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.
Oh my god, if the trees are getting greener and growing better because of increased C02, don’t people realise what that will cause? Trees photosynthesize, so that means there’ll be more oxygen in the atmosphere as well as more C02! Oxygen is very flammable so it means there’ll be even more of those wildfires that started just ten years ago because of global warming! In fact, it’s likely that eventually somebody will light a match and kaboom, the whole world will blow up! Oxygen must immediately be declared a dangerous pollutant because all the dangerous pollutant C02 is making the planet greener and… wait a minute, what’s going on? Why are all these men putting me in a strait-jacket?
Funny, I thought the aspens were dying out west. Goggle aspens dying in Colorado and see. Also, Reuters had a Sep article saying the same thing and blaming their dying on GW. Ha ha! It gets better everyday.
ps-I checked my spelling.
Does this mean that the stimulus program will involve volcanic mitigation? Considering that natural volcanic activity dwarfs anthropogenic CO2 liberation, will the EPA be banning this activity?
Ponder agriculture, re-forestation and tree growth. Since the metabolic processes of biological decay promotes the liberation of carbon, shall these growth processes also be outlawed?
There was an article posted earlier in this thread on the measurement of CO2 and the influences on volcanoes and pollution at the sampling sites. Could the hockey stick shape of the data (I use this term loosely) be related in part to poor paleo-CO2 sampling techniques or calibration of proxies and the poor siting of our more recent sampling locations? How do they join the two data sets?
The article I am referring to is: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/greenhouse_gas_observatories_d.html
The EPA will give cover to those politicians who want to force regulation upon us but who are too cowardly to vote for it themselves.
Oh good heavens. This is junk science. Take anything that has increased. Anything at all. And say that it correlates to tree ring growth. The increase in my age for example. Certainly has increased. Other people my age have experienced the same thing. Therefore tree ring growth is correlated. Or how about this one. My aging body has been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2. There. That’s the ticket. Aging is caused by CO2 increase. Decrease CO2 emissions! Every time you breath out I get older! Where’s my convention! And I want a limo to get there gawdamit!
Can we conclude that the average temperature can go down, as it has for the last 10 years, and yet tree rings can expand strongly with increased CO2 and enough moisture. This tree ring growth stuff would appear to be a proxy for a whole bunch of things and maybe temperature is the least important.
jack morrow (06:10:31) :
Funny, I thought the aspens were dying out west.
From the Forest Service:
The slow decline is mainly because of the aging of the region’s aspen stands combined with a century of wildfire suppression and the chomping of countless cows, deer and elk.
But in the past several years, the pace of the decline has accelerated dramatically, notably in places such as southwestern Colorado’s San Juan Mountains. No one is sure why it’s happening, but a delayed response to the region’s multiyear drought is a prime suspect.
Older trees get sick and die, but regrowth is even faster as younger trees are more efficient physiologically:
How can clear-cutting an aspen stand help save it?
In the West, nearly all aspen reproduce asexually through a process called suckering. New shoots sprout from horizontal roots and grow into trees that are genetically identical to their neighbors.
A typical aspen “clone” can contain several thousand trees sharing a common root system and covering up to 20 acres. The largest known aspen clone – nicknamed Pando – is just south of Utah’s Wasatch Mountains and contains 47,000 trees on about 100 acres.
I have said it before, watch healthcare. This finding will be used by the Administration to force the Senate’s hand on Healthcare and also give Obama Copenhagen cover. Why would they even announce this just after Obama was up on the hill and just as Copenhagen opens?
This is political timing, pure and simple, two birds with one EPA ruling. Then watch as the President delays the EPA enforcment after the HC passes, or the enforcement dates are put off until after 2010, with reporting being the main thing first.
Wonder how the President’s pals at the Steel Workers Union are liking this.
Did none of them take Grade 12 Biology and study the concept of limiting factors…..why is this a surprise??????
Murder justified as a means of controlling global warming?
hmmm………
The next step, if not already being planned as plan B, is to declare CO2 an endangered gas! After all, we used to have lots more of the stuff. It is very likely that with continued population growth and unfettered use of fossil fuels, we will run out of stored sources of CO2. Therefore extreme conservation measures must begin in order to save this precious gas from extinction.
“Ed Scott (22:53:32) :
The action of the EPA is constitutional. The Supreme Court of the United States decided that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant in the Massachusetts vs. EPA decision of 2007.”
No, it did not. What it said was that the EPA had the authority and duty to decide whether it was or was not a pollutant, because the Bush Administration said that it lacked authority.
All EPA v. Mass. did was clarify that it had the duty to decide whether or not CO2 was a pollutant under the CAA. And since the defninition of ‘pollutant’ is so arbitrary, it can…and most likely will.
They do not need to decalre that CO2, or any other GHG, is a pollutant (I believe they will, though). Only if it determines it contributes to AGW.
MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
I don’t know why you guys and girls are so worried about the dangers of CO2. Have you never read of Dihydrogen monoxide? It’s far more dangerous. This stuff is deadly: see http://www.dhmo.org/ for details, and what’s worse, it’s everywhere. The oceans are full of it as is our food. Every human on the planet has traces of DHMO in every cell of their body. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Mind you, it’s probably not as dangerous as Oxygen DiHydride, ODH (usually pronounced DOH!)
[REPLY – Oxydihydride is far worse. ~ Evan]
RE: EPA ruling …
In 2002, over 400,000 people died from drowning worldwide. In the US, drowning claims nearly 3,600 lives annually and is the third leading cause of accidental death in the United States.
250 children under age 5 die annually from drowning in 5 gallon buckets of water. Where is the 5 gallon bucket regulation?
Gail,
Thanks for the links. yeah i’d heard about the codex and waxmans’ bill…worlds’ gone nuts.. to wit:
Imagine an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting where all the members showed up drunk and with extra cases of wine, beer, and booze to keep them happy. Now imagine that that same group of drunks was empowered to make trillions of dollars worth of economic decisions for everybody in the world. This absurd scenario swiftly summarizes the United Nations Climate Change Conference beginning today, and lasting through December 18, in Copenhagen.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/07/morning-bell-the-copenhagen-climate-comedy/
more stuff on waxman-markey from heritage: http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda0904.cfm
warning, that waxman article is long, but if you want to understand the bill and how much it’s gunna cost you, that’s an excellent place to start.
Dave Wendt (02:05:25) :
The only bright side is that this may provide an avenue to get this back before the Supremes for reconsideration of their lame first decision, but with the”wise Latina” now on board, the odds of them overturning it aren’t real great. But we live in hope…
and die in despair.
REPLY:
Don’t despair yet. The Supreme Court is NOT the last resort although the advocates of centralized government try to hide our other options. For example they will point to the “fact” that the Civil War trashed state’s tenth Amendment rights and therefore those rights no longer exist.
One is State Nullification. This is what happen to drivers license “real ID” It is why voters are pressuring states about 10th Amendment Resolutions. These non-binding resolutions, often called “state sovereignty resolutions” and serve notice to the Federal government that a state will use its tenth Amendment rights in defense of its citizens.
The Jury the citizens’ ultimate power and insurance against government run amok is their power in the jury. The JURY alone not only decides upon guilt or innocence; THEY have the right to judge the law that the accused is aledged to have broken. That is where the term “jury nullification” comes from.
Potential jury membes are UNLAWFULLY instructed by judges that they are triers of the facts and nothing more. Any potential juror who understood the ancient right of declaring a law unconstitutional would not be allowed to sit on a jury. A judge is NOTHING more than a referee. The jury is still the final judge— they can ignore a judge if they feel he is wrong. This is part of the citizen’s forfeiture of their rights. We simply do not understand that the SCOTUS is not the final judge— we are.
Fully Informed Jury Association: http://www.fija.org/
Vote the idiots out! Politicians in the USA can be voted out of office and laws repealed and treaties nullified. Again globalist will tell us “Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution” and “A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside”.
A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. “This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
“… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’
“There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…
“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm
Our biggest problem is how badly people have been brainwashed into believing they must sacrifice themselves and their children for “the good of Mother Earth” and the bottomless pockets of the financiers and politicians who are set to take advantage of peoples gullibility.
“Obama may visit climate talks armed with EPA carbon ruling”:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ag_OQLy84yEA
Giving Obama something to offer at Copenhagen is the likely reason for this ruling.
Scene: Executive office inside the EPA, early October
“You can’t do that in here.”
[taking a long drag and blowing it out toward the ceiling] “What? Smoke?”
“Ya smoke, where have you been? You can’t smoke in the workplace.”
“China for the last 10 years, and why the heck can’t I?”
“Haven’t you heard of second hand smoke? The dangers? Geez, I could be getting cancer right now. Put the dam* thing out.”
[he puts it out] “Where am I supposed to go if I need a cig then?”
“Outside, the tables outside in the back.”
“But it’s freezing out there.”
“Hey, consider yourself lucky, they’re talking about banning it at home.”
“Home! What the…? First the airplane ride over and now my own house?”
“Well it’s dangerous stuff. If something dangerous affects someone else you can’t do it. That’s just the way it is. ”
“Wow, set me free. I’m going back to China.”
“Can we just get back to the wording of this proposed finding, you’re supposed to be here to help me communicate.”
“Sure. What are you trying to ban next?”
“Sarcasm. Listen, this is the current language of the proposed finding on greenhouse gases. Here’s how we’ve summarized it:
The Administrator is proposing to find that the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six key greenhouse gases-carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)-in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is referred to as the endangerment finding.”
[breathes in, holding his breath and in a labored high pitch] “OK…I feel better now about being allowed to smoke outside.”
We need to consider a lawsuit against the EPA over this.
When co2 is deemed a pollutant by the EPA, will hospitals and surgery centers be able to continue to use co2 to insufflate abdominal cavities for laparoscopic surgeries? Look at all the pollution! They will probably require some expensive scavenging systems. We use a lot of co2 in ORs daily.
Everyone has suspected for years that CO2 was a pollutant but this was suppressed by Big Breathers. We need to take little tiny whiffs of air and only breathe directly on geraniums or daisies. Maybe it’s time for a Indoor Plant CO2 Conduct Act, to be convened at San Sebastian, Spain – IPCCASS for short.
Brewing and winemaking releases far too much CO2. This must be stopped.
What does this mean for the fire extinguisher filled with CO2 I keep handy to put out fires caused by exploding kittens?
Maybe all sports will be banned in the future, as that produces so much extra CO2