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.
What a lot of nonsense Jackson is talking.
Ooops, “its” not “it’s” propaganda division
Holy crap. One little self plug in the comments at WUWT hockey-sticked my little blog!
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b370/gatemaster99/bloghockey.png
Thanks Anthony! Now ~that~ gives some perspective on the power of your blog.
PaulHClark,
Your BBC is right there in bed with your politicians (and ours) when it comes to being untrustworthy and manipulative. They are a dispicable bunch.
UKSkeptic presents yet another example of BBC’s shameless twisted propoganda. And Sen. Barasso presents the same with the EPA and US media.
If we had to vote, it would be a neck and neck race as to who is more untrustworthy – the media or pols.
jtom (10:59:24) :
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.
You mean playing around with the bottom of the food chain is dangerous?
Who could have known? Yeah jtom, I got a hoot out of that one!
I’m shocked. . . . SHOCKED. . . . to find out that Lisa Jackson would still continue to try and claim that the EPA finding ”was based on science and was in no way politicized”. . . . right. . . .
I fear the eco-manics in charge of the EPA asylum will happily continue down Al Gore’s yellow brick AGW road until somebody stops them. Hopefully there will be enough rational members of Congress willing to take action before the EPA drives this country hopelessly into the economic ditch.
The simple fix I would wish for (no: I don’t expect anything quite this rational to happen):
Congress passes a law that unequivocally and plainly states that EPA has NO AUTHORITY whatsoever to regulate CO2.
“michel (10:56:05) :
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.”
Also, where are the emissions from government broken down department by department?
timetochooseagain,
Traffic accidents attract rubber neckers, too and they’re usually holding their breath. Bet it don’t last.
The Boy of John
John Boy, what exactly is your point? Too much oxygen is harmful, too much nitrogen is harmful, etc., etc. Same goes for too little, including CO2. Human physiology is designed to deal with conditions of the real world.
Just in case it has not been posted: GISS is out for April at 44, 03 below March
REPLY: We stopped monthly reporting on GISS. Too many errors in that dataset. – Anthony
It’s a fact that real greenhouses add extra CO2 to the atmosphere inside their hothouses and produce greener and bigger plants as a result. In many cases it’s 2-3 times the atmospheric levels. Yes, I know an owner who does just this.
Fred from Canuckistan . . . (11:14:32) :
“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 . ”
Actually, he’s shown no concern about how much he’s spending, or where it’s going to come from. I think he’s just looking for control over any money making entity so he can bring about “Social Justice”, and of course, green votes.
CO2 doesn’t start to have noticeable effects on people until it reaches 1% (10,000 ppm) in the air. Actual toxicity doesn’t occur until concentrations reach 5% (50,000 ppm). source.
At the same time, since CO2 level is the trigger for the breathing reflex in the medulla, and is needed to maintain PH by buffering with bicarbonate or carbonic acid, too little in the atmosphere will adversely affect people as well as plants.
As mammals we’re completely dependent on plants for oxygen and food (not to mention shelter and clothes). Plants seem to be happiest at CO2 levels of 1000 ppm, a level to which they must have become accustomed during their evolution. They need it, but we don’t. Shouldn’t we defer to the plants on the question of the desirable level of CO2? It benefits us to keep the plants happy and it’s not as though those levels of CO2 have never been attained before. It didn’t destroythe world then, it won’t destroy the world now.
Lisa Jackson said that she a) never read the document b) implied she would ignore it anyways c) because does not consider it anything but opinion
so what hope do you hold out our submissions might break through her concensus and settled science OPINION if she dismissed OMB and has already made the determination? This woman has a rapidlly growing budget and delusions of granduer, so look out emitters unless regular people stand up and fight, I have read the EPA public comments and the against are all argument based on data points the for are all save the planet wolf hugger pleas and anti big oil rants.
I do not think that this woman cares what the feedback shows and the public comment process is being observed as a procedural hurdle rather than an honest request for feedback. The more I look into this the more I am convinced the wheels of regulation are already in motion.
Reply to David in Davis (09:46:59) : “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.”
I guessssss thas whye thiz soda i’mmmmm driiiinkin iz make…innng meee sleeeepeeee..ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz
Re: Bill P (10:31:02)
It’s not so much a retraction as it is the OMB director disowning the comments as those of some other agency, and not his office. I examined the document’s properties, and it is titled “Endangerment Proposal – interagency comment”. I wonder which agency it was, they did a good job.
I do agree with your comment that there does seem to be some dissent within the ranks.
this all sounds too sweet!
do i smell a fish? like in Red Herring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(narrative)
@John Boy
So, CO2 in the atmosphere has the same effect as CO2 in the human body?
Yes, too much CO2 in your bloodstream is harmful. It’s a waste product you need to expel from your body.
I leaped without looking when I responded to your post. However, you inhale some CO2 with each breath. Levels up to 8% are considered safe.
Glad to see this got it’s own thread…I think it’s a huge story (..ok, I was actually hoping for a hat tip ;*) )
This again makes it obvious that there is no interest in science here at all, there is purely the desire to fund somewhere between 1/4 to 1/3 of the new budget.
My skin was crawling when I watched that vid this morning. In the YouTube comments, someone actually said that Lisa “pawned” Barrasso. Classic example of two people watching the same thing, but seeing very different things.
JimB
LarryD
Any idea what might be considered too little co2 for either plants or humans?
tonyb
LarryD (12:22:10):
Actual toxicity doesn’t occur until concentrations reach 5%…
That’s 130 times higher than its current concentration. Human symptoms at concentrations of 4.4%, like increases of cardiac and respiratory frequencies, headaches and sight impairment, are due to suffocation (insufficiency of oxygen), not intoxication.
I would just like to share with you all that here in Sweden, in one of the largest news TV-shows tonight, two (2) AGW-non believers got to speak. One of them was Roy Spencer who was interviewed for about a minute (I think), the other one was Lars Bern of Sweden who got to debate the leader of Swedens society for preservation of the nature, Svante Axelsson.
The debate went on for some minutes and was really well moderated by the host of the news show.
Lars Bern made a really good impression while Svante seemed very nervous and agitated.
This is not common in Sweden. 99% of all you hear in the media about AGW is totally Goreific. 🙂
slightly off track –
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-05/du-cwo051309.php
Cold water ocean circulation doesn’t work as expected
Money quote:
“We know that a good fraction of the human caused carbon dioxide released since the Industrial revolution is now in the deep North Atlantic”
If so, how can human caused carbon dioxide be causing warming?
Does the IPCC concur with this?
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.
——–
Don’t just blow your top, go to BBC complaints – and complain! I will. I still have a more general complaint about bias in climate reporting in the works, currently awaiting consideration by the BBC Trust. I’m not expecting much, but one can only do what one can do – just wish it was more.