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.
This toxic mixture of science and political advocacy is slowly destroying “climate science” – especially when you have loose cannons running around like Jim Hanson, Mark Serreze, and Heidi Cullen. And apparently the majority of the climate scientists appear to be OK with that…so long as the big research dollars continue to flow to them.
Somewhere I read that a minimum level of CO2 is essential for some physiological process. Can anyone provide details and a reference?
Unbelievable! I’m listening to the BBC News right now and they’re reporting that the Catlin expedition has proof that the Arctic icecap will be gone in 5 years! And to prove that the ice is so thin it’s melting away there’s a lovely shot of someone pushing a thin pole through the ice mere feet away from where the ice ends in open sea.
What a shower!
I would say soomebody’s head (John Orszag?) may be separated from his shoulders.
Read the retraction:
TUE, MAY 12, 4:31 PM EST
OMB Director Orszag Corrects the Record on the OMB & EPA
In a post entitled “Clearing the Air”:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/OMB-Director-Orszag-Corrects-the-Record-on-the-OMB-and-EPA/
Still, it makes one wonder if all is running smoothly in the new Camelot.
In other news, A species of bream, sarpa salpa, which can trigger hallucinations when eaten, has been been discovered in British waters due to global warming.
I don’t know whether this is good news or bad news. By the way, has the sea temperature around the British coast increased due to Global Warming or not? Does anyone know if I should cook this fish with garlic and onion, or a white sauce?
David L. Hagen @10:22:57 if you are serious in that question?
Then: Plants must have CO2 to live; without plants, animals die, that includes us. We put additional CO2 in greenhouses, not to warm them uyp, which it doesn’t, but to make the plants grow better. They seem to love 1000 ppm 🙂
Re: “John” Orszag — Make that “Peter”
Joseph (09:59:15), thank you for posting the link.
As many people have responded to Scott B, I won’t re-iterate, but I will just point out the “trap” he fell into was actually the same as the OMB – considering that the only impact of CO2 is on temperature/climate.
It is precisely this kind of blinkered view of selected impacts of ubiquitous compounds that gets us into trouble. As other commentators have noted, Oxygen is actually more toxic in high concentrations than CO2 and anyone who has handles rocket fuel will know how dangerous liquid oxygen is, so why is there no push for the EPA to regulate it?
Allowing the EPA to regulate CO2 purely from the standpoint of a presumed impact on climate has absolutely no redeeming features – it is plainly and simply stupid.
UK Sceptic (10:24:29) :
Unbelievable! I’m listening to the BBC News right now and they’re reporting that the Catlin expedition has proof that the Arctic icecap will be gone in 5 years! And to prove that the ice is so thin it’s melting away there’s a lovely shot of someone pushing a thin pole through the ice mere feet away from where the ice ends in open sea.
What a shower!
Yes, just seen the report on the web – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8048898.stm – this is probably most shameful piece of so called science reporting I have ever seen on the BBC. As a license fee payer I am disgusted at the depths the organisation has sunk to. The piece may as well have been written, filmed and edited by WWF. And it has been selected as the “Editor’s Choice”!
Where is the emission from agriculture and food production? Its huge, but it doesn’t seem to be shown anyplace. For the UK its at least 25% of the total emissions.
Paddy, it has long been established that minimum levels of carbon dioxide are required to sustain the biosphere. Photosynthesis in plants stops as levels fall below 200 ppm, with the exact level dependent upon plant species. So extinction of some plant species begins 200 ppm, and the biosphere becomes unalterably affected.
Agricultural crops significantly suffer and may fail at levels below 190 ppm. Agriculture is believe to have started 11,000 years ago, or so. Some scientists posit that before that time, the CO2 levels were too low, around 190 ppm, to make agriculture viable. Crops would only grow in limited areas and yields were low.
Crop yields are dependent upon carbon dioxide levels, with optimum yields occurring when CO2 is about 1000 ppm. Interestingly, with increased CO2 plants will grow in areas that would otherwise be deemed unsuitable due to lack of water, poor soil, or unsuitable temperature. So not only do yields go up, but increased CO2 expands the areas in which plants can grow.
That’s why I’m loathed to support any tinkering by man to reduce levels of CO2 already in nature, like dumping chemicals in the ocean to absorb and sequester carbon dioxide. Some experiments (like that one) are irreversible once begun, and have the potential to really play havoc with our world.
This is not my most optimistic comment…
The one issue to remember here is that the EPA can fall on prior regulation practices and behavior to justify clamping down on CO2. If this comes to pass, I would expect the same regulations will be applied to water vapor eventually.
The case for regulating CFC’s was based on an observed ozone hole in the antarctic, coupled with future scenarios of ozone depletion based on what we now know may be faulty models of ozone/CFC chemistry in the stratosphere. We didn’t understand the ozone hole then, and we still don’t understand the natural variability of the southern pole ozone hole.
There are no direct health effects of CFC’s, which is one of the reasons CFC’s were so widely used (as well as being efficient refrigeration fluids and low in cost). The increased UV radiation in populated regions of the world due to global ozone depletion out to 2050 was projected to be very slight (the equivalent of moving 200 miles closer to the equator), and increased rates of skin cancer would likely have been undetectable. Yet the Montreal Protocol was ratified with great fanfare and self-congratulatory harrumpfing, and is hailed as the great prototype for CO2 regulation.
The EPA banned DDT after reviewing scientific studies that demonstrated no health effects to humans, that warned of toxic effects to humans of pesticides that would substitute for DDT, and that described animal impacts (eggshell thinning, among others) that relied on dubious (later shown largely to be fabricated or poor) experimental data. Banning DDT led to a malarial genocide that everyone should be well aware of by now.
PCB’s were banned by the EPA even though scientific studies showed no adverse effects of PCB’s in humans, even when saturated with levels of PCB’s in their fatty tissues many times higher than the limits eventually imposed by EPA. We are still paying to clean up superfund sites that are contaminated by a harmless chemical.
The list of examples is long.
The EPA has a glorious history of regulating harmless chemicals in the name of protecting humans, and often in the face of contrary evidence. The EPA should never be confused with being a scientific organization. It is an advocacy group for the philosophically bankrupt precautionary principle, with considerable political power.
The only real argument I can see here is to push the cost-benefit calculation. As EPA has regulated chemicals over the decades, the cost-benefit has increased exponentially, to the point where, for some chemicals, ten’s of billions of dollars of regulatory costs are wasted per life saved.
Sorry to be so glum.
John Boy (09:47:37) :
Hold your breath and discover the effects of CO2.
The Boy of John
What you will discover is the effects of a lack of oxygen. CO2 is non-toxic, but you need oxygen.
David L. Hagen (10:22:57) :
Somewhere I read that a minimum level of CO2 is essential for some physiological process. Can anyone provide details and a reference?
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/11Phl/Sci/CO2&Health.html
“Also consider: we would die if we did not breathe in such a way as to retain very close to 65,000 ppm (6.5%) of CO2 in the alveoli (tiny air sacs) of our lungs.”
here too
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2009/TWTW_Feb%2028,%202009.pdf
its not that Obama needs to regulate CO2, he needs the money he can skim off CO2 regulation. He’s desperate to get some cash in the door . . . he’ll tax anything under the guise of “saving the planet”
One of the most important benefits of CO2 emissions is that they allow us to live: Some 80% of our energy comes from the burning of fossil fuels, with no serious alternative in the foreseeable future (with the possible exception of nuclear power).
UK Skeptic,
The BBC has become shameless and arrogant – even your Labour MPs appear to have had enough.
You’ll love this (concerning MP expense abuse):
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/12/british-pol-destroys-bbc-hack-how-much-are-you-paid/
Sorry it’s off topic, but it’s nice to see the shameless BBC get put in its place.
Ah, that’d be 29CFR1910.104, hazardous materials, oxygen…seriously.
Medical grade oxygen is also a prescription drug. Section 503(b)(4) of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act; 21 CFR Sections 201(b)(1) and 211.130.
You know, instead of getting people of “wasting oxygen”, maybe they should go for “misuse of prescription drugs”.
John Galt,
Increased CO2 in the bloodstream (which results from holding one’s breath) increases PH which is sensed by chemo-receptors in the brain which stimulate breathing. We expell CO2 from our bodies because it is harmful.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0R-3X3K7FF-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e1f61aa9aafe3b4b62d70fdea1be8cb6
The link. There is an abstract.
The Boy of John
We have seen in the UK in the last few days that our politicians are the very definition of untrustworthy.
In short they have been ‘fiddling their expenses’ (paid for by the tax payer) in such an egregious way that I doubt we will be able to believe anything they say for quite a while.
It occurs to me that ‘spinning the story’ is now more important than ever before for people in power.
The politiicans here were only caught out when someone leaked details of their expenses claims (this was despite FOIA requests which had been circumvented by the introduction of new laws).
The fact that you folks in the US are now seeing a leaked memo uncover some facts that lawmakers would rather be kept private suggests to me that all Americans should be on guard and encourage your media to uncover the truth on this issue.
Well I hope this all gets more intense and turns into a real DEBATE.
This is what the demented warmists are petrified of.
They and the fraud they are peddling are beginning to get exposed.
Just wait for the inevitable attacks on the OSB… none of which will have anything to do with the science involved, but will simply be attempts to discredit them somehow.
Andrew P (10:55:25) :
UK Sceptic (10:24:29) :
Yes, just seen the report on the web – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8048898.stm – this is probably most shameful piece of so called science reporting I have ever seen on the BBC. As a license fee payer I am disgusted at the depths the organisation has sunk to. The piece may as well have been written, filmed and edited by WWF. And it has been selected as the “Editor’s Choice”!
———————————-
I expected them all to lie harder as their their bogus theories disintegrated, but this seems like an inordinate level of fraudulent reporting. Do you think the British Government is fearful of lawsuits to reclaim taxes (e.g. the airline taxes, and the Cap and Trade taxes) so it is pushing this pack of lies on all potential class action plaintiffs via it’s propaganda division, the BBC ??
Since they do business here in the States (I’ve paid airline taxes to the British government), I wonder if our renowned class action attorneys are looking at this one too ??
I am surprised the Bad Cop/Good Cop routine is not more obvious to all. Of course Obama does not want the EPA to regulate CO2. Cap and Trade would provide a much more lucrative revenue stream and can be passed off as neither a tax nor a penalty.