The EPA CO2 regulation – Dec 7th 2009, a day we will not soon forget

Our good shepherds at work – insulated from public opinion, the voters, the marketplace, you and me: the rabble.
See “Climategate: The good shepherds”:

WASHINGTON – After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat.
Are they not duty bound to make the “scientific evidence” public?

I sense we’re bending to a breaking point. Americans are already fighting a political war. If it gets martial, it will fragment our society. Skeptics vs. kool-aid drinkers with a healthy portion of hypnotized fools who bow to the personality cult or are still enamored of the historic first for the U.S.
The American colonists were curiously divided in loyalties: roughly 1/3 were loyalists, 1/3 were patriots, and 1/3 were indifferent.
I hope our citizenry (however diluted by the non-citizenry), is as stalwart as you Aussies at standing against the insanity.

The United States emits 5,752,289,000 metric tonnes of CO2 per year.
The US GDP is 14.2T (2008).
The US Budget is 2.9T (2008), representing 20.4% of the economy.
The US Federal Government employs 1.8 million people.
Using those values, one could estimate that the Federal government is responsible for 1,174,763,246 metric tonnes of CO2 emissions and that each employee is responsible for 652.6 tonnes annually.
5,752,289,000 * 20.4% = 1,174,763,246
1,174,763,246 / 1,800,000 = 652.6
Seems to me that we could cut our CO2 emissions by simply shrinking the size of the federal government. I recommend a goal of a 50% reduction and that we start with the EPA.

The look she has as she makes her speech is a perfect example of the banality of evil.

Interesting, and from my viewpoint excellent, commentary by Gerald Warner in the UK Telegraph. He points out that in the US we still do have excellent protection afforded by our Constitution, but it is up to us to exercise those protections. Also a very good point that EPA regulation can be challenged by lawsuit. If I recall correctly the EPA needs to meet a high burden of proof that the item being regulated is an imminent threat to health or the environment. Given the fact that the EPA has leaned heavily on the research coming out of IPCC and CRU, I suspect they will have trouble if it comes to the courts. Maybe someone with more familiarity with the legal system and the burden of proof required of the EPA could add more regarding that.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100019206/climategate-barack-obamas-rule-by-epa-decree-is-a-coup-detat-against-congress-made-in-britain/
I apologize for not being able to shorten up the link, if the moderators or anyone else have any tips for me I’d appreciate it.
Thanks,
Charlie K

EPA Rulling = Mass Insanity!!
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

I need to vent some dispair…
The replication of the “Hockey Stick” graph using a phone book for input should have been enough.
The publishing of a volunteer study on weather station sitings by Anthony should have been enough.
The question over sparse tree ring data should have been enough.
The email and program comments tone from the UK should have been enough.
The voices of qualified scientists – even in some disagreement among themselves should have been enough.
There were warnings – there were enough.
The average person is too concerned with Tiger Woods latest fling, or what Beyonce is doing, or what’s on the latest soap opera.
Science and logic are only for “eggheads” any more – not workaday people.
IMO the “One World Government” talked about here will only be a stepping stone to total domination by China as the West bleeds itself to death in a vain attemp to change something it doesn’t and can’t effect.
Its getting cold in here…
Mike

Paul Z
“I thought America is a democratic country??”
Haven’t you heard? It’s now the USSA:
and the new national hymm is:

Start learning it! Come on Kommrads. join in!

What an amazing development, and a bit worrying I would think for businesses owners and consumers. Is this the leverage Obama will use to force Congress to accept Cap and Trade?
Anyway, I shall return to reading the book Ecoscience by Obama’s Science Czar, where he advocates a “Planetary Regime”. Well, it WAS written more than a few years ago, so is probably an historical curiosity, an artifact if you will.
Now with fully scanned pages of relevant text:
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

I think EPA may have just shot Obama in the foot and have been too clever by half.
First, Obama is using the Executive-Branch EPA to impose an implicit threat against Congress. As Krauthammer said, Congress is considering “cap-and-trade” while the EPA is threatening just “cap”. Cap-and-trade is a proven hugely expensive boondoggle. But “cap” alone is a horrifyingly worse option.
Second, EPA’s mandate, from what I understand, is to regulate facilities producing 250 TPY of pollutants, about the size of an apartment block. That will break almost every real estate owner and commercial/industrial enterprise in America which must estimate, report and comply with the new regulations.
Third, knowing this, EPA will want to increase that to 25,000 TPY which will affect some 25,000-50,000 commercial and industrial enterprises. However, they can’t do that without an act of Congress. Congress would now be called upon to penalize the biggest enterprises in their state. Congress would have to legislate imposing those burdens on the enterprises which do the most hiring, firing, lobbying and political contributing in their state. Which they will be loathe to do. But to not give in to the EPA to increase that threshold will result in a nightmare for every component of this economy right down to individual residences.
Fourth, Congress has the option of imposing cap-and-trade. But that doesn’t affect the EPA’s self-imposed mandate. Imposing cap-and-trade means the EPA could still go ahead with acting on its findings to enforce emission limits if the cap-and-trade system doesn’t work, as it won’t. So the U.S. economy could get screwed by the cap-and-trade legislation, followed by the EPA-inflicted damage from its mandate.
Fifth, when that bonehead Jackson said she and Obama would they “support a legislative solution to the problem of climate change and Congress’ efforts to pass comprehensive climate legislation”, they let the cat out of the bag. Obama is now using what was ostensibly a scientific federal agency to threaten the legislative branch of government while Climategate is calling the entire AGW “consensus” into question.
Sixth, Congress now has a decision to make. If they bow to Obama, their re-elections are at big risk when the costs of cap-and-trade filter down but the CO2 reductions don’t drop. If they don’t impose cap-and-trade, they toss the whole issue back to Obama and his EPA. People won’t care if Congress didn’t “step up to the plate”. People will only remember who imposed the crippling restrictions on their means and standard of living. The horror stories will filter throughout the blogosphere and into the homes of all Americans. And Congress can also calculate that the EPA mandate could eventually be overturned by the courts. I think that Congress has a strong incentive to quash cap-and-trade and let Obama swing in the wind.
Finally, picking Pearl Harbor Day to decide to scuttle the entire American economy will reverbate through anyone old enough to know or care about that Day of Infamy. No American will ever forget the date of that “finding”. Pearl Harbor Day was the seminal event that tipped the U.S. fully into a world war to preserve our way of life. With no disrespect intended to those who fell on that terrible Day or later by invoking a parallel, the EPA’s decision has just accomplished the same – it has awakened a sleeping giant and will enrage this country.