Obama to Declare Carbon Dioxide Dangerous Pollutant

http://graphics.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2008/08/04/1217904489_4931/539w.jpg

In my opinion, this is lunacy – Obama’s thinking is completely off the rails now. He cites a new energy plan in August, then cripples it from the start with this sort of thinking. – Anthony


From Bloomberg News: Obama to Declare Carbon Dioxide Dangerous Pollutant

Obama to Declare Carbon Dioxide Dangerous Pollutant (Update1)

By Jim Efstathiou Jr.  Last Updated: October 16, 2008 09:50 EDT

Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) — Barack Obama will classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant that can be regulated should he win the presidential election on Nov. 4, opening the way for new rules on greenhouse gas emissions.

The Democratic senator from Illinois will tell the Environmental Protection Agency that it may use the 1990 Clean Air Act to set emissions limits on power plants and manufacturers, his energy adviser, Jason Grumet, said in an interview. President George W. Bush declined to curb CO2 emissions under the law even after the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the government may do so.

If elected, Obama would be the first president to group emissions blamed for global warming into a category of pollutants that includes lead and carbon monoxide. Obama’s rival in the presidential race, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, has not said how he would treat CO2 under the act.

Obama “would initiate those rulemakings,” Grumet said in an Oct. 6 interview in Boston. “He’s not going to insert political judgments to interrupt the recommendations of the scientific efforts.”

Placing heat-trapping pollutants in the same category as ozone may lead to caps on power-plant emissions and force utilities to use the most expensive systems to curb pollution. The move may halt construction plans on as many as half of the 130 proposed new U.S. coal plants.

The president may take action on new rules immediately upon taking office, said David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club. Environment groups including the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council will issue a regulatory agenda for the next president that calls for limits on CO2 from industry.

`Hit Ground Running’

“This is what they should do to hit the ground running,” Bookbinder said in an Oct. 10 telephone interview.

Separately, Congress is debating legislation to create an emissions market to address global warming, a solution endorsed by both candidates and utilities such as American Electric Power Co., the biggest U.S. producer of electricity from coal. Congress failed to pass a global-warming bill in June and how long it may take lawmakers to agree on a plan isn’t known.

“We need federal legislation to deal with greenhouse-gas emissions,” said Vicki Arroyo, general counsel for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change in Arlington, Virginia. “In the meantime, there is this vacuum. People are eager to get started on this.”

An Obama victory would help clear the deadlock in talks on an international agreement to slow global warming, Rajendra Pachauri, head of a United Nation panel of climate-change scientists, said today in Berlin. Negotiators from almost 200 countries will meet in December in Poznan, Poland, to discuss ways to limit CO2.

`Back in the Game’

“The U.S. has to move quickly domestically so we can get back in the game internationally,” Grumet said. “We cannot have a meaningful impact in the international discussion until we develop a meaningful domestic consensus. So he’ll move quickly.”

Burning coal to generate electricity produces more than a third of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions and half the U.S. power supply, according to the Energy Department. Every hour, fossil-fuel combustion generates 3.5 million tons of emissions worldwide, helping create a warming effect that “already threatens our climate,” the Paris-based International Energy Agency said.

The EPA under Bush fought the notion that the Clean Air Act applies to CO2 all the way to the Supreme Court. The law has been used successfully to regulate six pollutants, including sulfur dioxide and ozone. Regulation under the act “could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority,” EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said in July. The law “is the wrong tool for the job.”

Proponents of regulation are hoping for better results under a new president. Obama adviser Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, said if Congress hasn’t acted in 18 months, about the time it would take to draft rules, the president should.

EPA Authority

“The EPA is obligated to move forward in the absence of Congressional action,” Grumet said. “If there’s no action by Congress in those 18 months, I think any responsible president would want to have the regulatory approach.”

States where coal-fired plants may be affected include Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, Montana, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia and Florida.

The alternative, a national cap-and-trade program created by Congress, offers industry more options, said Bruce Braine, a vice president at Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric. The world’s largest cap-and-trade plan for greenhouse gases opened in Europe in 2005.

Under a cap-and-trade program, polluters may keep less- efficient plants running if they offset those emissions with investments in projects that lower pollution, such as wind-energy turbines or systems that destroy methane gas from landfills.

McCain `Not a Fan’

“Those options may still allow me to build new efficient power plants that might not meet a higher standard,” Braine said in an Oct. 9 interview. “That might be a more cost-effective way to approach it.”

McCain hasn’t said how he would approach CO2 regulation under the Clean Air Act. McCain adviser and former Central Intelligence Agency director James Woolsey said Oct. 6 that new rules may conflict with Congressional efforts. Policy adviser Rebecca Jensen Tallent said in August that McCain prefers a bill debated by Congress rather than regulations “established through one agency where one secretary is getting to make a lot of decisions.”

“He is not as big of a fan of standards-based approaches,” Arroyo said. “The Supreme Court thinks it’s clear that there is greenhouse-gas authority under the Clean Air Act. To take that off the table probably wouldn’t be very wise.”

More Efficient Technologies

How new regulations would affect the proposed U.S. coal plants depends on how they are written, said Bill Fang, climate issue director for the Edison Electric Institute, a Washington-based lobbying group for utilities. About half of the proposed plants plan to use technologies that are 20 percent more efficient than conventional coal burners.

“Several states have denied the applicability of the Clean Air Act to coal permits,” Fang said in an Oct. 10 interview.

In June, a court in Georgia stopped construction of the 1,200- megawatt Longleaf power plant, a $2 billion project, because developer Dynegy Inc. failed to consider cleaner technology.

An appeals board within the EPA is considering a challenge from the Sierra Club to Deseret Power Electric Cooperative‘s air permit for its 110-megawatt Bonanza coal plant in Utah on grounds that it failed to require controls on CO2. One megawatt is enough to power about 800 typical U.S. homes.

“Industry has woken up to the fact that a new progressive administration could move quickly to make the United States a leader rather than a laggard,” said Bruce Nilles, director of the group’s national coal campaign.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Paddy

I will be interesting to see the list of scientists that get on the “pollutant” bandwagon. It should ruin their careers.

Obamaton

Yes, it is lunacy. But this is revolution. We must march beyond rationality, beyond traditional concepts of restraint and clarity. Liberty, equality, fraternity, and the universal rights of man.
Carbon dioxide is very potent. Even at concentrations of less than one tenth of one percent, it is capable of driving bureaucrats at the EU and the UN insane. If we lose the EU and the UN, humanity is lost! We must save the bureaucrats!
Wake up and face the coming holocaust, unless we act now. Obama is the vanguard. Obey him for the new millenium of hope and change. Utopia for all, utopia for free!

h.oldeboom

dear, oh dear
usa will follow under obama the green fascistic lifestyle as proposed by environmentalists . this means under obama the american “democratic ” principles will disappear even more and that only based on a middle age CO2 myth. how simple and nervous in thinking a country can be.

Patrick Henry

Now all that we need is to have a scientific study showing that one race exhales greater amounts of CO2 than another. That will serve as the legal basis for genocide, just as the Nazi’s used eugenics.

Ray

How will you like your flat beer or pop? Will fermentation processes be outlawed? That will now involve the FDA. My God!!! We will all be emitting a dangerous pollutant gas every time we exhale. More reasons to tax our very existance an the fact that we are alive. When will this madness stop?
But we all know that Obama is under the Bilderburg control as it was mentioned in their last secret meeting.

James H

To modify a song by the Police – “every move you make, every breath you take, I’ll be taxing you”
Great, now the government can ration our breathing (if he is elected). Seriously, what is the CO2 output from breathing? People should cut back on exercise and sleep more to reduce their carbon footprint, right? If there are 250 million people in the US, and each person exhales about 7 tons of CO2 per year, that’s 1.8 BILLION tons of CO2 per year just in the US! What if only the enviros stopped breathing, that would still be a big help!
Just the possiblity of this EPA regulation will now forestall pretty much any new plants from being built. Who would invest a bunch of money in a project when there is a good chance it can’t be profitable? If Obama gets elected, it could be blackout time across the US during his term, similar to the problems faced in Great Britain. If we really wanted to follow the lead set by the EU and others, we would see that their plans are unraveling as the member countries are revolting against the new restrictions due to the cost impact.

darwin

Control of CO2 is a powerful nation killing tool. If this clown wins either revolt or succumb. Your choice.

Bruce Cobb

This could definitely cost Obama votes. I was planning to vote for him, but this is very bad news. Much as I dislike McCain, I may just have to vote for him now.

Given that respiration produces CO2, this fits in with his radically pro-abortion / pro-infanticide policies quite well. After all fewer babies means lower emissions – or maybe babies are dangerous emissions.
😉

Fred

Oh, this’ll be fun adminstration alright.

Cathy

Anthony.
Words fail.
Lunacy doesn’t convey the heft . .
of this cruel hoax.
God save us from the do-gooders.

iceFree

Unreal, if this happens its the last nail in the coffin for the U.S. economy. But on the brighter side It may just lose him the election. It’s no time to be playing save the Earth fantasies.
This co2 as a dangerous pollutant stuff has got to end. Time to purge out the EPA
when you guys are done tossing out all the wing nuts in your congress.

keith

Will I still be allowed to exhale?

John-X

Less than three weeks…
I wonder if my fellow citizens are actually going to decide that individual liberty really is just overrated.
Remember it was less than a year ago that Venezuelans rejected their “Dictator for Life” referendum – but 49%. said Yes, Please.
In January, what’s now being called “RePO” (Reid-Pelosi-Obama) could potentially take total control (via supermajority).
It’s looking as though enough of my fellow citizens either don’t understand what that means, or just don’t care.

David Gladstone

The economic crisis and now this announcement shows there really is no difference between Republican and Democratic politics; Obama’s ignorance, like that of Democrats Pelosi and Boxer presents a danger to our economy and our people. I’m ready to vote for Nader as a protest against government by idiots.

The only surprise here is that Obama’s advisers announced this now. Having EPA regulation GHGs under the Clean Air Act means dramatically higher costs for energy (85% of our energy comes from coal, petroleum, and natural gas). Obama would require over 1.2 million medium to large buildings to get permits because they emit GHGs.
* 1 million mid-sized to large buildings–this includes 10% of all churches, 1/5 of all food service businesses, half of the buildings in the lodging industry, and 92,000 health care facilities.
* 200,000 manufacturing operations
* 20,000 large farms
This plan also means that a lot of farms will need permits from EPA to stay in business. According to the Department of Agriculture:
According to the Department of Agriculture the following will need permits:
* Dairy facilities with over 25 cows
* Beef operations with over 50 cattle
* Swine operations with more than 200 hogs
* Farms with more than 500 acres of corn
This is just a taste of how far reaching this plan is.

Phil

so he wants to make more jobs huh? ok..lets tax businesses more so they cant employ people then raise their cost of living by raising their energy costs 5 fold…..[snip]

Alex Llewelyn

Guys, it isn’t that bad, sheesh! You may disagree with it, as do I, but he’s only following what is the scientific majority here.
Not to vote for him on this one point is plain stupid.
REPLY: I resent being called “just plain stupid”. As a citizen of the UK, your vote doesn’t count here. When you use such words in an opinion, it counts for less than it normally might. – Anthony

EPA is working on these regulations right now. You can send comments to EPA about the folly of regulating greenhouse gases under the EPA through EPA’s page: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/anpr.html
American Energy Alliance: http://www.americanenergyalliance.org/
Heritage Foundation: http://www.stopepa.com/
Anthony and others did a great job sending comments to the CCSP about their shoddy synthesis report. Now EPA wants to rely on the CCSP and IPCC and regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act. If you are interested, please check it out and comment.

davidgmills

Since it now appears to be a virtual certainty that Obama will be the next president, it looks like someone needs to get to Jason Grumet, who is going to be his energy advisor. Since Grummet says Obama is not going “to insert political judgments to interrupt the recommendations of the scientific efforts,” it sounds to me like all that needs to happen is that the scientific community make the right recommendations.
Unfortunately that “consensus thing” is still the order of the day. Until the scientific community convinces the rest of the planet that there is no consensus, it is not surprising that a politician would defer judgment to the scientific community and “its consensus.”
Maybe we will get lucky and temperatures will continue to decline (but not so much as to produce a new ice age) the scientific community will change its consensus soon.

[…] Read More: wattsupwiththat.com Tags: climate change, fuel, obama, carbon, global warming Related Posts […]

John-X

I am among that large and growing crowd which believes this winter, and in fact the next several winters, will be colder than normal, which will cause “man-made global warming” to fall into widespread ridicule.
I’ve said before that the global economic slowdown will actually be used to explain the cooler climate, as indeed, demand for and use of petroleum products globally is already WAY down (US EIA [Energy Information Agency] just released the weekly inventory numbers this morning, showing another multi-million barrel increase, due to slowing demand).
This tactic will not work however, if as I believe the Mauna Loa CO2 numbers keep rising just as they’ve been doing.
So when it becomes clear that “AGW” was never really real, President Obama will drop the restrictions on CO2 emissions, right?
No, because it was never about “global warming” (or even “climate change”).

Peter

Keith, you may inhale just as much as you like – just don’t exhale, whatever you do 😉

John-X

James H (10:35:53) :
“If there are 250 million people in the US…”
Dude, not even close.
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

Industry Insider

There is not a way to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act that would not result in major problems for industry, environmental regulators, and ultimately the general public.
I would guess Obama is talking about regulating CO2 under CAA Section 111, which would require emissions standards for new or modified sources. This would result in CO2 being subject to regulation under the PSD program, which would have the potential to regulate every hotel, hospital, shopping mall, apartment building, office building, etc., depending on the “significance levels” that are selected. It’s a bad idea.

Would be interesting to see if power companies really invest in carbon capture, or just stop producing power when they reach their maximum allowable limit for the day/week/month. Rolling brownouts and blackouts — they’re not just for California anymore! It’s Patriotic To Be Cold, VP Biden will tell us, like George Washington’s troops at Valley Forge. They were cold, they were veterans and they were patriotic. And as far as being too hot in the summer, well, I’m sure it was hot when Joe was in the A Shau valley fighting it out with Charlie back in ‘Nam (he hasn’t remembered this yet, but give it time). Sweating from good honest work is patriotic, and sweating because your power company can’t supply your heat pumps with juice is patriotism of a similar sort.
Either eventuality is fiscally possible, if Senator Government wants to lower CO2 emissions then he can explain to Americans why they’re cold next winter — assuming he does so when Americans have power to run their televisions.

hmccard

This is a bit off-topic but it’s “grist from the mill’:
Team led by Livermore scientists helps to resolve long-standing puzzle in climate science
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yournews/36201
“A paper published online last year in the International Journal of Climatology claimed to show definitively that “models and observations disagree to a statistically significant extent” in terms of their tropical temperature trends. This claim formed the starting point for an investigation by a large team of climate modelers and observational data specialists, which was led by LLNL’s Benjamin Santer.
In marked contrast to the earlier claim, Santer’s international team found that there is no fundamental discrepancy between modeled and observed trends in tropical temperatures.
“We’ve gone a long way toward reconciling modeled and observed temperature trends in the problem area of the tropics,” said Santer, the lead author of a paper now appearing online in the International Journal of Climatology.
There are two reasons for this reconciliation.
First, the analysis that reported disagreement between models and observations had applied an inappropriate statistical test, which did not account for the statistical uncertainty in observed warming trends. This uncertainty arises because the human-caused component of recent temperature changes is not perfectly known in any individual observed time series – it must be estimated from data that are influenced by both human effects and the “noise” of natural climate variability.
The consortium modified the test to correctly account for uncertainty in estimating temperature trends from noisy observational data. With this modified test, there were no longer pervasive, statistically significant differences between simulated and observed tropical temperature trends.
The second reason for the reconciliation of models and observations was the availability of new and improved observational datasets, both for surface and tropospheric temperatures. The developers of these datasets used different procedures to identify and adjust for biases (such as those caused by changes over time in the instruments and platforms used to measure temperature). “
Other researchers in this international consortium were Karl Taylor, Peter Gleckler and Stephen Klein (all at Livermore); Peter Thorne at the United Kingdom Meteorological Office Hadley Centre; Leo Haimberger at the University of Vienna; Tom Wigley and Doug Nychka at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; John Lanzante at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory; Susan Solomon at the NOAA/Earth System Research Laboratory; Melissa Free at the NOAA/Air Resources Laboratory; Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia; Tom Karl at the NOAA/National Climatic Data Center; Carl Mears and Frank Wentz at Remote Sensing Systems; Gavin Schmidt at the NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies; and Steve Sherwood at Yale University.

RJK

As the US standard of living is based on energy use, it is hard to imagine how decreasing the availabilty and increasing the cost of energy via foolish GW junk science, will do anything but punish us. This is where liberalism’s focus on feel goodism rather than do goodism takes us. It makes some people feel good about supposedly helping the environment, no matter how destructive the result.
I just wish there was a way where only Obama supporters had to pay the price for such nonesense. Unfortunately in Obama’s world we will all get the opportunity to spread the wealth around.

Here we go. We are about to revisit another Carter administration. Everyone grab a sweater! You might plant some veggies too so that you don’t starve when food, along with gas, is rationed.

Thomas Gough

May I suggest that the exhalation of CO2 is an irrelevance. It is only part of the ‘carbon cycle’. Plants take in CO2 (photosynthesis); we eat the plants (or the animals that ate the plants), and following digestion and respiration breath out the CO2. The CO2 is simply going round in a circle – it is not ‘new’ CO2.
If anyone thinks they know differently, please say so.

Mark

I thought CO2 was food for plants and trees?

Patrick Henry

A minor omission from Obama last night. He forgot to mention social security tax.
“if you make less than a quarter million dollars a year, then you will not see your income tax go up, your capital gains tax go up, your payroll tax” – Obama
“But during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Obama said subjecting more of a person’s income to the payroll tax is the option he would push for if elected president.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739271/
That will cost Joe the Plumber about $20,000.

John-X

John-X (10:54:17) :
“…In January, what’s now being called “RePO” (Reid-Pelosi-Obama) could potentially take total control (via supermajority).
It’s looking as though enough of my fellow citizens either don’t understand what that means, or just don’t care.”
Sorry!
Didn’t mean to leave out what just might turn out to be the LARGEST group:
Those who DO understand what it means, and think it’s WONDERFUL.

AnonyMoose

If fermentation emits CO2, that will affect corn-to-alcohol production.

PeteS

Your politicians seem as stupid as are ours in the UK. As you might know Gordon Brown has created a new department for Energy and Climate Change, and has given the job to a so called bright young man named Ed Miliband. His brother, also very underwhelming. is our Foreign Secretary. Ed made his first announcement on the job today. You will be pleased to hear that climate change is worsening and he intends to reduce carbon emission by 80% by 2050! Furthermore, he intends to persuade the EU to follow suit. Where was our opposition during this announcement? Sitting on their hands because they believe this claptrap.
We have a crumbling power supply industry and can look forward to serious power cuts in a few years time and all our politicians can do is to join the AGW alarmists. I despair.
But at the same time Gordon Brown was urging oil companies to reduce the cost of motor fuel so we could push out more CO2. You could not make it up, could you?

Patrick Henry

Thomas Gough,
What you are not considering is the huge amount of CO2 generated from growing, processing and transporting food. Each pound of beef requires large amounts of CO2 and water to produce. In the west, it takes 500 gallons of water to raise one pound of beef. Food consumption is not a zero-sum proposition.
It won’t be long before scientists start deciding who should live or die, just as many scientists did in the 1930s and 1940s. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Richard Sharpe

Hmmm, so if Barack has this election in the bag, why is he pandering to the Green contingent?

John-X

David Gladstone (10:59:03) :
“…I’m ready to vote for Nader as a protest…”
Oh geez, can you imagine what the Nader administration would be like?
1st Executive Order:
No one may charge more than $99 for a man’s suit.
2nd Order:
No man may buy more than two suits in any decade.

Obamaton

Yes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. But divinity cannot be corrupted, and as we know, Obama is The One. If Americans elect a large enough Democratic Party majority in the House and Senate, L. Obama will have the power to make all wishes come true. He will not be limited by stubborn and racist Americans who cling foolishly to guns, and religion. Guns and religion are not sacrosanct, so why cling to them? The same applies to logic and rationality.
Just let go of those outdated concepts, and allow L. Obama to take control.
Social Justice and a Golden Utopia on Earth. Those things are worth a bit of temporary discomfort, yes?

Mikey

Here’s who Obama’s “energy advisor” Jason Grumet is.
http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/ht/d/StafferDetails/i/2030/pid/229
I’m not sure what it is about having a BA and Juris Doctorate that qualifies him to advise Obama CO2 is a pollutant.
Here’s a hint at another thing the Grumet/Obama team want to do.
http://paulmalouf.blogspot.com/2008/08/tar-sands-climate-change-action-dont.html
The way I heard it they want to pressure the Canadian Government to rewrite NAFTA to restrict Oil Sands oil. Right now under NAFTA America has this sweetheart deal concerning Canadian oil called proportianality. Canada is obligated to provide a proportion of it’s oil to America. America gets a big chunk of its oil from Canada. China is crying for that oil. They’re up there snooping around all the time, but Canada could only sell so much to them even if they wanted to, because the NASA proportionality clause demands a large proportion goes to the US. Obama wants to pressure Canada on how Canada produces tar sands oil, or it threatens to rewrite NAFTA. Huh? “Do it our way, or sell it to the Chinese.” Gee tough decision.
Translation – Factor that in to all the other nutty stuff those Grumet and Obama want to do concerning energy, and if you’re American consider the possibility of freezing in the dark before the next election. Sarah Palin’s going to look pretty good as Pres about that time.

cedarhill

The election is not over. The polls are tightening again as they always do as the real election day nears. Rasmussen daily 3 day average tracking has Obama and McCain tied on most-likely voters.
I’m afraid there may be some people that fall for the usual media and lefty pundits that are declaring the race is “over”, that McCain needed a “game-changer”, etc., etc.
One should never underestimate the Democrats always going over the top since they think most of us are so dense they have to really, really pound it in to us.
My guess is by this time tomorrow, anyone that is a “sketptic” or “promoter” of AGW will have read or know about this. The over whelming majority of Americans are just not that stupid and most will be able to connect this foolishness into wondering how much more their electric bill will increase. The only question is whether the information will percolate through the electorate to effect Obama’s vote count. I think it will. Call me an Obama is President skeptic.

Mark

Save our lifestyle – shoot an environmentalist!

Thomas Gough

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. However, the lie can only be maintained for as long as the state can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequencies of the lie” Joseph Goebbels (Nazi propaganda minister)
(I am absolutely no fan of Goebbels, but he was no fool. ) If falling global temperatures don’t do it first, then I suggest that the ‘economic consequencies’ of the lie will kill it off. i.e. as people are hit in the pocket there will be a rapid rise in the number of people questioning the whole AGW orthodoxy. Once the media sense that the tide is turning they are likely to switch sides quickly. Communism was built on a lie and remember how quickly that collapsed once the rot set in began.

John-X

Thomas Gough (11:23:07) :
” May I suggest that the exhalation of CO2 is an irrelevance. It is only part of the ‘carbon cycle’. Plants take in CO2 (photosynthesis); we eat the plants (or the animals that ate the plants), and following digestion and respiration breath out the CO2. The CO2 is simply going round in a circle – it is not ‘new’ CO2.
If anyone thinks they know differently, please say so. ”
Where does “new” CO2 come from – CO2 that is not part of the ‘carbon cycle’?

George E. Smith

Well maybe the EPA should file suit against Coca Cola, and Pepsi, as well as all the breweries and wineries. And while he is at it, he should make the manufacture of dry ice illegal; unless of course it is used as a means of sequestering CO2. Of course CO2 sequestration means a loss of Oxygen for the planet, and it ought to be illegal to use up oxygen.
Nobody seems to mind that the USA can be totally self sufficient in energy without any nukes too, if only Obama and idiots like him (and McCain) understood that CO2 is not a polutant, or a controller of climate.
Ignorance is not a disease; we are all born with it; but stupidity has to be taught; and there are plenty of people willing and able to teach it.
George
PS But if Obama does define CO2 as the devil incarnate; that will be by far the most benign of his likely action as the next President; he’s an outright America hating Saul Alinsky trained Marxist; and that’s the good side of him. Enjoy what you are about to bring about.

John-X

PeteS (11:30:07) :
” You will be pleased to hear that climate change is worsening and he intends to reduce carbon emission by 80% by 2050! ”
WHY are you in the UK messing about like this?!!
10,000% reductions!! And NOT by 2050, BY CHRISTMAS!!!

David Gladstone

James H. Thanks for that great rewrite of the Police lyrics!:]

Ray

If I had to make a good guess based on logic and observation, the lag in the vegetation response to increased CO2 (regardless of the source) in the atmosphere will show the concentration increasing (obviously) but the concentration of CO2 will eventually reach a maximum and eventually decline. That in turn will again give feedback to the vegetation that will now reduce its mass, but again with a lag in the response. If every season and years were equal, this would follow a nice sinusoidal function but solar irradiance or activity and weather patterns will also help or hinder the vegetation growth.

David Gladstone

Thomas Gough, the ideas you ascribe to Goebbels are not his. they are the ideas of Eddie Bernays, nephew of Freud, inventor of PR and political spin whose works had pride of place in Goebbels’ mind control library. That should make you feel better! An Obama administration, like that of McCain, will have more lies than a dog has fleas!

I believe that this has been the vision for a long time. Government wants to control every aspect of our lives. The two best ways of doing that are taxation and control of energy affordability.
http://depriest-mpu.blogspot.com/2008/04/iwo-jima-global-warming.html