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.
“Global Warming Inadvertently Curbed In Past By Lead Pollution, Scientists Find”
So man is causing AGW while we were accidentally stopping AGW?
I guess the EPA will have to bring back leaded gasoline to stop global warming. Which is more harmful? I would say the lead causing limited brain function allowing the CO2 “debate” to go this far.
Why do greenhouses elevate CO2 levels to about 1000ppm?
Because most plants grow better and faster and need less water, are more resilient.
Why do most plants grow better in a 1000ppm environment than at the current 380ppm outside of greenhouses?
Possibly because the average CO2 level over the past 100 million years was about 1000ppm (it was a lot higher 500 million years ago), thus plants might have adapted to that level during their more recent evolution.
The idea that somehow this 9-page paper “incriminates” the OMB / Obama wrt their Green credentials is, I fear, sadly mistaken.
Orszag has already disavowed authorship, and its significance is clearly overblown. Here is his own disclaimer from his blog, which appeared last night.
Barrasso, who calls the purloined memo a “smoking gun” can wave the papers around all he likes. Unless someone can find a bureaucrat who says, “Yep, I wrote that, and that’s what I believe,” there isn’t much to argue about, and the video reflects this non-event. Was Barrassos ready for a smart reply? Or any reply at all? He doesn’t look like it.
Love it. The internal memo over questionable co2 hazards and politically driven regulations should open the door to more questions on “climate change” and political agendas.
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.”
Please google “photosynthesis” and you will learn something,
Cheers, Bill W
“We try to keep CO2 levels in our US Navy submarines no
higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 times current atmospheric levels.”
Source:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=84462e2d-6bff-4983-a574-31f5ae8e8a42
Rejecting CO2 because it is the offspring of black CARBON and white OXYGEN is outrageously racist.
@ur momisugly Bill P (13:20:08) :
Unfortunately, your analysis is spot on. This memo does not reflect the official policy of the EPA or the Obama administration. It is already being poo-pooed by the EPA and the media.
We’ve seen what happens to people who stand up against AGW, particularly people who work for the government. I hope whoever wrote this is eligible for their pension because their career is going nowhere from now on. If they are a political appointee, they will soon be saying hello to the private sector.
The only way to stop the EPA is a law passed by Congress that specifically prohibits the EPA from regulating CO2 and other GHGs under the Clean Air Act.
Quoting:
“At the same time, since CO2 level is the trigger for the breathing reflex ”
Commenting:
Your remark triggered a memory of a BBC (irony!) show called, I believe, “The Body Human”. The host of this particular episode re-breathed his own exhalations through a CO2 scrubber. So, he wound up breathing mostly nitrogen. Meanwhile he wrote the alphabet on a piece of paper.
Soon, the viewer could see that he was making a hash of letters and the man passed out. I should mention, there was a doctor in attendance who took him off the gadget and gave him O2. The host, once revived, described his state of mind as feling fine, not recognizing any distress and not noticing the mess he was making on the paper. His breath rate, recorded on a paper tape (long time ago, this) was quite regular.
WIthout CO2 there is, apparently, no urgency to find oxygen when it is in short supply. This sounds like a vital substance to me!
Mike T (12:57:20)
Thanks for your suggestion to complain to the Beeb. Have acted. Can I suggest that others do too. Not just UK residents – the BBC’s equality policies will allow it to accept complaints from anywhere.
I am coming to the conclusion that they are trying to influence the melting of the polar ice from the heat radiated from those, who like me, are incandescent at such grossly biased reporting.
Glenn Beck To The Rescue !!!!!!!
As I speak he is interviewing Barasso from Wyoming re the Smoking Gun Memo !!!!!!!!
Mark (13:33:06),
Excellent link, thanx for posting it. Unfortunately, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee had alarmist frightmongers to counter this reasonable testimony. And the committee Chair, Barbara Boxer, is surely incapable of even understanding the issue.
Re Glenn Beck Interview:
It was on Fox News-very short-you may be able to review it on http://www.hulu.com
Most significantly Beck mentioned that the proposed Cap and Trade will cost each American family approximately $1600. Per year !!!!!!!
anthony, sorry for OT, BUT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT!
NOAA AND SIDC HAVE COUNTED A DEAD PIXEL AS A SUNSPOT!
TOMORROW I’LL POST AN IMPORTANT ARTICLE ABOUT SUNSPOTS CONUTING IN 2008 AND 2009! IT IS AN INCREDIBLE ARTICLE:
http://72.14.221.132/translate_c?hl=it&sl=it&tl=en&u=http://daltonsminima.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/non-perdetevi-nia-domani-un-articolo-vi-dimostrerauna-volta-per-tutte-che-i-conteggi-delle-macchie-di-buona-parte-del-2008-e-di-tutto-il-2009-non-sono-attendibili/&prev=hp&rurl=translate.google.it&usg=ALkJrhi_3WuHeCh-ySzvvEUJy9XOIiluQA
Here that?
It’s the sound of Al Gore’s dubious life long project taking it’s last Co2 laced breath….
Music to my ears!
Re: G. E. Smith
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.
I’ve been looking for the source of this. Any chance you’ve got a link?
juan
George E. Smith (09:33:44) :
“”” 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 ?
That’s easy to answer – it will be the poorest 1.2B Humans who will suffer the most.
BBC: I’m a subscriber to BBC World on cable TV. As a customer of the BBC, I feel that I, too, have a right to complain about their biased news reports. I really feel sorry for UK residents who have to pay for their annual TV Licenses. Been there, done that.
As for the EPA, they should make a determined effort to ban the chemical H2O. Not only will it cause intoxication if used in excess, but can cause death. The health implications of this compound are enormous. We are surrounded by it! http://chemistry.about.com/cs/5/f/blwaterintox.htm
Forget about CO2. Ban H2O now!
OK, here’s what we need to do.
1)Make a list of all the endangered plants which will possibly suffer from CO2 levels which are lower than present.
2)File a class action suit against EPA in the name of the Endangered Species Act. Invite all the enviro organizations to join in the suit, or give a reason why not.
Carbon dioxide is essential to the body, not just as a bi-product of respiration. It also serves the same buffering function that it plays in the ocean. The equilibrium between CO2, carbonic acid and carbonates (which are excreted by the kidneys) allow the body to be regulated in a specific pH range.
Each exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2, or 40,000 ppm.
“”” WestHoustonGeo (14:17:15) :
Quoting:
“At the same time, since CO2 level is the trigger for the breathing reflex ”
Commenting:
Your remark triggered a memory of a BBC (irony!) show called, I believe, “The Body Human”. The host of this particular episode re-breathed his own exhalations through a CO2 scrubber. So, he wound up breathing mostly nitrogen. Meanwhile he wrote the alphabet on a piece of paper.
Soon, the viewer could see that he was making a hash of letters and the man passed out. I should mention, there was a doctor in attendance who took him off the gadget and gave him O2. The host, once revived, described his state of mind as feling fine, not recognizing any distress and not noticing the mess he was making on the paper. His breath rate, recorded on a paper tape (long time ago, this) was quite regular.
WIthout CO2 there is, apparently, no urgency to find oxygen when it is in short supply. This sounds like a vital substance to me! “””
I’m no physiologist, but that is my understanding too. If you hold your breath, it is not the lack of oxygen in your lungs that eventually causes you to breathe, it is the build up of CO2 in the lungs that ultimately forces you to take a breath (if you can). At least that’s what I have been told.
Also it is my understanding that the New zealand Maori people used to treat drowning victims by stringing them up upside down over a fire with green flax leaves on it to keep the flames down but make a lot of smoke. It is assumed that by sticking you into a high CO2 concentration you would eventually instinctively gasp for air.
My guess is it worked often enough to become part of their medical folklore.
George
PS I believe that scuba diving manuals say that Oxygen becomes toxic below 150 ft depth, which is about five times normal oxygen, so you can’t breathe ordinary air beyond that depth. My scuba daughter is into fancy diving mixtures; so I will see what she has to say.
But CO2 never becomes toxic, it just displaces air so you can’t get oxygen.
I have seen videos of places in Africa near semi-active volcanoes, where CO2 seeped out of the volcanoe underground, and filled depressions down by rivers, so villagers and their children who wandered down into the water either to swim, or get water, found themselves asphyxiated from lack of oxygen. In the video I saw, they threw burning materials out into the depressions, and the fire got snuffed out with residual smoke spreading ominously on what was clearly a dense layer of CO2. Very dramatic footage that wised up the villagers in a hurry; they had been losing children to an unknown terror.
George
[snip OT]
I have just posted my brief objection to the EPA proposal .
I would encourage all to do the same, its a very easy process with one note of caution :
make sure your comment is attached to the document itself – not to another persons comment ( unless you wish to really do that – you can do both ! )
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-0001
when you finish you have an opportunity to edit or to publish and you will get a confirmation screen :
Thank you. Your comment on Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-0001 has been sent.
Your Comment tracking number is xxxxxxxxxxx .
If this document is genuine, this is very good news–but only if it is blasted throughout the hyerverse to the extent that the MSM has to report it.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/742/Is-Obamas-climatechange-plan-getting-sabotaged-from-within
I hope so!