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.
@ur momisugly Nasif Nahle (12:45:49) :
I beg to differ on CO2 being an intoxicant. I once brewed a batch of beer and bottled it too early. Being young and even more foolish than I am now, I braved the exploding bottles and poured it back into the crock. Having heard that CO2 had “interesting” properties, I stuck my face into the crock and took a lungful. Definitely trippy! (this is *not* anoxia… running out of O2 is symptom-free… outside of death… ask a pilot.)
Keep it mum, though, or the DEA will want to schedule it. 🙂
Best,
Frank
Sorry if I violated a rule, I was going by site’s direction- “For story ideas or other items related to this website: leave a comment on any thread. ”
Is there are different procedure?
I honstly am trying to play by the rules.
Again, my apologies.
Robert Kral,
I forgot what my point was, but it’ll fit in here somewhere in this ~snip~
The Boy of John
John Galt (14:02:42) :
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.
The purpose of this memo was to point out the holes in the CO2 Endangerment argument put forth by EPA. (BTW, Thanks Joseph, for the link above). It does this all too well.
The form of this is a legalistic critique intended to “help” the lawmakers in the deliberative phase of their NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?) But, going way out on a limb, I’d say this writer believes the CO2 / harm connection is a pure crock. Moreover, he / she sees that the EPA has made an exceedingly weak case out of thin air.
As you correctly observe: whoever wrote this may have been too smart for his / her own good. It might be a pleasant surprise to see that the President himself, or members of his administration, takes credit for requesting an opposing view in order to better his own decision-making. Isn’t it better to own up a heresy than to pretend it never happened?
Here’s the Daily Telegraph report on Catlin
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5320251/Arctic-expedition-to-measure-Arctic-ice-makes-it-less-than-half-way-to-North-Pole.html
Now let me see :
The Catlin Expedition set off with the fixed intent to show that Arctic ice is thinner than it should be and they say that they find it to be so.
The IPCC set off with the fixed intent to prove that there is a link between AGW and CO2 and they say that they find it to be so.
And this “verification” of a fixed intents passes for Science ?
And yes I know the answer.
Well, I saw the BBC report. What a lot of cobblers. The snowmobiles and “Arctic” clothing at the beginning were obviously shot near a settlement – it’s May and sea ice near coasts is melting. The jumping into a polyna by the Catlin representative and the sub surfacing – don’t polynas exist everywhere the ice pulls apart, no matter what the temperature? – and what about that photo from 1987 of three subs surfaced at the North Pole ?. The expert with the digitised submarine ice sounder records – very careful and edited question and answer there. What a farce. Thank goodness that I am not one of those forced to pay for the BBC as it has become.
Sorry for a way OT, but anyone who can receive Boston TV will be interested in my recent comment at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/10/a-report-on-the-surfacestations-project-with-70-of-the-ushcn-surveyed/
Followup comments over there, please. (Or other appropriate thread.)
“BBC News right now … reporting that the Catlin expedition has proof that the Arctic icecap will be gone in 5 years! ”
Well, that settles it! I am turning off the Gulf Stream right now! That’ll fix em.
Before Gore Kneel (16:29:47) :
“BBC News right now … reporting that the Catlin expedition has proof that the Arctic icecap will be gone in 5 years! ”
Well, that settles it! I am turning off the Gulf Stream right now! That’ll fix em.
————————————
What kind of psychiatry makes these people so DESPERATELY want the Arctic ice to melt away …. so that they can save the Arctic from having its ice melt away ???
I’m going to join you, because I’m one of those omnipotent beings known as humans too. I shall make up a few million barrels of CFCs in my basement and create an ozone hole over the Arctic, which will in turn cause the sea ice area to expand and thwart their dastardly plan. A peer-reviewed paper has convinced me that this experiment WILL work !!
No doubt the EPA reply to the OMB will be that CO2 is a health hazard because it causes lethal global warming.
Perhaps the OMB will agree, and the EPA can next propose to sell the Brooklyn Bridge for a bargain price because their scientists find it is too dangerous for public use.
The end of the tape brings up a good point.
The EPA does NOT enforce most of its regulations uniformly.
Theoretically they can get away with it by acting on only businesses (which have no constitutional rights). But once they begin to turn the screws on individuals; it becomes an equal protection issue.
Since we all generate CO2, we all must be issued allowances or bills. All of us uniformally.
Posted this complaint at the Times
re
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5320251/Arctic-expedition-to-measure-Arctic-ice-makes-it-less-than-half-way-to-North-Pole.html
What sort of rubbish are you publishing these days?
The Catlin expedition never left 1st year ice so what did they expect to find? I suspect they expected to find ice significantly thinner than they did.
The slightly more high tech Wegener Institute overfly with instruments designed to do what the ‘Sprite’ radar that failed were surprised that the ice was thicker than expected. I guess that’s why the ‘Sprite’ failed.
Dave.
DaveE.
The censor guy is really on his game. I shall rephrase. MY comment will fit in this gumdrop stack.
The Reformed Boy of John
Sorry.
I was so incensed that I could do no better than that as a complaint of their coverage.
I should probably have waited until I calmed down.
DaveE.
One of the single largest sources of CO2 comes from the decomposition of dead plant material. It totaly dwarfs all human based emissions. All you composters out there, think of all the CO2 your releasing into the atmosphere the next time your turning your compost pile.
Personally I bag all my lawn clippings in plastic bags and send them to the landfill. So where is my carbon credit check Mr Gore???
I probably posted it at the Telegraph LOL
DaveE.
John Boy (11:28:56) :
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.
From your abstract:
“Feedback for CO2 involves the carotid body and receptors in the brainstem, central chemoreceptors. Small increases in CO2 produce large increases in breathing. ”
Let’s keep in mind that the breathing mechanism in humans is distinct from the Earth’s climate system. Note however that the CO2 functions as a catalyst to breathing so as to maintain the O2/CO2 balance. Similarly, as CO2 increases in atmosphere various mechanisms (carbon sinks, biological growth, changes in albedo) seem to counter the effect, keeping the rate of increase steady until (perhaps) it reverses and “exhales.”
John Galt (14:02:42) :
“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.”
John, you may be right – unless the author(s) come out and name themselves. At which point THIS community, i.e. skeptics, must back these truth bearers up. Obama cannot afford to fire or hamstring a public servant doing their best to get the truth out. Even if it’s critical of thy unholy AGW!
On the other hand, this may be a backdoor exit strategy. Setting up the Admin to reneg on the Cap N Trade scheme which has less support each day.
Did anyone else take in Lisa Jackson’s interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN this afternoon? Did I hear her right, to say that CO2 mitigation would cost the average family about $135 a year?
Juan
Frank Kotler (15:35:04) :
@ur momisugly Nasif Nahle (12:45:49) :
I beg to differ on CO2 being an intoxicant. I once brewed a batch of beer and bottled it too early. Being young and even more foolish than I am now, I braved the exploding bottles and poured it back into the crock. Having heard that CO2 had “interesting” properties, I stuck my face into the crock and took a lungful. Definitely trippy! (this is *not* anoxia… running out of O2 is symptom-free… outside of death… ask a pilot.)
Keep it mum, though, or the DEA will want to schedule it. 🙂
Hah! Interesting experience! 😀
It’s possible that you have inhaled methanetiol and/or other organosulfur volatile substances produced by fermentation and putrefaction.
E. Denise Baxter, Paul S. Hughes. 2001. Beer: Quality, Safety and Nutritional Aspects.The Royal Society of Chemistry. UK
Best,
Nasif
It should not surprise you that the BBC is the most fanatical religous AGW ‘news’ organisation, after all, Britain is fast becoming a police state, people being arrested for ‘hate speech’. BBC, propaganda for the sheep.
Replying to…
Bill P (10:31:02) :
–Somebody in the OMB has a good head on their shoulders.
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.
So…John Orszag says…
“The quotations circulating in the press are from a document in which OMB simply collated and collected disparate comments from various agencies during the inter-agency review process of the proposed finding. These collected comments were not necessarily internally consistent, since they came from multiple sources, and they do not necessarily represent the views of either OMB or the Administration…”
And that’s not indicative of internal doubts about the EPA position?
I wonder how the Gorebots would react if an AAPG or ExxonMobil document surfaced that suggested that many of the world’s sedimentary geologists believed that Gang-Gore was correct about climate change. I doubt they would say, “OK” if the AAPG or XOM said, “These collected comments were not necessarily internally consistent, since they came from multiple sources, and they do not necessarily represent the views of either ExxonMobil or the AAPG…”
We all know that if the memo “shoe was on the other foot” (the right foot)…Obama’s DOJ and the Reid-Pelosi Congress would be holding the mother-of-all tobacco-style Spanish Inquisitions.
In public buildings and sports areans CO2 levels reach 2000 -3000 ppm. The occupational safety standards have set a limit at 5000 ppm. Each breath we take we exhale CO2 at 35,000 to 50,000 ppm.
Outdoor CO2 is in no way, shape or form unhealthy, even in urban environments where it may reach 600 ppm.
I tried to send my comment to the EPA but their website “timed out” on me even when I cut, paste, send in a second or two. Anyone have a mini tutorial for us?
John Boy (11:28:56) :
“Increased CO2 in the bloodstream (which results from holding one’s breath) increases PH”
I am no physiologist but i would have thought that the opposite was true with respect to pH ?
ah yes from Wicki
“The principal result of the increased amount of dissolved CO2 is acidosis (respiratory acidosis when caused by impaired lung function);”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_retention
But this is an AGW supporting post so I guess that acidification and basification all fit the modelled outcome.
In Newspeak white is black and black is white except when they’re not of course.