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.
Well, I did take the opportunity to click the “WeCanSolveIt” link on the advertisement… I find it deliciously ironic that my clicking it might help fund Anthony’s fine work at the expense of fools.
Note just sent to Benny Peiser at CCNet:
Hi Benny,
If I were the Chinese, I would not lend another dime to the USA until they conducted an objective review of the science of climate change and the economics of CO2 abatement.
Why lend more money to anyone who is about to commit economic suicide, and with absolutely no scientific justification?
The Waxman-Markey bill makes the sub-prime fiasco look rather prudent, in comparison.
Best, Allan
P.S. to wattsup:
As you may know by now, I like America and Americans, but am deeply concerned that your government has lost all its wits regarding the global warming scam.
This leaked memo is a glimmer of light in the darkness – I hope it is read with sober reflection.
Imbeciles will rage at the fact that the memo was leaked, but intelligent people will recognize that it is a very important first step on the path to renewed sanity.
Remember Ike’s “military-industrial complex” speech. It’s a favorite of the political left, but there is a part of it they never quote. It is a part I believe is relevant to the EPA’s finding. It comes directly after Ike warns in the speech of the military-industrial complex:
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
“In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
* and is gravely to be regarded.
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.
“It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”
The political grandstanding surrounding this issue is so thick you could cut it with a knife — but wouldn’t it be best to zero in on the central issue, and decide whether it’s right or wrong?
The statement made is whether increased CO2 results in “no demonstrated direct health effects.”
Rather than make the issue the people who are backpedalling on the question, let’s get some answers to that essential question: Does CO2, at current and projected levels, pose a health risk??
Several posters have shown that in this context, higher CO2 levels are completely harmless. That is the central question — not the person who raised that question.
WAKE UP FOLKS!
Here is the contents of a canned letter that the Sierra Club has created for submission to the EPA. On the first web page of recent comments, about 8 of of 10 submissions were this letter.
“Determining that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, as EPA has now done, is a bold and necessary first step towards solving the climate crisis . The scientific evidence for this decision, produced by “decades of research by thousands of scientists from the U.S . and all around the world,” is “compelling, and, indeed, overwhelming .” Your proposed findings make the case for action by demonstrating that climate change threatens “virtually every facet of the living world around us” and that its effects include “sickness and death.”\ And there can be no doubt that emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines cause or contribute to global warming pollution. Your statement that this problem “cannot be solved by one regulatory action alone,” and that you will look at the “whole picture,” is very encouraging, especially combined with the many next steps EPA outlines . I urge you to move rapidly ahead with strong new rules designed to control greenhouse gases and provide a sound foundation for our economy . No one wants to mention that Coal is the largest contributor of Mercury into our atmosphere, and then our oceans . This needs to be stopped or greatly reduced. No one wants to mention the manipulation America has suffered while presenting record profits to Big Oil and their investors . This, too needs to change . When we have so many irreproachable reasons to do what is right, why does it seem to be so difficult? Swiftly finalizing these findings will jump start EPA’s efforts to address global warming now, before it is too late .”
I just filed my personal response to the EPA docket. I was really frustrated by the filing instructions that send to the website which says to use the online filing instructions that aren’t there. Grrrr…
I urge you to file your comments. The deadline is June 23. Don’t let the Sierra Club canned letter overwhelm the comments, even though they point out the “sickness and death” that the “Big Oil & Coal” is causing.
theduke (18:41:14) :
Eisenhower speech on Scientific-Elite complex link:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address
Eventually I suspect it will be recognized how prescient Ike was.
Mark (13:33:06) :
“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.”
I can remember seeing CO2 above 4% and O2 at 15.7 on the air monitor, IIRC. According to OSHA less than 19% O2 is IDLH. Guess they got that one wrong, too.
If you get CO poisoning, and they get to you in time, you get a tranfusion of blood to replace your hemoglobin, otherwise you suffocate because your blood cannot carry oxygen with C0 stuck all over your hemogloblin.
If you pass out from too much C02, and they get to you in time, they simply move you to fresh air. There’s no lasting toxic effect.
It takes 2 weeks to recover from C0 poisoning, the time it takes for your blood supply to regenerate.
They sell C0 monitors for your house, and the alarm goes off at 25ppm, your OSHA limit. You don’t need a C02 monitor or an oxygen sensor. That would run the bill for your sensors
up past $3k…or worse.
You sure as heck don’t need a Stamp Tax on your air supply for a measly 380ppm when the normal limit is 13 times greater than the present atmosphere.
I might suggest that you contact Lisa Jackson directly to complain about the EPA falling for the IPCC scam and Al Goracle. Her email is listed publicly on the EPA site: jackson.lisa@epa.gov
Let her know directly that she needs to THINK and listen to counter-evidence (like the Antarctic growing and growing…and the Arctic is nicely recovered from the CYCLIC 2007 low ice).
Most of these people (like Ms. Jackson) must have flunked science classes in high school and “logic 101” in college.
“decades of research by thousands of scientists from the U.S . and all around the world,” is “compelling, and, indeed, overwhelming .”
Name 100!
DaveE
If C02 were toxic, you’d be finding your kids passed out after opening a six pack of coke in their room. Such insulting memos we have in high places.
Oh, for crying out loud, my dad used to bring home a block of dry ice, sit it on a stool and blow a fan across it to cool us off. Nobody passed out or got sick. That was before you could buy an air conditioner.
Dry ice.
Frozen C02. We had fun sticking our fingers on it.
I don’t recall anyone calling the ambulance or reading about Joe Somebody dying from a block of C02 ice in their living room.
How did we get to this sad day?
Arn Riewe (19:00:08) :
I would actually take a little heart from multiple subscriptions of a form letter. It shows at the very least a concerted collaborative effort which may, (hopefully), be interpreted as conspiracy.
DaveE.
OSHA limits for carbon dioxide are mainly based on previous experiences at workplaces and experiments in animals (other than humans) updated in 1968, so it’s quite normal to see especial cases on which people seems to have no adverse effects from changes of the concentration of some substances in the air.
CO2 is not toxic; it simply is not oxygen, the same applies to water. CO2 doesn’t sustain life of oxygen-dependent organisms because it isn’t a substitute for oxygen in cell respiration.
On the other hand, CO (carbon monoxide) is toxic because it causes changes in the cell metabolism immediately after it has been ingested (by inhalation, of course). The upper limit for CO is 35 ppmV.
Another resource for workplaces security is the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), although the parameters for carbon dioxide haven’t changed too much since 1968 because its toxicity has not been demonstrated clinically, except in AGW minds.
To classify the carbon dioxide as a toxic substance is the silliest thing I have listened in my whole life. Those people dismiss science, clinical studies, observation and reason. Those people only have two words in mind … power and money.
Divers use to hyperventilate before diving for decreasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in their blood. This practice allows them to last for longer periods under water. The only adverse effect observed is that they lose their physiological ability to determine when they must to go out from water for breathing because it is high levels of carbon dioxide what stimulates the necessity of oxygen, not the low levels of oxygen. We instinctively do the same thing before and during sexual activity.
The light bulb is at last starting to flicker and hopefully it will turn on when reality bites. With a bit of luck the grandiose posturing of politicians will take a beating when they finally start looking at the real implications of what is being proposed. It’s all about the details- something too easy to forget when you are grandstanding at the 50,000 foot level.
The greatest tragedy of this CO2 demonization….
Is that, while the AGW and CO2 police attempt to hold the world hostage through political and money-making means….
REAL environmental tragedies get thrown under the bus.
I have said this many times, and even though I am a vehement ENEMY of Al Gore and John Holdren and everything they stand for, the idea of “green” is not bad…at all.
Its a shame that Ms. Jackson seems to hold forth as a bureaucrat and not as a chemical engineer with her comments….she seems smarter than that than to sequester herself in the classic bureaucra-response…but I might be wrong.
Back to CO2…as a matter of fact…CO2 is “green.”
I plant lots of plants and go landscape ape crazy this time of year for family and friends.
I don’t know….just an urge I have.
TWO different arguments here:
1) Is the science of AGW a bunch of BS and the political agenda behind it (cap and trade, etc.) worse than BS [downright evil if you ask me]? YES
2) Is the human species raping planet Earth (especially China?). YES
TWO separate arguments. But mostly the burden of proof is on the AGW side duplicity
[For example: George Bush is way more in practice an environmentalist than is Al Gore]
Either side…don’t throw the other’s baby out with the dirty, disgusting bathwater.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I forgot to mention that when the brain detects low levels of oxygen in blood, it send signals to lungs for taking oxygen from blood at any cost. Thus, the nervous system suffers hypoxia and goes into a blackout or syncope.
**small correction: I wrote “…they must to go out from water…”. It should have said “…they must go out from water…”. Sorry! 🙂
Anthony, I love your blog more every time I open it. Other than the usual troll suspects, there are amazing and intelligent posters here. I hope your blog brings you and all those who assist you every success imaginable!!! I believe the surfacestations project will vault you to the top. Your 15 minutes (hopefully more) will be well earned!! WUWT has been extremely cathartic for me, so I thank you and your team from the bottom of my heart. You may have noticed that some posters raise my hackles and cause me to bare my teeth. I appreciate your understanding in this matter. Highest regards, …. David Ball
REPLY: Well, gosh. – Anthony
Nothing in the EPA ruling suggests that CO2 is directly toxic to life. I know it’s an easy battle to fight, but it is not the important one. “CO2 is toxic” is a straw man. You know what the real debate here is, so why play these games?
I will repeat that:
CO2…..is “green.”
Not rocket science….or even 7th grade earth science.
Ask one of your plants.
[Oh if they could talk….]
Yikes…I am glad some of my houseplants can talk….
But to repeat:
CO2…is GREEN……
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Correction:
Glad some of my houseplants can NOT talk.
David Ball (21:00:50)
I second that….
OT but comment on current direction of this site. Me thinks people will start getting lost with so many postings. Suggest that really important (science ones) be picked and kept for longer discussion etc. Just an idea…..Maybe a survey. There seems to be extra interest when ice and temp data is posted re current trends. BTW best science site by far re “climate change” LOL
CT ice data seem to be stuck at 1st week May are they all the same (NSIDC etc..)? Some info on this would be very welcome.
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?
What I was taught is that:
The trick here is to understand that in the human body, CO2 levels and control are actually all about regulating the acidity – H+ concentration – of the cells and extracellular fluids to maintain a pH level appropriate for all of the chemical processes necessary for life to operate successfully.
For example, in terms of a minimum CO2 body concentration consistent with life, as long as the ratio [HCO3-]/[dissolved CO2] can be maintained or adjusted over time to about 20/1 everything will proceed normally:
pH = 6.1 + log [HCO3-]/[dissolved CO2], normally about 7.4 .
So it’s at least possible to exist with a very low CO2 concentration. What that level is, I have no idea, but it would vary according to what the body is doing to try to maintain a “healthy” pH, via “ventilation”/breathing rates to affect CO2 concentrations, and kidney action to help control HCO3- under different conditions imposed by life and diseases.
Anyway, some CO2 must be present or at least being produced in order for the body to control its acidity so that it is at an appropriate enough level for all of the chemical reactions to operate so as to be able to support life.