All is not well in CO2 regulation land. You may have heard about a leaked memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that questions the EPA findings on CO2 being a “threat to human health”. BTW there is still time to lodge your comments (as is your right as a US citizen) on this finding, details here.
The leaked internal memo, was marked “Attorney Client Privilege”.
It has some strong language about the negative impact EPA regulation of CO2 would have on the U.S. economy.
“Making the decision to regulate CO2…is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities,”
But there is more than that. The Hill (a political blog) say the memo indicates that the burden of proof of CO2 as harmful isn’t there: (emphasis mine)
An EPA finding last month that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health rests on dubious assumptions and could have negative economic impacts, a memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) warned.
The memo has no listed author but is marked “Deliberative–Attorney Client Privilege.” A spokesman for OMB told Dow Jones Newswires that the brief is a “conglomeration of counsel we’ve received from various agencies” about the EPA finding, the conclusions of which would trigger regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
The author(s) of the memo suggest the EPA did not thoroughly examine the relationship between greenhouse gases and human health.
“In the absence of a strong statement of the standards being applied in this decision, there is concern that EPA is making a finding based on…’harm’ from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects,” the memo says, adding that the “scientific data that purports to conclusively establish” that link was from outside EPA.
But here is the real kicker.
There’s language in the memo that says there may be beneficial effects to increased CO2 rather than negative effects, and that man, as always, can quickly adapt:
“To the extent that climate change alters out environment, it will create incentives for innovation and adaption that mitigate the damages,” the memo reads. “The [EPA finding] should note this possibility[.] … It might be reasonable to conclude that Alaska will benefit from warmer winters for both health and economic reasons,” the authors note.
According to The Hill:
At a Senate hearing [yesterday], Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) grilled EPA administrator Lisa Jackson about the memo.
“This is a smoking gun,” Barrasso said, accusing the EPA of making the finding for political reasons.
Jackson responded that the finding was based on science and was in no way politicized.
No, never.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Someone will get fired.
http://timetochooseagain.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/omb-capn-trade-hurts/
I know… we can all turn off our Air Conditioning, starting with Congress and the White House.
Anyone making the claims that increased CO2 is beneficial is just as deluded as those saying it’s a serious danger. We don’t know enough about the various factors that influence our climate to say either way.
Right, the memo should do the job and bring some sense into the minds of the EPA Officials. Unfortunately, the Lady in charge was hand picked by Obama for one purpose only. Regulate CO2 Emissions at any price.
Hopefully Cap & Trade does not make it and the fight returns into to courts.
Will we dodge the bullet of AGW-inspired misregulation and abuse by the EPA?
Also without any comment:
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/05/slippery-green-words.html
Not just a “smoking gun” but a clear indication that the Administration is wildly torn on this subject. White House Council is generating memos that will demonstrate prior knowledge that CO2 is NOT a toxic substance and there is no foundation scientific or medical to show that it is.
The writing is on the wall. Now, it would be good for ALL other participatory agencies to study the OMB memo and start making plans to withdraw from the entire AGW program. When your own internal investigation tells you you are blowing smoke where there is no smoke – it’s time to execute the exit plan.
Finally, we can put this foolhardy, wrong-headed game plan to make CO2 a demon – in the trash bin. With the real toxic stuff, like SO4, CO and the Piltdown Man.
Thank you OMB, steadfast skeptics, and good scientists the world over. You have won the day!
Pay attention to that Sector Emissions graph.
Only Residential must bear the burden of reducing emissions. All others get cap & trade allowances. That is how we can continue to transport as much goods as possible halfway across the globe: To support global trade, which is good for Earth business.
It’s never been about health, the environment, endangered species or saving the planet. Those issues are just a facade to hide the underlying political objectives — expand government, collect more taxes and regulate how we live.
” Scott B (09:01:28) :
Anyone making the claims that increased CO2 is beneficial is just as deluded as those saying it’s a serious danger. We don’t know enough about the various factors that influence our climate to say either way.”
Patently false.
One would have to claim that increased CO2 is extremely beneficial to be just as “deluded” as the AGW alamists.
Scott:
That is true that there is not enough information to assert that warming will result in NET benefit, but there are clearly localized benefits to warming, just as there are localized benefits to cooling.
It seems odd to me that CO2 output is broken down into transportation, industrial, commercial and residential, since the only one of the four categories footing the bill is the last one, residential. Every person in every category lives in a residence. I think this is another way of trying to divide Americans. Why must it always be “us” against “them”?
If you live here in the United States of America, and you are gainfully employed, you will pay every cost associated with all the sectors outlined above. Don’t fall for the rhetoric. When they say that they will not go after small business or residential, they are plainly lying. Any costs added by the government, whether they call it “cap and trade”, “carbon tax” or “raid and pillage” will be paid by those who actually work for a living. If you do not understand this simple truth, you are either very young or hopelessly naive. It’s time to stop bailing out the banks, the unions the feds and Acorn. I think I’ll take a four year vacation, get a bike and turn the utilities off. Let’s see how they raise taxes from zero activity and zero income.
More insanity: http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/05/insanity-democrats-set-to-ration-and.html
Hunter (9:05:13): I doubt we’ll dodge it. Obama is intent upon getting at least the start of a regulatory structure in place, over as many aspects of our economic lives as possible. As noted by Ron de Haan (9:01:39) his appointees were not chosen for their principles or their knowledge, but because they are obedient hacks and zealots. They know what will befall them if they fail. They also know that, if they toe the line, they can expect to be protected against criticism (see: tax cheat Treasury Secretary, others), and that a variety of illegal or unsavory tools will be used to help them ram through the agenda (see: Chrysler, GM, banks). That agenda is all about control, seized urgently. Obama knows he has a limited window during which his “shock and awe” campaign is most likely to succeed. He will use that window, facts, science and law be damned.
What science? Where is the science that says that C02 is toxic? Lingering health effects such as Carbon Monoxide poisoning? I have never seen any. Present levels are nowhere near being able to replace Oxygen in the air to the point where nobody can breathe normally.
Not even on a factor of 10.
Ms. Jackson refers to scientific documents. What documents are those?
OSHA & MSHA have PEL’s for C02. You have to be in a confined space with motors running to get anywhere near those limits. Really confined.
Of course, if one is stupid enough to sit in one’s car in the garage with the door shut and the motor running, one will perish of CO poisoning long before CO2 will replace the oxygen in the air. Which is why they have scrubbers on diesels and fans to ventilate.
But science proving systemic toxicity from CO2?
Never seen anything but mention of memos and bozos sitting on benches fed smoking gun memos.
“”” Scott B (09:01:28) :
Anyone making the claims that increased CO2 is beneficial is just as deluded as those saying it’s a serious danger. We don’t know enough about the various factors that influence our climate to say either way. “””
That’s simply not true Scott. There are too many green house operations growing crops in an elevated CO2 environment to claim that we have no proof that enhanced CO2 can be beneficial.
And I have seen reports that say that 20% of the present world total food production can only be explained by taking account of the 37.5% increase in CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age.
So which 1.2 billion of the world people would you condemn to startvation by returning the CO2 to 280 ppm ?
Scott B (09:01:28) :
“Anyone making the claims that increased CO2 is beneficial is just as deluded as those saying it’s a serious danger. We don’t know enough about the various factors that influence our climate to say either way.”
Scott, please meet the Idsos at CO2 Science: http://www.co2science.org/
And the facts:
http://tinyurl.com/p9bbox
http://tinyurl.com/c23hf9
http://tinyurl.com/qu2rp2
There are literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies affirming the enhanced growth of plant life in enriched CO2 environments. The truth is the CO2 is more of a boon to mankind than a burden. The real, toxic emissions from fossil fuels need and ARE regulated now.
I am unaware of any research dealing with the level of atmospheric CO2 below which there is danger to the biosphere. Am I wrong?
It seems that we need to know if 350 ppm +/- of CO2 is detrimental. I do know of considerable research that indicates higher CO2 levels are beneficial.
Before policy makers consider massively costly actions that will reduce the CO2 concentration below the current amount, they need to know the consequences of their initiatives.
“”” David Jay (09:19:31) :
Scott:
That is true that there is not enough information to assert that warming will result in NET benefit, but there are clearly localized benefits to warming, just as there are localized benefits to cooling. “””
Once again David; a wrong conclusion. For a start there isn’t any credible evidence that increased CO2 has caused ANY warming; so if you want to argue the benefits of warming versus cooling, do so, but don’t hang it on CO2.
And the food growth advantages of enhanced CO2 are quite clearly demonstrated in everyday greenhouse operations.
I guess they are going to have to come up with a new scam to fleece US taxpayers…
CO2 is an asphyxiant, not a toxin, i.e., as long as the air or gas mixture contains sufficient oxygen you will not die or be harmed if you breath it.
CO2 can be and has been used safely as an anesthetic – again, as long as sufficient oxygen is present. Pure oxygen on the other hand is toxic to alveolar epithelial cells if breathed for several hours, i.e., a small fraction of CO2 or inert gas must be present in the gas mixture to prevent damage from oxygen.
Should we regulate atmospheric oxygen? Put a limit on how much oxygen that trees can produce?
Hold your breath and discover the effects of CO2.
The Boy of John
Oxygen in excess can be a poison; at a partial pressure greater than 1.5 bar (“surface equivalent value” = 150 percent), it may cause the rapid onset of convulsions, and after prolonged exposures at somewhat lower partial pressures it may cause pulmonary oxygen toxicity with reduced vital capacity and later pulmonary edema. – Encyclopedia Britannica
Toxic, toxic, toxic.
Those that would like to read the OMB memo in it’s entirety can do so here:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/carbon20090512.pdf
Somebody in the OMB has a good head on their shoulders.
If you think that facts will cause this administration to back out of anything, just watch how fast Pelosi is backing out of not knowing about “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques”. In other words: Not at all.
They will continue to lie and present it as fact, as long as it gets them more power and money. When they bleed the pig dry, they will blame it on anyone but themselves.