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.
Sly Fox @09:24:44
We are monitoring and archiving their mad rantings. Sites like this and junkscience record all the economically and environmentally irresponsible silliness of the AGWERS. There will be no dissembling and denial of the public record.
Al Gore, the post-modern Elmer Gantry, will be chased out of town.
joan @09:14:39
CO2 is the staff of life. It makes things grow and feeds people. It is the natural means of exchange of a carbon based life-form, such as we on Earth.
It is not a pollutant … unless, of course, you consider all life a pollutant.
TonyB (10:44:01) :
LOL… no problem Tony. 🙂
Though on my own blog terms such as democide and non-specific genocide appear with some rather terse comments I tend use a softer tenor in material I import to WUWT. A respect for the intent of WUWT and for Anthony. That said there are two realities for me which are applicable to the BC story and The Lancet.
1) No one can demonstrate any death which has occurred due to global warming.
2) AGW / Anti-Carbon policies can be demonstrated to be responsible for, or a least a large factor in, the deaths of millions.
From you post:
Eco-madness I firmly agree with. As it applies to The Lancet, a medical journal, I find them to be lacking in professional morals and ethic.
Adolfo Giurfa (13:46:27) :
Most unconvenient truths, that I will repeat for those naive believers:
CO2 COLOR= COLORLESS
WHERE CAN I FIND IT?= EVERYTIME YOU EXHALE, IN THAT FOAMY THING THAT GOES OUT FROM THE BOTTLE WHEN YOU DRINK A BEER OR A COKE, IN THE FOOD YOU EAT-ALL CARBOHYDRATES ARE MADE OF THAT STUFF-, IN SWEET CANDIES MADE OF SUGAR, IN THE COTTON CLOTHES YOU WEAR (COTTON IS A POLYMER OF GLUCOSE-AGAIN THAT SWEETY THING-), …etc.
AH!…ALL THOSE GREEN PLANTS AND TREES YOU ARE SO FOND OF..BREATH IT
THEN…HE LIED US!
High Score! I like this. 🙂
Burch Seymour
Thanks for the kind comment. 😀
Incentives to fight CO2 damage is a good thing? You should pick up a copy of the classic Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. You’re arguing the same as a rock through a window creates economic advancement, since the window has to be replaced.
True, CO2 isn’t poisonous in current concentrations. Direct health effects should be expected to be slight. Indirect health effects are a different matter. Malaria is no laughing matter.
rbateman asks:
Got Google?
Toxic CO2 and how to detect it, treat it, fight it, and prevent it.
Sounds like something to ask about at the public hearing….
For those of you in the DC Area tomorrow:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
EPA Hearing on Proposed Endangerment Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act
Contact: (News Media Only) Cathy Milbourn 202-564-7849 / 4355 / milbourn.cathy@epa.gov
All Other Inquiries: Erin Birgfeld, birgfeld.erin@epa.gov
(Washington, D.C. – May 15, 2009) EPA will hold the first of two public hearings on Monday, May 18 regarding the agency’s proposed findings that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare. The proposed findings identify six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat.
The hearing is an opportunity for stakeholders and members of the public to voice their opinions on the proposed findings.
WHAT: Public hearing on the proposed endangerment and cause and contribute findings
WHEN: Monday, May 18th, 9:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m.
The hearing will continue into the evening to accommodate all members of the public who wish to comment.
WHERE: EPA Potomac Yard South Conference Center
2777 Crystal Drive, Room S-1204
Arlington, Va.
Written comments will be accepted until June 23, 2009. EPA will consider written comments submitted during the comment period with the same weight as oral comments presented during the public hearing.
More information on the hearing and for the audio webcast of the hearing: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/hearing_washington-may18.html
More information on the proposed finding: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html
Source: USEPA Press Release Mailing List (subscribe at https://service.govdelivery.com/service/user.html?code=USAEPA)
Consequences of EPA declaring CO2 a pollutant, and subsequent cap-and-trade regulations from Congress, include reduced competitiveness by U.S. companies leading to reduced profits and more business failures.
Such business failures will greatly reduce stock prices, and the savings plans of millions of Americans either in retirement, or about to retire.
The result will be many millions of very angry retirees, or wanna-be-retirees, who are forced to keep working. The politicians will feel their wrath at the polls.
Count on it.
There is a new and interesting development on the CO2 regulation front. According to an analysis by climatologist Chip Knappenberger utilizing the EPA funded MAGICC: Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change, developed by Dr. Tom Wigley and scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research – IF the Waxman/Markey bill were implemented and achieved a 80% reduction in CO2 by 2050 – it would result in a “savings” of only 0.05C!
http://masterresource.org/?p=2355
“By the year 2050, the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result in a global temperature “savings” of about 0.05ºC regardless of the IPCC scenario used—this is equivalent to about 2 years’ worth of warming. By the year 2100, the emissions pathways become clearly distinguishable, and so to do the impacts of Waxman-Markey. Assuming the IPCC mid-range scenario (A1B) Waxman-Markey would result in a projected temperature rise of 2.847ºC, instead of 2.959ºC rise— a mere 0.112ºC temperature “savings.”
In other words, mitigating CO2 emissions even at the draconian levels currently demanded – will have a negligible effect on warming, if any.