BradProp1 says:

    It seems all of the places they are going are either far left or left of center. That really stacks the deck.

  2. Steve Keohane says:

    With statements like:” Power plants are the nation’s largest stationary source of carbon pollution, responsible for about one third of all greenhouse gas pollution in the United States.” Where can one wedge in science? They are so far out in left field, they describe an alternate universe.

  3. Snotrocket says:

    From the EPA announcement:

    “Power plants are the nation’s largest stationary source of carbon pollution, responsible for about one third of all greenhouse gas pollution in the United States.

    The President’s Climate Action Plan takes steady and responsible steps to cut the harmful carbon pollution that fuels a changing climate…”

    The number of words:lies ratio in those two sentences must make even Goebbels feel inadequate. It certainly made me sick that a government agency could issue such clap-trap in the name of its citizens.

  4. Marcos says:

    notice how they equate ‘carbon pollution’ and CO2 release as being the same thing in all of their press releases. its like they are trying to paint the image in the populations mind that CO2 and carbon (particulates/soot) are the same thing

  5. JohnWho says:

    “…about the best Clean Air Act approaches to reducing carbon pollution… “

    Carbon pollution or CO2 pollution?

    I agree – a pertinent question would be whether there is any “CO2 pollution” and whether any regulations are needed regarding it.

    CO2 emissions are not “polluting” our atmosphere. Adding “plant food” to the atmosphere is not a bad thing.

    “… there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

    Hmm…sounds familiar.

  6. Village Idiot says:

    All those needless environmental regulations curbing the raw power of capitalism. But does it warrant your incitement to civil disobedience?

  7. Pat Smith says:

    Anthony, I hate to be defeatist but haven’t we just lost this one? AR5 comes out and, as described in your column by Idso et al Oct 2013, it rows back on most of its earlier alarmist statements. It steps back 34 years to give the same (lower) range of possible climate sensitivities as in 1979, this time with no agreed best guess as they cannot agree. Matt Ridley makes the point in The Times that, even if this is all true, we will still be nett better off from CO2 until at least 2080, perhaps for ever. But it makes no difference. In the UK, we have just signed up to a new nuclear plant with a commitment to pay twice the wholesale price for the resultant output for 35 years and all the mionister can say is we have to do this thing because of climate change and, by the way, it is much cheaper than offshore wind. The juggernaut is just rolling along and the fact that fewer and fewer people actually believe it any more or that the science is looking more and more flakey cannot seem to stop it. Is it just a lost argument and we ought to go and do something else?

  8. Carbon500 says:

    Those who have a grip on reality must email the EPA.
    Carbon pollution? That such idiocy should be propagated beggars belief.

  9. beng says:

    Money & continued progressivism speaks much louder than mere emails. Cutting off funding for the EPA is the only way to make them listen.

  10. Snotrocket says:

    Further to my earlier comment, and in deference to ‘Mann’s a crock’ item from Bishop Hill and here, I have decided that I shall have to invent a new award for statements like the one from EPA. It shall be called the ‘Crock-o’-Doodle-Poo’, rating in the manner of Trip Advisor.

    As such, with two sentences and at least three lies, that alone rates FIVE Crocks.

  11. Phillip Bratby says:

    This is just like in the UK. The Government undertakes public consultations and then ignores all comments that disagree with their intended policies.

  12. Alan Robertson says:

    We have met the enemy and he is… our own government.
    (with apologies to Pogo)

  13. Michael Moon says:

    They take their marching orders directly from the Democratic National Committee, who apparently successfully do fund-raising from this technique. Follow the money, as always. Why do Democrats do what they do? Who knows?

  14. rogerknights says:

    “Lenexa”? What state is that in? (With small towns, it’s standard to give the state as well.)

  15. JohnWho says:

    rogerknights says:
    October 22, 2013 at 7:48 am
    “Lenexa”? What state is that in?

    Since it is high on the EPA’s list of places where the EPA will listen,
    probably the State of Confusion.

    :)

  16. Village Idiot says:

    It’s OK throwing verbal rotting fruit and veg at a Micky Mann effigy in the stocks here in the Village where normal Physical Laws and common civility don’t apply. It’s done routinely. But throwing real stuff at real people in the real world….?

  17. Rob Dawg says:

    Dear EPA,
    Carbon is no more CO2 than are Chlorine and Sodium necessarily salt.

  18. gopal panicker says:

    Carbon Pollution…Wonderful

  19. Chris4692 says:

    rogerknights says:
    October 22, 2013 at 7:48 am

    “Lenexa”? What state is that in? (With small towns, it’s standard to give the state as well.)

    Kansas. It is the location of the EPA Regional headquarters.

  20. Robin Hewitt says:

    Are you sure it is the EPA? It could be a Boggart.

    A Boggart takes on the appearance of the thing it believes will frighten you most. The only thing that defeats a Boggart is laughter. Make it appear ridiculous and it goes away.

    (Apologies to J K Rowling)

  21. These meetings look like examples of the Delphi Technique which is a method to give the appearance of public consensus on a predetermined outcome. The outcome of the meeting has been pre-determined, the goals pre-chosen, and the public’s choices carefully chosen and worded to give the impression of input, but are actually consenting to the pre-determined outcome. Many in the audience are not aware that their input is being directed to the pre-determined outcome.

    If I was near one of those cities, I would attend just to observe their tactics and maybe voice my opinion to see what happens. But public speaking, even in small groups is one of my biggest fears so I probably won’t do it. But, I would encourage attendance and encourage recording the proceedings.

  22. Tim Collins says:

    Take heart from of all places Australia where the public voted en mass to reject a so-called Carbon (Dioxide) tax. The world has woken up to this malarkey.

  23. Robin says:

    Every city the EPA is going to is heavily into the template or reorganizing economic development around Green Energy using largely federal funds (our debt). No mayor is going to give up that power.

    Yesterday I wrote about how all this tracks to the OECD and UN agencies and is the excuse for the Great Transition vision of a new kind of economics. Again bureaucrats and connected individuals are simply not going to give up all this power whatever the temps.

    MIT Press put out a book in 2012 called Ethical Adaptation to Climate Change that goes a long way towards admitting the transformational plans really involved and the need for covering myths to frame popular perceptions. Here’s that explanation http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/adjusting-our-conception-of-who-we-are-to-fit-the-new-global-context-of-being-systems-to-be-managed/

  24. JimS says:

    If a Douglas Fir attended one of those meetings, and asked politely why they are calling a darn good meal, “carbon pollution,” might make an interesting point.

  25. lurker, passing through laughing says:

    Larry Bell has an interview with PSU academics discussing the costs of fear based non-science supported decision making similar to what the EPA is diong today:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/10/22/the-un-ipccs-climate-modeling-procedures-need-serious-remodeling/3/

  26. Jesse G. says:

    They must be afraid to hold meetings in coal mining regions of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky. They’d probably be run out of town (if they got out of town at all).

  27. Bill Taylor says:

    co2 is NOT pollution, the epa starting point is a LIE……..you cant deal with dishonest people and the epa is 100% FRAUD!

  28. Bill Taylor says:

    to the moderator if you fear the truth then dont allow me to post here and go back and remove all my other posts please.

    [Reply: Relax, your comment automatically went into moderation hold because it had the word "fraud". I've approved it now. Next time, give us more than four minutes before you go ballistic. ~mod.]

  29. pat says:

    Political nut cases. They revel in the intensity of their belief, sure of their intelligence and never doubting that they are superior to all about them.

  30. Tamara says:

    “responsible for about one third of all greenhouse gas pollution in the United States.”

    Greenhouse gas pollution? Really?

    I guess they got tired of people pointing out to them that those pictures of “pollution” from power plants were actually pictures of steam. Call it greenhouse gas pollution and water vapor fits, too.

  31. Box of Rocks says:

    Tamara says:
    October 22, 2013 at 9:41 am
    “responsible for about one third of all greenhouse gas pollution in the United States.”

    Greenhouse gas pollution? Really?
    *****

    Yes, really.

    You miss the point of their abuse of the american language in their lust for power.

    As long as the EPA can call CO2 a pollutant, they will try to exert control over it along with control of the economy.

    Time to push back on the ideas of carbon and carbon dioxide being pollutants.

  32. Berényi Péter says:

    “Following through on President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will hold 11 public listening sessions across the country to solicit ideas and input from the public and stakeholders about the best Clean Air Act approaches to reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants.”

    Case is hopeless until
    1. EPA is forced to change language, that is, quit talking about “carbon pollution” when it actually means “carbon dioxide pollution”. Reducing black carbon (soot) emissions is a valid objective, as it is harmful to human health indeed. However, it is very different from CO₂, which is an invisible, odorless life supporting gas, found in trace amounts in the atmosphere, at which level it has no toxic effect whatsoever. If it is included in the broad term “carbon” I can see no reason why water vapor emission is not called “hydrogen pollution”.
    2. The Clean Air Act is amended to exclude substances from the category “pollutant” which are not directly harmful to human health in environmental concentration. That way EPA’s authority over carbon dioxide regulation would be taken away, the most it could do is to propose further legislation concerning carbon dioxide. However, in this case it would be forced to present all documentation in a congressional hearing purported to prove reducing incremental increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are less expensive to the taxpayer than dealing with indirect effects. Congress would also have to make sure any decrease in home emissions is not negated by by other countries, which means no regulation makes sense until supported by a multilateral international agreement, signed and ratified by all major emitters.

  33. Robin says:

    Lurker-

    Here is the attitude towards science and the determination to treat the social sciences as hard and the natural sciences as soft. “Ecologists use science to challenge science on behalf of life. The advocated principle is not the negation of knowledge, but superior knowledge–the wisdom of the holistic vision.” 2006 Tellus Institute as part of this Great Transition documentation.

    That holistic vision is ideology and as I explained in my book when I took on constructivism in math and science in Chapter 3- this is a theory of knowledge that makes “who has the power the principle issue.” And that’s a philosophy we had hoped was left back in the Middle Ages or discredited with Lysenko.

  34. kingdube says:

    Unfortunately there is only one entity on all the Earth that can stop the EPA’s abuse – and that entity is Mother Nature herself.

    The good news is that she is doing so. Global cooling will continue.

    But then, AGW will most likely morph into AGC (Anthropogenic Global Cooling).

    Be warned!!

  35. Are coal fired plants currently releasing dangerous levels of carbon soot pollution (black carbon)?
    If not, they should at least have to change their carbonpollutioninput at epa.gov to carbondioxidepollutioninput at epa.gov and all their other carbon-pollution propaganda.

  36. HankHenry says:

    “So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” Obama

    How about this; create a green thermostat by tying the “huge sum” that is charged for power to what the global surface temperature is. Don’t put the extra charge on the power compay though; put it on the rate charged consumers. Most utilities already have rates that are dictated by some kind of utility commission. It would be cybernetic, democratic, equitable, and green.

    In truth it’s just as well to mothball coal plants (for awhile). There’s a natural gas bonanza right now. They are flaring oil wells in North Dakota:
    GRAND FORKS HERALD, Published October 16, 2013, 03:34 PM
    N.D. group files lawsuits against oil companies for flaring natural gas
    North Dakota mineral owners filed lawsuits today against 10 oil and gas companies seeking damages for natural gas that was flared. The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status. A dollar figure being sought has not been identified, but Braaten said it will be significant.
    By: Amy Dalrymple, Forum News Service

  37. Ron Albertson says:

    Pat Smith says:
    October 22, 2013 at 7:40 am

    ‘…. Is it just a lost argument and we ought to go and do something else?’

    Pat, isn’t that just what they would love us all to do? We must instead do the opposite, which is to ratchet up criticism, never give up.

  38. Bloke down the pub says:

    ‘they can’t even get the terminology right, and use “carbon pollution” instead of carbon dioxide, I have my doubts. It might be more satisfying and effective to show up with some rotten fruit and vegetables and pelt them from the audience like in the old days when people didn’t like the show’

    Perhaps if people threw lumps of coal they might learn the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide.

  39. Mike Abbott says:

    Meanwhile, this good news from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) is largely ignored:

    “U.S. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions declined 3.8 percent in 2012… The 2012 downturn means that emissions are at their lowest level since 1994 and over 12 percent below the recent 2007 peak.”
    http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/

  40. Doug Hilliard says:

    Thanks for the heads-up! Just e-mailed the EPA opposing the whole idea.

  41. noaaprogrammer says:

    Apparently the percent of CO2 dissolved in rainwater is much higher than the percent CO2 in dry atmosphere. We should recommend that the EPA immediately develop technology to scrub all rain clouds free of this horrible pollutant!

  42. Jquip says:

    “notice how they equate ‘carbon pollution’ and CO2 release as being the same thing in all of their press releases.” — Marcos

    “Every city the EPA is going to is heavily into the template or reorganizing economic development around Green Energy using largely federal funds ” — Robin

    “The outcome of the meeting has been pre-determined, the goals pre-chosen, and the public’s choices carefully chosen and worded to give the impression of input, but are actually consenting to the pre-determined outcome.” — J Phillip Peterson

    Yep, complete Dog n’ Pony show.

    “But does it warrant your incitement to civil disobedience?” — Village Idiot

    CD is a one-man revolution. And it only works when the broader journalism in the society is sympathetic to the purpose. Which is not the case here. But it would be amusing as all get out to bring a CO2 monitoring device to the rooms hosting these shindigs. Given the thesis that a given ppm is ‘pollution,’ then it’s simple enough to wait for the ppm to rise above that in a closed room full of exhalers. And then demand compensation in a tort against the EPA for it’s criminal negligence in exposing the public to a pollutant.

  43. davidmhoffer says:

    Pat Smith;
    Is it just a lost argument and we ought to go and do something else?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Actually, we’re winning. But history happens in slow motion. It is like making a u turn with a very large ocean liner. It takes a long time and sometimes you’re not sure if the turn is happening at all. But the one way to ensure it doesn’t is to quit trying.

  44. Jtom says:

    Imagine what would happen if there were a natural increase in the uptake of atmospheric CO2 (by whatever process you can imagine) resulting in a steady drop of it in the air. These fools, and much of the AGW crowd, would be happy to see it drop to zero, without a clue as to what would happen by removing this “dangerous pollutant”.

    Considering that nature seems to have a sense of humor with the Al Gore effect, I would not be surprised if such a downturn in levels actually takes place. How far would the level have to drop before Mann, et al, changed their tune, or would they claim the CO2 was only hiding and one day spring up to destroy us?

  45. JimS says:

    Plant more trees in China – carbon “pollution” problem solved!

  46. davidmhoffer says:

    All,
    Might I suggest that we crowd source some questions here for people who actually go to the meeting to ask? Sending them by email is futile in my opinion, they will never see the light of day. But asking the right question in public that makes the audience go WTF? and gets the attention of any press in the room, that’s worth doing. Here’s a couple of my suggestions:

    1. Given that the United Nations has just released a report saying that the effects of warming will be beneficial until at least 2080 and perhaps longer, why are we doing this now?

    2. Given that for every ton of Carbon we mitigate here, countries like China, India and others are planning on burning 100, aren’t we just spitting into the wind?

    Those are off the top of my head, I’m sure others can come up with more. The strategy in things like this is to have a single concise question that puts the moderators in a tight spot. A question they can’t simply ignore without looking like they have something to hide, and yet makes them look foolish if they try and answer it. There’s a part 2 to this strategy though, which is that if you do spark a discussion, that you know your facts. Being able to quote exactly the report down to the page number that your claim comes from for example. Have a printed copy handy. And be prepared to be approached by press and others after the meeting with follow up questions.

  47. Here is the recommended safe level of CO2 concentration as defined by NASA:
    “We discuss strategies for highly-efficient, regenerable removal of CO2 that could meet the 1000-day SMAC (Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentrations) of 0.5%, which would apply to long-duration voyages to Mars.” That’s 5000 ppm.

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NM7m8UlzMsgJ:ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090029352_2009029386.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=mx&client=firefox-a

  48. aaron says:

    So. I guess these discussions will open with ways to keep CO2 levels in the immediate area around power plants below toxic level. Or determining a threshold where CO2 becomes significantly toxic.

  49. CD (@CD153) says:

    CO2 as “carbon pollution”. Orwellian Newspeak if I ever saw it. Change/rewrite the term for a beneficial gas when you want to alter people’s perception if it and launch a propaganda war against it.

    “Beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”
    – Syme from Nineteen Eighty Four

    George Orwell’s Oceania from his Nineteen Eighty Four novel is alive and well at the EPA and the eco-left. O’Brien would be proud.

  50. eyesonu says:

    Before I view the comments here note that the locations are Grand Central for the squirrels in the US population. Not sure about the one in Kansas. This is a show and the EPA must go.

  51. aaron says:

    Sent to epa:

    Is this a discussion on carbon particulate emissions? The title says carbon pollution, but the text mentions CO2.

    Is the EPA planning to develop methodology to determine what levels of CO2 in the areas around power plants become significantly toxic enough to need reduction measures? I would suggest they use the methodology used for other toxins. But is this even worth the time. It doesn’t seem plausible that toxic levels could be reached even in the immediate area of a power plant, not even at the stacks. CO2 is a diffuse gas and carbon particulate emissions are already well regulated.

  52. davidmhoffer says:
    October 22, 2013 at 10:58 am
    “…But asking the right question in public that makes the audience go WTF? and gets the attention of any press in the room…”

    Q: Mr EPA, by referring to carbon-pollution, are you really referring to carbon dioxide?
    Follow-up Q: So are you saying that CO2 is a pollutant? Is that a scientific fact?

  53. Follow-up question: Mr EPA, at what concentration in % or ppm does CO2 become a “Pollutant”?

  54. Village Idiot said:
    October 22, 2013 at 7:38 am
    All those needless environmental regulations curbing the raw power of capitalism.
    —————————
    That is their real aim. You’re no idiot!

  55. BW2013 says:

    Can I get a CO2 reality synopsis that I can present them at one of the meetings? I am an engineer, not a scientist, so I need clear statements, simple sentences.

    Thanks

  56. From their own website, they don’t say carbon pollution is Carbon Soot or Black Carbon – it’s Carbon Dioxide:
    http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/ghg-large.gif
    and
    http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards

  57. thallstd says:

    Building on the questions to submit, I offer this one: Mr EPA, If the US were to reduce it’s CO2 emissions to ZERO tomorrow what impact would that have on global temperatures?

    My ballpark calculations are that in about 300 years temps would be about 1 deg C lower than if we continue to emit at our 2010 rate. It would be good if others here computed the same to arrive at a range of values.

  58. Chad Wozniak says:

    The EPA is a rogue agency, in fact it is a flat-out criminal enterprise stealing property from citizens and violating wholesale the constitutional rights of property owners under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. And it’s obvious that the Supreme Court will do nothing to stop the EPA from its vandalism.

    One would hope that red states like Texas and the coal states will fight the EPA to the bitter end. They could pass laws making it a crime to use false information as the basis for shutting down a power plant. They could declare the EPA to be a criminal enterprise and punish its operatives, under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. I hope they do something like this.

  59. Wyguy says:

    The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help. ‘Ronald Reagan’

  60. john robertson says:

    Why does the Obama EPA bother?
    Surely they can just ask the NSA what each and everyone of us think on this CAGW nonsense.
    Sarc? Damned if I know anymore.
    Allan Robertson at 7.44.
    How true, this CAGW scam was orchestrated by our bureaucracies, promoted by the same and is currently being protected from investigation by both politicians and the bureaus.
    Cheifio terms them Fuddites in honour of their methods.
    Of course the 7 laws of bureaucracy would cause this same shambles.

  61. SAMURAI says:

    Where does the EPA get off calling CO2 “Carbon pollution”…. Pass the duck tape, my head is about to explode.

    Welcome to the Orwellian world of 1984 meets Alice in Wonderland…

    Why not call Co2 “plant food” instead as that would be far more honest and descriptive.

    EPA has the gall to even mention Climate Change? What Climate Change? Are they referring to: Flat/falling temperatures? Fewer hurricanes? Slightly more precipitation, Fewer tornadoes? fewer droughts?

    Yeah, I guess those would mean the climate is changing for the better, but shouldn’t the EPA actually be advocating MORE plant food emissions to improve the environment with: increased crop yields, increased forest growth, increased plankton growth, less need for irrigation, less need for chemical fertilizers, increased arable land, increased greening, increased root formation that reduces soil erosion, etc?

    And so it goes….until freedom and sanity are restored.

  62. Frank K. says:

    Meanwhile…

    The arctic sea ice is refreezing very nicely and antarctica sea ice is setting records. Tornado activity is way down this year. And just where are the Atlantic hurricanes??? Oh yeah, we have Lorenzo (top winds 50 mph) roaring eastward [LOL]…

  63. kingdube says:

    Let’s refer to CO2 as Vitamin C…(O2).
    i.e. with a short delay at the ellipsis.

  64. AndrewR says:

    If I lived anywhere near one of these snake oil shows, I would be very tempted to set up a table outside and ask folks to sign the Petition to Ban Di-Hydrogen Monoxide. Odds are good I would get lots and lots of signatures…

  65. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:

    I see the meeting in Atlanta is tomorrow, which I absolutely cannot make. I also have email addresses for my Senators and Congressman, so I can express my opinions more conveniently. Doubtless they will still be ignored.

  66. Bruce Cobb says:

    It seems a bit like tilting at windmills. What’s needed is a battering ram.

  67. Although none of the meetings are in a city near coal producing areas such as Pittsburgh PA or Charleston WV, I can only hope those in attendance at these listening sessions will make the case for the coal producing public.

  68. I watched their video presentation on the EPA website. They did keep talking about “carbon pollution” which I think most people think is carbon soot or carbon (coal) dust (or black carbon) from coal etc. (that’s what I keep thinking until I viewed their website) They don’t really mention until at the end of their 33 minute presentation that carbon pollution, which they mention a plethora of times, really means carbon dioxide pollution.

    Overview presentation of Clean Air Act Section 111:

    I think at these meetings people should voice outrage that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. I would loudly state that referring to CO2 as “carbon pollution” is Orwellian Newspeak if I ever saw it. (as CD (@CD153) pointed out: October 22, 2013 at 11:13 am )

  69. Chad Wozniak says:

    I suppose there’s no way one can call in at these EPA pep rallies and make one’s voice heard? If anybody here knows how to do this, please post it here!

  70. Map of EPA regions: http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/visiting-regional-office
    List of hearing locations:
    New York, Reg. 2, 10/23
    Atlanta, Reg. 4, 10/23
    Denver, Reg. 8, 10/30
    Lenexa (SW Kansas City), Reg. 7, 11/4
    Boston, Reg (1), “New England”, 11/4
    San Francisco, Reg. 9, 11/5
    Washington, D.C., EPA HQ, (part of Reg. 3), 11/7
    Dallas, Reg 6, 11/7
    Seattle, Reg. 10 11/7
    Philadelphia, Reg. 3, 11/8
    Chicago, Reg. 5, 11/8

    So 11 hearings, held on 6 individual days in a span of 13 work days.
    8 hearings crammed into 4 work days in 5 calendar days.
    There is no time for thought and reflection. These are Potemkin hearings.

    I love the lack of logic in putting Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands in Region 2, with NY and NJ, but Hawaii is in Region 9 with California.
    Alaska is in with Reg. 10 with WA, OR, ID.

    What is the environmental logic of using the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers to divide EPA Regions?

  71. A.D. Everard says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    October 22, 2013 at 10:58 am

    All,
    Might I suggest that we crowd source some questions here for people who actually go to the meeting to ask? Sending them by email is futile in my opinion, they will never see the light of day. But asking the right question in public that makes the audience go WTF? and gets the attention of any press in the room, that’s worth doing. Here’s a couple of my suggestions:

    1. Given that the United Nations has just released a report saying that the effects of warming will be beneficial until at least 2080 and perhaps longer, why are we doing this now? … [etc.]

    *

    Excellent advice! I love the first question! If I was an unknowing person in the audience, that would have me sit up and want the answer.

  72. Janice Moore says:

    Pat, Pat, dear, discouraged, Pat. Take heart! As Ron Albertson and David Hoffer so eloquently put it: the battle is NOT lost; you mistake the mere existence of enemy forces for their imminent victory. After “the end of the beginning,” it was years before the enemy were finally defeated in WWII. Even then, the communists made perpetual vigilance necessary. And, so too, we will need to be forever ready to defend truth wherever it is attacked. The war for truth in science is WON. It is just a matter of time until real money (yes, it is really they, those who stand to make money off of “carbon pollution,” who are the controlling drivers of AGW; the EPA, disgusting as it is, is merely a tool — what they think in their own minds about their importance is irrelevant) goes elsewhere. In Germany it already is.

    Defeatism is powerful. Take a lesson from one who, at the time, had every reason to expect the defeat of his country, yet chose to say:
    “We shall never surrender!”

    Pat, they won!

  73. GunnyGene says:

    EPA is also pushing forward on their “Water is Pollution” regulations under the Clean Water Act. Which would give them control over every drop of water on the continent – yes Mexico and Canada are in on this – including my catfish pond. And since I have a septic tank, presumably the number of flushes I’ll be permitted per day. All this because of a bogus “study” they commissioned that “proves” all water is connected. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/21/gop-lawmakers-grill-epa-on-water-reg-power-grab/

  74. Jimbo says:

    Pat Smith says:
    October 22, 2013 at 7:40 am
    ……………The juggernaut is just rolling along and the fact that fewer and fewer people actually believe it any more or that the science is looking more and more flakey cannot seem to stop it. Is it just a lost argument and we ought to go and do something else?

    Absolutely not? As has been pointed out before they don’t care whether CAGW is a crock. They want the regulatory bodies and regulations in place as soon as possible. The Pachauri’s and other greedy capitalists want to cash in on the ensuing regulations and new industries. This is what it’s all about. See how many landowners in the UK are cashing in on wind farms on their huge lands. Gore bailed out on green when the profits shrunk though. See Lord Stern and his carbon investments and remunerations after accusing vested interests of trying to stop action on climate change. There are many, many more climate con artists at work here.

    It’s driven by money, power and control. That’s it.

  75. Jimbo says:

    Typo:
    Absolutely not? should be Absolutely not.

  76. Good post Janice – “We shall never surrender!”

  77. Jimbo says:

    In the EPA link posted above all I see is “carbon pollution”. Would that be soot or co2? Are they trying to pull a fast one? Geologically, since life began, I vaguely recall that this is the second time the Earth has experienced such low levels of Co2. It has been lower, but it’s still low by geological standards. Secondly, if co2 is currently a pollutant then why is the Earth’s biosphere as a whole and arid and arable areas responding so enthusiastically to the trace rise of this trace pollutant?

  78. M Simon says:

    Climate Action Plan ? I think they left out the R.

  79. Jquip says:

    davidmhoffer: “2. Given that for every ton of Carbon we mitigate here, countries like China, India and others are planning on burning 100, aren’t we just spitting into the wind?”

    3. Given that Carbon is a pollutant, and that India and China are using Carbon as a weapon of mass destruction, does the EPA support military confrontation with these rogue states?

  80. Janice Moore says:

    @J. Philip Peterson — thanks!

    Re: your fine comments above, while you may not want to do the speaking, you are obviously EXCELLENT at the research and writing necessary to create the foundational documents without which there would be no hearing. Find someone to be your Aaron and you would be a powerful team!

  81. M Simon says:

    Carbon pollution? Humans have a significant amount of carbon in their bodies. They also exhale it.

    Connect the dots.

  82. observa says:

    Are the EPA folk cycling to the meetings or going on horseback?

  83. Lauren R. says:

    If you attend one of these hearings, do not waste your time arguing: a.) that CO2 is not a pollutant, or b.) that the EPA has no authority to regulate CO2 emissions. Rational people find both of these to be ludicrous propositions, but don’t waste your breath. The Clean Air Act and the bizarre 5-4 decision in 2007 (thanks to Justice Kennedy) by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency gives them legal authority to regulate CO2.

    What you SHOULD ask:

    1. How the EPA determined in their December 7, 2009 “endangerment finding” that CO2 and 5 other “greenhouse gases” were a danger to public health but ignored the most potent one of all, water vapor. Present facts and figures about the potency of water vapor and the comparatively small (and logarithmic) effect of CO2.

    2. What exactly are the dangers to public health from CO2? How did they determine the net effect of human CO2 emissions is a danger to public health rather than a boon to public health? (For example, it is well known that a warmer climate presents far fewer health dangers than a colder one.) Present facts and figures about public health and warm vs. cold climates.

    3. What does the EPA determine is a “safe” amount of CO2 emissions? How is that determined; what is the methodology?

    4. What cost/benefit analysis was done to determine a safe level of CO2 emissions?

    5. How much will EPA’s restriction of CO2 emissions reduce warming and lower sea levels, which are presumably the main “public health dangers”? At what cost?

    6. How much will EPA’s restriction of CO2 emissions increase the cost of power and what will the net effect of the higher cost of power be on poor people and their ability to stay warm in winter?

    FYI, the EPA has a process for determining which substances are considered pollutants (“may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” § 7408 (A)). Carbon dioxide, for reason obvious to any sentient being still capable of rational thinking, was not considered a pollutant and not regulated by the EPA. That changed after the Supreme Court decided 5-4 on April 7, 2009 in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency that the EPA is “required” to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The petitioners were a who’s who of liberal states’ governments and extreme liberal organizations (Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc.). Once the EPA establishes it is a “pollutant”, they are then required to regulate it. They produced an “endangerment finding” on December 7, 2009 (the date that will live in infamy) that declared that CO2 and 5 other “greenhouse gases” are a danger to public health and welfare, thus defining it as a pollutant. Appeals had to be filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by February 16, 2010. After that, you basically can’t argue against their finding that these greenhouse gases are a danger.

  84. kingdube says:

    J. Philip Peterson says:

    October 22, 2013 at 1:49 pm
    They don’t really mention until at the end of their 33 minute presentation that carbon pollution, which they mention a plethora of times, really means carbon dioxide pollution.

    Someone should inform the EPA that their insidious deception could be improved if they never mentioned CO2 but only spoke to “carbon pollution” – not.

  85. Bill Illis says:

    Aren’t these meetings just going to be a circus of every green fringe group in the area protesting outside and every green fringe leader monopolizing the microphones inside.

    Any rational speaker will just get shouted down.

    Or do you think the EPA will organize the meetings to have calm rational input?

  86. Lauren R. says:

    “The feedback from these 11 public listening sessions will play an important role in helping EPA develop smart, cost-effective guidelines that reflect the latest and best information available.”

    Let’s help the EPA understand the latest and best information available. Cite sources in scientific literature. For example:

    Greenhouse gas emissions are down 12% in the U.S. since 2008 and are now at 1996 levels and continue to trend downward even as the economy improves. The majority of that decline is due to lower emissions from power plants, largely because natural gas is supplanting coal as the predominant fuel.

    http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/05/whats-behind-the-good-news-declines-in-u-s-co2-emissions/

    Given that: a.) emissions are already decreasing and have been for the last 5 years, b.) the trend is toward fewer coal plants and more natural gas plants, c.) the U.S. is already meeting Kyoto protocol targets for greenhouse gas emissions and appears to be on track to reduce emissions further to the ultimate Kyoto target of 7% below 1990 levels–even without signing the Kyoto Treaty; why is it necessary to regulate carbon dioxide emissions of power plants and require them to use expensive carbon capture technology? In other words, since we’re already getting remarkable results without regulation, why do we need regulation?

    Don’t mess with success, EPA.

  87. Brian H says:

    Given that the US is already emitting less because of increased NG use, and yet global emissions are inevitably rising fast because of India, China, and the third world, the entire EPA effort is revealed as pointless from the get-go, even assuming the CO2=pollution nonsense.

  88. The day my mother socked it to , the obama valley epa………..

  89. The problem is that the amount of CO2 emitted by humans, (3-4%) of the total natural emissions, doesn’t matter because it isn’t causing global warming, er climate change, er climate disruption, er etc.
    The EPA, President, Congress, Senate, & Judiciary have to be informed of this – over and over and over & over again, until it sinks in, for god sake!…

  90. Jquip says:

    Lauren R: “In other words, since we’re already getting remarkable results without regulation, why do we need regulation?”

    Because a pay off without a stated reason is called a bribe.

  91. F. Ross says:

    Since there is zero chance of the EPA considering any meaningful and unbiased input, what would be the point for any reputable scientist or other qualified person in submitting any testimony?

    The agency is, almost without exception, peopled by those who already “know” the answers they want.

    The choice of wording in the press release shows that the outcome is already decided.

    Not meaning to insult the skunks of the animal world, but he EPA seems to have more than its share of Mephitis mephitis in its employ; the kind of people whose decisions reek to high heaven.

    …no, sorry, that’s an insult to all the decent skunks of the world.

  92. F. Ross says:
    October 22, 2013 at 8:33 pm
    “The choice of wording in the press release shows that the outcome is already decided.”
    Yes you are right it’s the Delphi Technique for public meetings:
    Just one of many YouTube examples:

    It’s only about 14 minutes long. Rosa Korie has some better examples if you rally want to get into it.

  93. really not rally, But maybe we should rally!

  94. Brian H says:

    Really? Rally the troops, then!

  95. Here’s a sample of what the EPA meeting might be like if enough people show up to voice their opinions.:

    I think we should record these EPA meetings. (if they allow it).

  96. bobl says:

    Actually,
    I would suggest than rather than tackle the EPA you tackle the power companies. What should be done is suggest to all the Power generators that they switch off their dirty CO2 producing generators – diesel, coal, or gas types – all at the same time for 48 hours starting at earth hour each year with a press release reminding your population that this is what decarbonising means for America and how purifying it will be. Giving credit to the EPA, greens and Climate NGOs for the resultant crippling policies on their businesses….

    I think such acts of civil disobediance by power generation companies even on a small scale would be really effective. An email campaign showing there is genuine public support for a revolt against the EPA might help precipitate something.

    This has been suggested for Australia too, but most of our generators are run by state governments.

    Bob

  97. F. Ross says:

    bobl says:
    October 22, 2013 at 10:24 pm
    “…
    What should be done is suggest to all the Power generators that they switch off their dirty CO2 producing generators – diesel, coal, or gas types – all at the same time for 48 hours starting at earth hour each year with a press release reminding your population that this is what decarbonising means for America and how purifying it will be. Giving credit to the EPA, greens and Climate NGOs for the resultant crippling policies on their businesses….
    …”
    Bob

    [+emphasis]
    Agree completely with your post. I have suggested similar actions in the past but I never thought of doing it during fiasco that is earth hour . How fitting that would be, especially if the prime area affected were Wash. D.C.

  98. rogerknights says:

    The laws mandating these listening sessions were passed before e-mail became so common. They aren’t necessary in an age of e-mail, which provides a way for more people to have input, and for the best presentations to achieve a higher average level.

  99. George Lawson says:

    Hmm…sounds familiar.

    Village Idiot says:
    October 22, 2013 at 7:38 am
    ‘All those needless environmental regulations curbing the raw power of capitalism. But does it warrant your incitement to civil disobedience?’

    Whilst capitalism has to be curbed, do remember it is capitalism which has given you your lifestyle and the means by which you have been able to buy your home and which has provided the highest standard of living in the history of the world. Russia, China and india have all seen the light of capitalism over recent years.
    No we don’t want civil disobedience, unlike Greenpeace, Hanson and other misguided bodies who feel they are allowed to break the law at will, and start complaining when they are prosecuted and imprisoned for so doing.

  100. D. Patterson says:

    Note, the EPA is asking for registrations to attend, suggesiting there may not be enough room to accomodate everyone who may want to attend the meeting. One hoary old political tactic is to stack the deck against any opposition by loading the room full of supporters who are selected to attend, while not selecting or limiting members of the opposition.

    Is anyone considering attending the Seattle session on November 7th, 2013?

  101. Lil Fella from OZ says:

    They listen but will they hear?

  102. D. Patterson says:

    Jquip says:
    October 22, 2013 at 7:46 pm
    Lauren R: “In other words, since we’re already getting remarkable results without regulation, why do we need regulation?”

    Because a pay off without a stated reason is called a bribe.

    See:
    Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets
    by Peter Schweizer

    The EPA is used as part of an extortion racket to solicit funding and political support.

  103. Many people argument that adding plant food (Co2) to the atmosphere is a good thing. What about adding plant food (sewage) to the water, that should be a good thing too, or what?

  104. Bruce Cobb says:

    Your argument, Jan, comparing life-giving CO2 to sewage is that of a retarded person.

  105. JohnWho says:

    Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
    October 23, 2013 at 2:42 am
    Many people argument that adding plant food (Co2) to the atmosphere is a good thing. What about adding plant food (sewage) to the water, that should be a good thing too, or what?

    CO2 is a very specific element.

    “Sewage” encompasses a wide range of “stuff”. What particular portion of sewage are you referencing?

    No one says “adding factory stack gasses to the atmosphere” is a good thing. Many actual pollutants there, just as there are in sewage.

    I’m being kinder than Bruce Cobb above, but his implication that your question lacks thought seems reasonable.

  106. hunter says:

    Jan must work for the EPA…maybe even the science adviory office of the White House.

  107. D. Patterson says:

    Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
    October 23, 2013 at 2:42 am
    Many people argument that adding plant food (Co2) to the atmosphere is a good thing. What about adding plant food (sewage) to the water, that should be a good thing too, or what?

    Sewage is a conglomeration of a very large number of molecular compounds and atomic elements, many of which are living organisms that are harmful pathogens, whereas Carbon dioxide is a single and simple molecular compound that is harmful to humans and the biosphere only in excessive quantities not presently experienced in the Earth’s atmosphere. In other words, your example is a absurdly false comparison deliberately designed to deceive with a false analogy.

    To follow the logic or illogic in your false analogy, you could just as easily conclude water H2O is an environmental pollutant, because it too is harmful to humans and the environment, albeit in excessive amounts. This of course could then be used by the EPA to control the amount of water vapor emissions by humans to the atmosphere and the waste water. After all, water is also plant food, the same as Carbon dioxide and sewage.

  108. Jeff Alberts says:

    thallstd says:
    October 22, 2013 at 11:50 am

    Building on the questions to submit, I offer this one: Mr EPA, If the US were to reduce it’s CO2 emissions to ZERO tomorrow what impact would that have on global temperatures?

    My ballpark calculations are that in about 300 years temps would be about 1 deg C lower than if we continue to emit at our 2010 rate. It would be good if others here computed the same to arrive at a range of values.

    That would play right into the alarmist specious argument, that it’s not the here and now that matters, but future generations. They obviously think future generations want a cold, lifeless world.

  109. Jeff Alberts says:

    J. Philip Peterson says:
    October 22, 2013 at 9:36 pm

    I think we should record these EPA meetings. (if they allow it).

    There are many video recording apps for Android phones which won’t make it obvious you’re recording. Just start it before you go in and leave the phone on your belt. Simple. Or just start your phone’s audio recorder before entering. Unless they confiscate everyone’s phones, should be easy.

  110. D. Patterson says:
    October 23, 2013 at 6:32 am
    Sewage is a conglomeration of a very large number of molecular compounds and atomic elements, many of which are living organisms that are harmful pathogens, whereas Carbon dioxide is a single and simple molecular compound that is harmful to humans and the biosphere only in excessive quantities not presently experienced in the Earth’s atmosphere

    Good point, sewage cannot be directly compared to CO2 since sewage can contain directly harmful contents like heavy metals and bacteria. But those elements are usually not the primary concern with sewage. The most visible and usually primary concern by sewage to water is excessive fertilizing by adding too much phosphorus and nitrogen, which are causing overgrowth of algae. This is the reason I draw the analogy by plant food from sewage (Nitrogen and Phosphorus) and CO2.

    The thing is that much of the stuff we call pollutants are perfectly harmful things, but they are located in the wrong places or in excessive amounts. Nitrogen and phosphorus are harmless nutrition’s in most cases, but cause problems when we get too much of it. Sulfur is another example of a harmless element in most cases, but when burnt it can form SO2, which can combine with water to form to sulfuric acid, causing acid rain, which used to be a large environmental problem.

    My point is that CO2 can be said to be plant food, but that does not make it harmless. CO2 can rightfully be called a pollutant simply because it is an unwanted by-product we get rid off by emitting it to the atmosphere.

  111. Steve P says:

    Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
    October 23, 2013 at 2:57 pm

    The thing is that much of the stuff we call pollutants are perfectly harmful things…

    Yes, and this is just as it should be.

    My point is that CO2 can be said to be plant food, but that does not make it harmless. CO2 can rightfully be called a pollutant simply because it is an unwanted by-product we get rid off (sic) by emitting it to the atmosphere.

    I see.

    Now comes the point we’ve all been waiting for, when you Mr. Anderson, specify the harm being done by CO2.

  112. The EPA’s endangerment finding regarding CO2 emissions was illegal under the Daubert standard. The Daubert standard disambiguates the polysemic term “scientific” for the courts of the United States. Under this standard, testimony taken to be dispositive by the EPA was not scientific under the Daubert standard though being claimed to be scientific by the EPA..

  113. BW2013 says:

    need links for backup on this claim.

  114. Steve P says:
    October 23, 2013 at 4:33 pm

    Now comes the point we’ve all been waiting for, when you Mr. Anderson, specify the harm being done by CO2.

    Well, I don’t know if all is waiting for that, but thank you for the attention anyway.

    The thing is that I think it’s worrying that human activity has elevated the CO2 content in the atmosphere by approximately 40%. I think it’s worrying to know that the change is a global. Every breath you take whether in Africa’s jungle or the pacific islands have elevated CO2 content caused by human activity.

    You may say that we have been there before, CO2 levels were higher in the past, but that is millions of years ago. Many of today’s species did not exist then.

    We may not know all consequences but there have been words about climate change and more acidic water.

  115. D. Patterson says:

    Good point, sewage cannot be directly compared to CO2 since sewage can contain directly harmful contents like heavy metals and bacteria. But those elements are usually not the primary concern with sewage. The most visible and usually primary concern by sewage to water is excessive fertilizing by adding too much phosphorus and nitrogen, which are causing overgrowth of algae. This is the reason I draw the analogy by plant food from sewage (Nitrogen and Phosphorus) and CO2.

    The EPA says your statement, “directly harmful contents like heavy metals and bacteria. But those elements are usually not the primary concern with sewage. The most visible and usually primary concern by sewage to water is excessive fertilizing by adding too much phosphorus and nitrogen, which are causing overgrowth of algae.” is false.

    “United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Environmental Regulations and Technology. Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in Sewage Sludge (Including Domestic Septage) Under 40 CFR Part 503; EPA/625/R-92/013 Revised July 2003…Chapter 2 Sewage Sludge Pathogens. 2.1 What are Pathogens?…Pathogens that propagate in the enteric or urinary systems of humans and are discharged in feces or urine pose the greatest risk to public health with regard to the use and disposal of sewage sludge.”

    Clearly, the overgrowth of algae, which removes Carbon dioxide from the atmosphered is not the greatest risk to public health by any means. On the contrary, it is algae which is used to clean water in sewage reclamation plants and in the natural environment. Although algae can pose problems in the environment like any other natural organism with and without anthropogenic influences, there is no evidence that the anthropogenic influences are any more than an insignificant contributor in comparison to the variability of the natural influences. It should be remembered that human changes to the global environment may be less influential than the natural influences the human activties may have displaced in many or most cases. Consequently, your analogy is utterly false and contrary to the evidence.

    The thing is that much of the stuff we call pollutants are perfectly harmful things, but they are located in the wrong places or in excessive amounts.

    Water (H2O) by far is responsible for the death of more humans and fauna than are Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and compounds of Sulfur. By your twisted rationale humans are too irresponsible with the handling of water to be trusted with its handling without proper HAZMAT and OSHA licensing, training, and regulations in the home and in industry.

    Nitrogen and phosphorus are harmless nutrition’s in most cases, but cause problems when we get too much of it. Sulfur is another example of a harmless element in most cases, but when burnt it can form SO2, which can combine with water to form to sulfuric acid, causing acid rain, which used to be a large environmental problem.

    Carbon dioxide is not Sulfur or a Sulfur compound, and Carbon dioxide has not been demonstrated to cause harm or a capability of causing harm to the environment or the global climate in the quantities humans are capable of emitting now or in the future. Quite the contrary, human emissions of Carbon dioxide are so insignificant they are difficult to even measure. By contrast, the natural environment is the source of nearly all emissions of Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. When humans were not in existence, the natural environment was responsible for all Carbon dioxide emissions and Sulfur dioxide emissions, including the emissions from mammoth forest and prairie fires that humans have since drastically reduced.

    Bottomline, Carbon dioxide is definitely beneficial to the environment in the current and projected atmospheric concentrations, and no valid evidence has been presented to demonstrate any remotely significantly adverse effect upon the Earth’s climate or environment. If anything, the Earth’s atmospheric concentrations may actually be abnormally low and could be gravely harmful nearly all life on the Earth when the interglacial comes to an end.

  116. D. Patterson says:

    Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
    October 23, 2013 at 11:12 pm

    [....]

    The thing is that I think it’s worrying that human activity has elevated the CO2 content in the atmosphere by approximately 40%. I think it’s worrying to know that the change is a global. Every breath you take whether in Africa’s jungle or the pacific islands have elevated CO2 content caused by human activity.

    That statement is an absurd impossibility. Atmospheric concentrations of Carbon dioxide by the combination of natural and human activity is nowhere near the 40% you claim for human activities alone, and human activity is somewhere on the order of one-hundredth of even that greatly lower percentage. Even the slightest changes in insect populations can result in far greater emissions of Carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere than human emissions of the beneficial gas.

    You may say that we have been there before, CO2 levels were higher in the past, but that is millions of years ago. Many of today’s species did not exist then.

    Probably all of the genera and nearly all of today’s species were in existence the last time atmospheric concentrations of Carbon dioxide were greater than today, far less than a million years ago or even some millenia ago.

    It is also rather insane to imply humans have the capability or the duty to geoengineer the entire Earth to preserve “today’s species” against extinction due to natural changes and/or anthropogenic changes in atmospheric concentrations of Carbon dioxide. It is also rather insane to see propagandists for Global Warming and Climate Change hysteria argue on the one hand that humans are responsible preserving the atmosphere and biosphere in the current state, and then they embark on the most dangerous schemes to seed the oceans with iron to geoengineer the same atmosphere and biosphere with practically no regard whatsoever for the potential adverse consequences of their actions.

    We may not know all consequences but there have been words about climate change and more acidic water.

    The mythical scaremongering about acidic oceans have been debunked and shown to be yet another bizarre and irrational misrepresentation of the actual conditions of the seas.

  117. rogerknights says:

    Typo:

    “The thing is that much of the stuff we call pollutants are perfectly harmful harmless things, but they are located in the wrong places or in excessive amounts.”

  118. D. Patterson says:
    October 24, 2013 at 12:24 am

    That statement is an absurd impossibility. Atmospheric concentrations of Carbon dioxide by the combination of natural and human activity is nowhere near the 40% you claim for human activities alone, and human activity is somewhere on the order of one-hundredth of even that greatly lower percentage

    I am not sure what you mean here D. Patterson. It is a fact that the CO2 level has increased from approximately 280 ppm before industrialization to 400 ppm today. That is an increase of approximately 40%. Don’t you accept any of that?
    It is also widely accepted by almost all well informed people, “warmists” and “skeptics” alike, that this increase is caused by human CO2 emissions, is that the point you have problems with?

  119. Thank you rogerknights, for finding and correcting my typo

  120. dbstealey says:

    Jan Kjetil Andersen says:

    I think it’s worrying that human activity has elevated the CO2 content in the atmosphere by approximately 40%. I think it’s worrying to know that the change is a global. Every breath you take whether in Africa’s jungle or the pacific islands have elevated CO2 content caused by human activity.

    But, so what?

    Steve P says:

    Now comes the point we’ve all been waiting for, when you Mr. Anderson, specify the harm being done by CO2.

    Yes, Mr. Anderson needs to identify and quantify any perceived ‘harm’ caused by the rise in CO2.

    So far, no one has been able to identify any harm caused by CO2. You can bet that if there were any harm from CO2, plenty of people would be hitting skeptics over the head with examples.

    But there are no examples. None at all. CO2 is harmless, at both current and projected concentrations, and it is measurably beneficial. Tens of thousands of scientists and engineers have co-signed a statement saying exactly that, and many of the proponents of the carbon scare publicly admit that it has nothing to do with science. Rather, it is their means to a political end. In other words, it is unscientific propaganda.

    Mr. Anderson is worrying himself crazy over the rise in a harmless, beneficial trace gas, which has been up to twenty times higher in the past — when the biosphere teemed with life and diversity. Further, there is no correlation between rising CO2 and global warming. In fact, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature.

    The “carbon” scare has shaken up some otherwise rational folks. But it is irrational to become so worried over a tiny and harmless trace gas, which is causing no problems. It shows what the incessant AGW propaganda has done: after being pounded with it 24/7/365 for twenty years or more, without the slightest bit of scientific evidence, some people begin nodding their heads in agreement, but without understanding why they are agreeing.

  121. D. Patterson says:
    October 23, 2013 at 11:29 pm

    Clearly, the overgrowth of algae, which removes Carbon dioxide from the atmosphered is not the greatest risk to public health by any means. On the

    I did not say that it is the greatest risk to public health, but it is in many cases it is the one issue which causes most problems.

    The problems with algae is that they reduce the clearness of the water and they use up oxygen.

    When water looks dirty it is usually because high algae concentrations. Right it can also be because of dirt and sand whirled up in the water but when you see still dirty water it is usually because of the algae. You have to have really extremely sewage contaminated water before the sewage in itself make the water look dirty.

    But look is not the problem. The problem is that the sunlight stops after a short distance in the unclear water, and below it is pitch dark. The algae produce oxygen in the surface water, but when they die, they sink and rot and that is a process which uses up a lot of oxygen.

    If you have enough fertilizer in a still water, the dead algae will use up all the oxygen in the bottom and you gets a dead zone in the bottom water with ill smelling H2S gas and no life. That has happened in a lot of lakes and fjords around the world, but the situation has improved in most of the western world for the last two – three decades.

    I did not want to start a technical discussion of other kinds of pollutions in detail. That is beside my subject. My point was only to show that the stuff we call pollutants is in many cases harmless elements, but in wrong places or in excessive amounts.

  122. Pamela Gray says:

    Obamacare is crashing, the temperatures are crashing, jobs are still crashing, and the climate model projections are skyrocketing along with the debt ceiling. And on top of that the EPA will be increasing the cost of heat just when everyone in climate research has said we are in for a cold spell (to be followed by a heat spell but not for about another 30 years).

    Will this play well to these audiences? Not unless they fill the air circulation system with pot. And then they won’t care as long as they have potato chips to munch on during the kum ba yah listening session.

  123. Steve P says:

    Mr. Andersen,

    Thanks for your reply, and please accept my apology for misspelling your last name, above.

    I’ve asked you to specify the harm being caused by CO2.

    You’ve instead pointed out that CO2 levels have increased in the recent past without offering any evidence that this increase is harmful.

    Again, please specify what harm is being done by CO2 at current levels, and further, please specify what the ideal atmospheric concentration of CO2 would be, and why.

    Thank you

  124. Steve P says:
    October 24, 2013 at 12:30 pm

    Mr. Andersen,
    Thanks for your reply, and please accept my apology for misspelling your last name, above.
    I’ve asked you to specify the harm being caused by CO2.

    Oh, apology granted Steve P.
    First, I look at myself as a lukewarmer, meaning that I do think that human caused climate change is real, and that it will do more bad than good, but I do not believe in the catastrophic part. I think the negative effects are wildly exaggerated in most media.

    My position to the harm being done by CO2 is that no one knows for sure, but we have some indications:

    1. CO2 causes temperatures to increase by trapping infrared radiation. This can have some negative effects like:
    a. Dry areas may become dryer because hot air causes more evaporation than colder air.
    b. Areas exposed to flooding can get more flooding because warmer air can contain more water and causing heavier rain.
    c. The sea level may rise caused by thermal expansion and melting glaciers, causing coastal flooding.
    d. We know that tropic hurricane only grows when the sea temperature is above 27 Celsius, and it grows faster the higher the sea temperature is. This may cause more and bigger tropical cyclones
    2. CO2 combines in water to carbonic acid. This makes the sea less alkaline, and it make acid lakes more acid. The effect is still minuscule but given the fact that the CO2 concentration is constantly growing, it can become a problem in a not too distant future.

    The ideal CO2 level? Again, no one knows but I think it would be safest to stay around the level it has been for the last millennia and where we are now, i.e., between 250 and 400 ppm. The problem is that it grows steadily with 2ppm annually, and that takes us to an atmospheric mix the earth has not experienced for millions of year.

  125. Steve P says:

    Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
    October 24, 2013 at 1:22 pm

    My position to the harm being done by CO2 is that no one knows for sure, but we have some indications:

    Indications are not evidence.

    …that takes us to an atmospheric mix the earth has not experienced for millions of year.(sic)

    Well, no. There are places on Earth where CO2 levels are commonly far above 400 ppm, even today. One such place is a greenhouse, and another is a submarine. A third is probably any crowded room where people are yakking away.

    We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels. – Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/claim-co2-makes-you-stupid-as-a-submariner-that-question/

    Finally, do you realize the oceans outgas CO2 as they warm, just like your beer or carbonated beverage? Do you think your beer is getting warmer because it lost carbonation, or do you think it is losing carbonation because it’s getting warmer? I realize some Europeans drink their beer warm, but the point will not be lost on fellow Yanks and others who like their beer ice-cold.

    There seems to be about a several-hundred year lag between the time the oceans begin to warm, and the time CO2 levels begin to rise. In other words, rising atmospheric CO2 is an effect of rising temperatures on Earth, and not the cause.

    CO2 lags temperature.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/

    There is no hard empirical evidence of any harm being caused by CO2, either now or in the past.

  126. 4TimesAYear says:

    Hoping and praying that someone will be able to go and provide the Endangering People Administration with a basic education on climate (not climate change) and what really drives it. The day time exposure to the sun causing increasing temps, and the night time darkness allowing for cooling creating our winds; the opposing seasons, etc. It is so preposterous for them to ignore the basics to focus on poor little CO2 as a climate driver.

  127. Brian H says:

    the stuff we call pollutants are perfectly harmful things…

    harmless

    Duh.

  128. D. Patterson says:

    Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
    October 24, 2013 at 11:32 am

    I am not sure what you mean here D. Patterson. It is a fact that the CO2 level has increased from approximately 280 ppm before industrialization to 400 ppm today. That is an increase of approximately 40%. Don’t you accept any of that?

    No, I do not accept that, because it is a false claim based upon falsified and/or corrupted data. Worse yet, even the corrupted ESRL data from Mauna Loa does not support your claim. At best a particular time period may see some tens of parts per million increase, and at worst there may have been a more than 100 parts per million decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, as disclosed in U.S. Senate testimony.

    It is also widely accepted by almost all well informed people, “warmists” and “skeptics” alike, that this increase is caused by human CO2 emissions, is that the point you have problems with?

    That is just you bloviating with self-serving propaganda to claim a fantasy victory lap of some bizarre kind. Back in the real world you are going to have to explain how its is remotely possible for human emissions of >1% to >4% of annual carbon dioxide emissions to constitute all or virtually all of the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations, especially in those time series in which carbon dioxide levels decreased. You are also need to explain how Nature is responsible for nearly all carbon dioxide emissions each year and then somehow fails to be responsible for none of the atmospheric carbon dioxide increases (or decreases) or virtually none of them. Somehow I suspect you cannot and will not.

Comments are closed.