I can’t find the words to describe the illogic behind the EPA with this ruling. Perhaps it is best to say that bureaucrats don’t understand anything but regulations and leave it at that.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will early next week, possibly as soon as Monday, officially declare carbon dioxide a public danger, a trigger that could mean regulation for emitters across the economy, according to several people close to the matter. Story here.
To celebrate, surfacestations.org volunteer Gary Boden sends along this poster:
But there’s an interesting twist, just two days ago, the University of Wisconsin says that CO2 is accelerating forest growth. Of course, bureaucrats wouldn’t understand this, because they can’t regulate tree growth. Oh, wait.
From the University of Wisconsin-Madison press release:
Greenhouse gas carbon dioxide ramps up aspen growth
Dec. 4, 2009
The rising level of atmospheric carbon dioxide may be fueling more than climate change. It could also be making some trees grow like crazy.
That is the finding of a new study of natural stands of quaking aspen, one of North America’s most important and widespread deciduous trees. The study, by scientists from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Minnesota at Morris (UMM) and published today (Dec. 4) in the journal Global Change Biology, shows that elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the past 50 years have boosted aspen growth rates by an astonishing 50 percent.
“Trees are already responding to a relatively nominal increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 50 years,” says Rick Lindroth, a UW-Madison professor of ecology and an expert on plant responses to climate change. Lindroth, UW-Madison colleague Don Waller, and professors Christopher Cole and Jon Anderson of UMM conducted the new study.
The study’s findings are important as the world’s forests, which cover about 30 percent of the Earth’s land surface, play an important role in regulating climate and sequestering greenhouses gases. The forests of the Northern Hemisphere, in particular, act as sinks for carbon dioxide, helping to offset the increase in levels of the greenhouse gas, widely viewed as a threat to global climate stability.
What’s more, according to the study’s authors, the accelerated growth rates of aspen could have widespread unknown ecological consequences. Aspen is a dominant tree in mountainous and northern forested regions of North America, including 42 million acres of Canadian forest and up to 6.5 million acres in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Aspen and their poplar cousins are considered “foundation species,” meaning they exert a strong influence on the plant and animal communities and dynamics of the forest ecosystems where they reside.
“We can’t forecast ecological change. It’s a complicated business,” explains Waller, a UW-Madison professor of botany. “For all we know, this could have very serious effects on slower growing plants and their ability to persist.”
Carbon dioxide, scientists know, is food for plants, which extract it from the air and through the process of photosynthesis convert it to sugar, plant food.
Previously, scientists have shown that plants and trees in growth chambers respond to levels of carbon dioxide well above levels in the atmosphere. The new study is the first to show that aspen in their native forest environments are already growing at accelerated rates due to rising ambient levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
“It’s a change hiding right in front of us,” says Cole, a biologist at UMM. “Aspens respond to all sorts of things we had to account for — water, genetics and other factors — but the strong response to carbon dioxide surprised all of us.”
The study measured the growth rates of 919 trees from Wisconsin forests dominated by aspen and birch. Trees ranging in age from 5 to 76 years old were sampled and subjected to tree-ring analysis. Comparing the tree-ring data, a measure of annual tree growth, with records of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the researchers were able to correlate increased rates of growth with changes in the chemistry of the air.
The surprising increase in growth rates for the trees sampled in the study is coupled, the authors note, with moist conditions. By contrast, aspen in the western United States do not seem to grow as fast as those in the American Midwest, most likely due to recent extended periods of drought. Also, while the researchers found that aspen grow much faster in response to elevated carbon dioxide, similar effects have not been observed in other trees species, notably oak and pine.
Findings from the new study, the authors note, could augur revisions of the estimates of how much carbon northern temperate northern forests can sequester.
“Forests will continue to be important to soak up anthropogenic carbon dioxide,” says Waller. “But we can’t conclude that aspen forests are going to soak up excess carbon dioxide. This is going to plateau.”
“Aspens are already doing their best to mitigate our inputs,” agrees Cole. “The existing trees are going to max out in a couple of decades.”
The new study was funded by the National Science Foundation and UMM.
According to the Times “Copenhagen emissions targets ‘not enough to avert catastrophic warming’”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6946675.ece
It’s all like watching a shamanic chant rising to a hallucinatory climax in Copenhagen while preparing to embark on the quest for an even higher unreality. I fear that as CO2 makes you breathe more quickly they are in a runaway frenzy.
Nobody is saying co2 is a poison. C’mon, we can all get our head around this one. The argument here is equivalent to saying “we shouldn’t have firemen because, look, barbecues cook meat really well – clearly, fire is good for us.”
Fire in barbecues: good. Fire in your house: bad. Not sure how things are in the US, but in the UK we work *really* hard to mitigate against the latter. That doesn’t mean we’re trying to ban barbecues.
Dan Olner (02:16:14) :
Nobody is saying co2 is a poison.
Nobody except the EPA…
In 2005 the late Michael Wharton – the great British satirist otherwise known as Peter Simple – devised of “passive drinking” to accompany “passive smoking” as one of society’ worst ills.
In March 2009 Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer actually declared that the Govt should clamp down on passive drinking by introducing minimum prices for alcohol.
So what now ?
passive breathing ?
perhaps they should introduce laws where we are only allowed to breathe in specially air-conditioned, carbon-filtered rooms ?
If the EPA does rule, then it will leave itself open to legal challenge, especially tks to CRU’s behavior and the EPA’s reliance on their so called science.
The one thing lawyers love above all is a big fat rich juicy target and they don’t come any bigger then a government.
Perfect demonstration of how governments would like to tax breathing.
A rational article: click
Dedicated to the EPA, the Politicians, Copenhagen and everyone looking forward to their share of the swag …
He rose to his feet.
“If,” he said tersely, “we could for a moment move on to the subject of fiscal policy …”
“Fiscal policy!” whooped Ford Prefect, “Fiscal policy!”
The Management Consultant gave him a look that only a lungfish could have copied.
“Fiscal policy …” he repeated, “that is what I said.”
“How can you have money,” demanded Ford, “if none of you actually produces anything? It doesn’t grow on trees you know.”
“If you would allow me to continue …”
Ford nodded dejectedly.
“Thank you. Since we decided a few weeks ago to adopt the leaf as legal tender, we have, of course, all become immensely rich.”
Ford stared in disbelief at the crowd who were murmuring appreciatively at this and greedily fingering the wads of leaves with which their track suits were stuffed.
“But we have also,” continued the Management Consultant, “run into a small inflation problem on account of the high level of leaf availability, which means that, I gather, the current going rate has something like three deciduous forests buying one ship’s peanut.”
Murmurs of alarm came from the crowd. The Management Consultant waved them down.
“So in order to obviate this problem,” he continued, “and effectively revalue the leaf, we are about to embark on a massive defoliation campaign, and … er, burn down all the forests. I think you’ll all agree that’s a sensible move under the circumstances.”
The crowd seemed a little uncertain about this for a second or two until someone pointed out how much this would increase the value of the leaves in their pockets whereupon they let out whoops of delight and gave the Management Consultant a standing ovation. The accountants amongst them looked forward to a profitable Autumn.
“You’re all mad,” explained Ford Prefect.
“You’re absolutely barmy,” he suggested.
“You’re a bunch of raving nutters,” he opined.
The ‘science’ behind this reminds me of the old joke about the physicist who won a prize for building a model that predicted, to four decimal places, the probability of a given horse winning a race. Unfortunately, it worked best on spherical horses racing in a vacuum.
It’s time to ostracize dihydro-monoxid, isn’t it ?
If a roughly 30% increase in CO2 levels results in a 50% increase in aspen growth, this implies that previous levels of CO2 were a major rate limiting factor in aspen growth. The natural conclusion must be that they are sub-optimal, at least for aspen growth and that aspen evolved in an era with much higher levels. We should welcome increasing CO2 as one of many answers to global food shortages.
tallbloke (03:06:21) :
Come come, if you want to poke fun at physicists be more accurate – if they are racing in a vacuum it doesn’t matter what shape they are …
Getting OT here aren’t we!
A thought occurred to me, what is happening to O2 levels? anyone?
Canadians might like to know that our ‘EPA’ has already declared CO2 to be a ‘toxic substance’. See number 74 in this list:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/ceparegistry/subs_list/toxicupdate.cfm
This means that Cabinet can regulate CO2 at its whim.
OT: Isn’t the Hope n’ Faken news hyperbolic today? The sky is falling… the sky is falling!
Ursus
“Aspens are already doing their best to mitigate our inputs,” agrees Cole. “The existing trees are going to max out in a couple of decades.”
I guess he doesn’t realize aspens multiply. Cut down the big ones, a hundred little ones grow from the roots.
2SoonOld2LateSmart (23:31:58) : regarding oxygen
Some might miss your “/sarc” at the end. I’ll add that several weeks or months ago there was a comment regarding the dangers of too much oxygen. If any missed that – begin a search with the phrase ‘oxygen toxicity’ or go here:
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Oxygen+poisoning
You know, as far as AGW insanity goes this story is actually a nice change of mood and pace. Trees galore… what could be better?!
But what never ceases to amaze me is a perfectly good story has scare-mongering sneaked into it. So…why is it that the trees will somehow grow so much and cause extintiion (presumably)? These people are supposed to have degrees, are supposed to be so smart. But they don’t ever conclude that the growing trees (if indeed that is so) will soak up the carbon excess (if indeed THAT is so) and VIOLA… the projected doom of tree overgrowth is solved. Balance restored! And sheeze… why not just, oh I don’t know, allow more of them to be cut down if they even become a problem?! And hey, if climate change is going to drown us all in more hurricanes, then we’ll have the timber to rebuild!
But no… we’re all supposde to be shaking in our air-condioned homes (we’re too stupid to adjust the setting, don’t forget, so maybe we’re just too stupid to be scared, eh?) about how we’re going to tear the planet limb from limb by, of all things, adding more limbs to it.
Brilliant! (rolls eyes)
Dan Olner (02:16:14) :
Nobody is saying co2 is a poison.
Bill Tuttle: “Nobody except the EPA…”
No, they’re not. They’re saying it’s potentially dangerous. They’re saying it’s a greenhouse gas that, in large concentrations, will cause dangerous global warming. This stuff about banning breathing is all very amusing, but I just don’t see how this is a complicated distinction to make.
I have just emailed a complaint to the head of EPA – Ms Jackson, jackson.lisa@epa.gov that CO2 is not a pollutant and the reasons. Why don’t all bloggers do the same and put pressure on EPA to reconsider.
– Some food for thought:
“Fully HALF of today’s global photosynthesis and OXYGEN production is accomplished by single-celled marine plankton living in the top oceanic layer where enough light penetrates to support their growth.”
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_bio_1.html
“Australian research in New South Wales added 4.5 tons/acre to carbon-poor soil to double soybean biomass, triple wheat.”
http://www.carbon-negative.us/BiocharFAQ.htm
– Now time for some confusion and fun!!!
“Some studies have suggested that inorganic ARSENIC is an essential dietary nutrient in goats, chicks, and rats. However, no comparable data are available for humans. EPA has concluded that essentiality, although not rigorously established, is plausible. ”
EPA >> http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/arsenic.html
“…atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm — comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!”
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
“Even though oxygen is necessary for aerobic life, it can also participate in potentially toxic reactions involving oxygen free radicals and transition metals such as Fe that damage membranes, proteins, and nucleic acids.”
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/abstract/4/9/2587
“How Did Early Bacteria Survive Poisonous Oxygen?”
http://www.universetoday.com/2006/11/29/how-did-early-bacteria-survive-poisonous-oxygen/
“It turns out that our planet is about as carbon-poor a place as you can find in the galaxy.”
http://www.di.utoronto.ca/journalist/myblog/?p=15
Humans, animals and plants are carbon based life-forms.
http://www.webelements.com/periodicity/abundance_humans/
————–
Trying to regulate Co2 will fail as it has since Kyoto because Co2 levels continued their upward trend. After Copenhagen C02 levels will continue their upward trend.
What a waste of time and money.
This is the second December 7th that will live in infamy.
I hope the first big corporation whose CO2 output the EPA attempts to regulate files a big, fat lawsuit against the EPA, on the grounds that the ‘science’ of ‘global warming’ and the conclusion that CO2 is a ‘pollutant’ and in any way harmful to human health is fraudulent.
I am sure there are plenty of experts who visit this site who would love to testify for the plaintiff.
/Mr Lynn
nominal (23:49:46) :
c02 for the energy infrastructure and all that entails and implies, and it looks like food and water are next. i can’t remember which country it was that had their water privatized via predatory lending by the world bank, but they even made it illegal to use rainwater… monsanto or betchel or some company was involved…
Reply
Waxman of Cap and Trade fame,already has a bill designed to regulate farming into the ground. http://www.nofa.org/policy/waxman.php
Text of the bill:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-875
The Food Safety Enhancement Act by Rep. Henry Waxman is part of the FDA’s planned “harmonization” with UN/WTO international regs.
see http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm122049.htm
Application of regulations to already near bankrupt farmers will result in a massive transfer of land ownership from private to corporate worldwide. Heck it has already happened. Mexico lost 75% of its farmers, in India, farmers are suiciding ever 8 hrs or so, the longest sustained suicide in history, in the EU, Portugal lost 60% of its farmers and a EU chairlady announced the EU’s intention of removing a million poles from their land. But the World Trade Organization is not satisfied
“Up for grabs at the negotiating table is worldwide privatization and deregulation of public energy and water utilities, postal services, higher education and state alcohol distribution controls; a new right for foreign firms to obtain U.S. Small Business Administration loans; elimination of a list of specific U.S. state laws about land use, professional licensing and consumer protections, and extreme deregulation of private-sector service industries such as insurance, banking, mutual funds and securities.” http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0305-02.htm
my comments detailing the history of the take over of the world food supply is: Gail Combs (13:37:15) : at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/
covers it or a better written and documented article is at http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html
Mr Enough (02:44:10) :
If the EPA does rule, then it will leave itself open to legal challenge, especially tks to CRU’s behavior and the EPA’s reliance on their so called science.
The one thing lawyers love above all is a big fat rich juicy target and they don’t come any bigger then a government.
I don’t think the government could be forced to pay damages. However, and you’ll never know how painful it is to admit this, I would rather several billion tax dollars go to American lawyers than several trillion to fund a non-existent psuedo-science fair climate experiment.
WakeUpMaggy (04:44:12) :
“Aspens are already doing their best to mitigate our inputs,” agrees Cole. “The existing trees are going to max out in a couple of decades.”
I guess he doesn’t realize aspens multiply. Cut down the big ones, a hundred little ones grow from the roots.
Aspen trees are not unique in that “clumps” or groves may be originally derived from a single tree. What you may not know is that some scientists believe that the worlds largest single living organism is an aspen grove.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_organism
Because the EPA doesn’t WANT to reconsider. They, like Obambi and the other ideologues in his administration, want to create a UN-affiliated regime of control and taxation that will bring an end to the Republic as it was founded. They won’t listen to you.
But there are a couple of routes to take: File lawsuits. Elect people who value freedom, capitalism, and the rights of the individual. Kick the socialists out.
It isn’t about science. The science for them is just the excuse.
/Mr Lynn