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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I meant to add that the source of the above quotes was today’s American Spectator online .
So why the ridiculous ruling on C02 being toxic?
What parallel can I possibly draw?
There is the Biblical belief that all men are borne into original sin, due to eating of the Tree of Knowledge.
So, C02 being toxic and man exhaling means that we are born Green Sinners.
Ok. There’s my parallel.
Almost as ridiculous as C02 being a toxic gas.
Somebody please inform Lisa Jackson and the Supreme Court which ruled on the matter that when emergency response & the hospital treat you for smoke inhalation, they are treating you primarily for C0 (Carbon Monoxide) poisioning. Now, that is truly toxic. They have to give you a blood transfusion to replace your hemoglobin, which is compromised, or you die.
For excessive C02 inhalation, remove to fresh air. Have victim exhale completely twice. That’s it.
EPA is confusing C02 with C0.
Dan Olner (02:16:14) :
Nobody is saying co2 is a poison.
I’d like to respond. First,
Maybe nobody has called CO2 a poison; but given the volume of written and oral history, I doubt you are correct. However, even stipulating your claim, people have called CO2 a pollutant. According to my copy of Roget’s College Thesaurus:
“pollute, v.t. contaminate; foul, desecrate; taint, soil, defile; …”
“poison, … v.t. corrupt, defile;…”
Thus, to me it’s a fine point to claim “nobody has called CO2 a poison“. I think it’s more accurate to say many people including the EPA have called CO2 a poison.
Second,
You write: “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.
Maybe not; but various agencies are trying to limit the burning of wood, coal, etc. for personal use in third world countries. In my opinion the EPA agrees with those limitations. So I think it would fair to say that the EPA would like to limit the burning of CO2 releasing agents such as charcoal in barbecues.
Third,
Too much of any physical aspect of nature is harmful to the earth/mankind if for no other reason than too much of anything implies not enough of life’s many essentials. Using the “Too much of anything is bad” as a basis for discussion, the EPA could regulate anything. I think it’s fair to say that an agency that can regulate anything is a form of dictatorship. I believe in this country there would be a consensus (even in the subset of AGW scientists) that the EPA is not and should not be the center of a dictatorship.
@ur momisugly LarryOldtimer
“Now what was that word the Irish use? Eejits. Yep, sure and they are that, they are.”
LOL Larry ,we have better one “gobshites” be our guest and use it as often as you want .
I see the EPA’s endangerment finding allows for a judicial review if petitioned for within 60 days of publication. I wonder if any groups will have the resources to mount a criticism on the basis that “it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to
the outcome of this rule.” (see pg 3 of the finding posted at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/FinalFindings.pdf) Obviously, the [poor] quality of the IPCC reports upon which they base their finding was not as obvious during the comment period as it is now.
It seems to me the EPA ruling is simply politics. With Obama angering his supporters by sending more troops to Afghanistan, I suspect he’s trying to get back some support with this ruling.
However, I doubt very much will see the EPA actually try to enforce the ruling. That would mean court cases and that is probably not something they want. The MSM would have to cover it and all the climateGate material would be front and center.
Here we go: EPA and OBAMA, who said EPA was not political?
How can we stop them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=6a7f9dcc-802a-23ad-44bd-3ad5070c7b31
Richard M. I agree… sort of. It could be what you mention but only to show Copenhagen he’s serious—it will take years to get that through and any of the presenting scientists appearing at the hearings better have bulletproof findings. Or, and this is what I believe, he’s making an end run around Congress to appease the left side of his party because the likelihood of C&T legislation making it into law before end of his last term in 2012 is highly improbable—Hell it’s quite likely the Dems will lose the balance of power in both houses next year at the rate he’s going. Then again it could be part of a new reality show, “EPA Idol.”
We need someone with some legal experience. There needs to be suits brought not only in regards to the fraud exposed by Climategate but now to sue the Obama administration and the EPA administrators for emitting green house gases that endanger the world’s population.
Eventually these frauds are exposed for what they are but in the mean time these bastards drain public coffers.
Just when I’ve gotten used to breathing it’s become illegal. Oh, well.
Time to have the EPA declare dihydrogen monoxide a pollutant too. After all, dihydrogen monoxide can cause death if inhaled, is a major component of acid rain, and solid dihydrogen monoxide can cause severe tissue damage during prolonged exposure.
Fail. Epic fail.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.” – Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT
“CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet.” – John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain – literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a “pollutant” is an abuse of language, logic and science.” – Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It’s axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction.” – S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
“Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants’ photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned.” – Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo
“To suddenly label CO2 as a “pollutant” is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant.” – Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University
“Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat ‘starved’ for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind’s activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as ‘food’ and as a by-product.” – Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA
“I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land.” – David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth.” – Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany
“Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants.” – Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry
So does this mean CO2 Fire Extinguishers will be illegal? And what about the fizzy drinks industry?
Here’s a conundrum for the EPA. Coca-cola using CO2 as a coolant!
Coca-Cola Switching to Carbon Dioxide-Based Beverage Coolers
http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/1689
A few years ago, Coca-Cola decided it would significantly decrease its environmental impact. When it took a good look at where its environmental footprint was highest, it saw that vending machines are a big culprit.
Let’s take a moment to accept the “Duh” of this.
To combat the vending machine factor, Coca-Cola began replacing HFC machines with CO2 machines. Yep – Carbon Dioxide is helping our environment! By the end of 2006, the company had 6,000 units placed world-wide (yes, that’s relatively few when considering they have 10 million machines operating around the globe, but still nothing to sneeze at). Continuing with that trend, they’ve drastically increased their CO2 machine intake by purchasing 100,000 new compressed carbon dioxide beverage coolers.
The new machines will emit 75% fewer greenhouse gasses, though they cost about 25% more. This is significant when considering that HFCs are major global warming pollutants and, if allowed to run as rampant as they currently are, their overall contribution to global warming pollution could nearly double within 40 years. Compressed Carbon Dioxide-based cooling units, on the other hand, will help reduce the impact of these HFC clunkers on our planet – and since Coca-Cola is a global company, it truly is a global issue…
Henry Chance
I give anesthesia for a living. The co2 cannisters are used on all anesthesia
machines when a closed or semi-closed system is used.
The co2 insufflated into the abdominal cavity is a separate issue. You can bet these idiots will require ORs to scavenge and sequester the co2 used during surgery.
This was published a few years ago about this matter of c02 being officially made an evil gas.
Of course, if you want to create a tax/ financial racket out of a commodity, it has to be vilified first
http://www.predictweather.co.nz/assets/articles/article_resources.php?id=43
EPA, don’t hold your breath!
Grandpa will be fitted with a catalytic converter that renders CO2 into Carbon and O2.
if co2 is danger, then water vapour is instant death.
This stuff about banning breathing is all very amusing, but I just don’t see how this is a complicated distinction to make.
When you talk about regulations that are coming, it’s a distinction without a difference.
The new mantra: STOP THE GROWING.
The media, the Obama administration and the UN will not be deterred by the climategate scandal or the obvious data that we relish on this site. We need to hire the best lawyers in the USA and get this issue into court asap. We need a committee to decide which issue, MWP, hockey stick, sea ice etc and then how to frame a law suit that we can win. I would be honored to donate the first $500 to a well structured cause. I’m sure we could raise the funds for a winning case.
Imposition of drastic new costs on the economy during a period of unsustainable government spending and high unemployment does not seem like a smart thing to do. It doesn’t take a climate scientist to figure out that higher prices lead to less consumption, which leads to a slower economy and less jobs. Idle hands are the devil’s hands, and I do not wish to see what would happen should we hit 20% unemployment.
Of course, some businesses may just want out and decide that the developing world is the best place to save money on carbon…. See? It is a jobs bill, just not a job bill for the U.S.
Sorta makes sense
CO2 is expelled when we talk
the EPA is in Washington..full of politicians and beauracrats
Politicians and beauracrats usually cause more harm than good when talking
Therefore the EPA sees CO2 as harmful
Meanwhile in the part of the world concerned with the inconsequential persuit of actually having lives, we can only try to insert some common sense
PS. One notices that the creed of AGW is becoming more and more mindless as months pass by. From a *relatively* educated British perspective, this sort of dogma is nothing new. When Hudibras was written by Butler in the 17th century, he of course pointed the finger at theorists by claiming
Whatever sceptic could inquire for,
For ev’ry why he had a wherefore;
Knew more than forty of them do,
As far as words and terms cou’d go.
All which he understood by rote, 135
And, as occasion serv’d, would quote;
No matter whether right or wrong,
They might be either said or sung.
His notions fitted things so well,
That which was which he could not tell;
140
But oftentimes mistook th’ one
For th’ other, as great clerks have done.
He could reduce all things to acts,
And knew their natures by abstracts;