Guest post by Steve Goreham, Climate Science Coalition of America
In an address to Green Mountain College on May 15, Carol Browner, Director of Energy and Climate Change Policy, stated “The sooner the U.S. puts a cap on our dangerous carbon pollution, the sooner we can create a new generation of clean energy jobs here in America…” In July, 2009, President Obama lauded the “Cash for Clunkers” program, stating that the initiative “gives consumers a break, reduces dangerous carbon pollution, and our dependence on foreign oil…”
Unfortunately, our President is misinformed about carbon pollution.
The phrase “dangerous carbon pollution” has become standard propaganda from environmental groups.
An example is a May, 2010 press release from the World Wildlife Fund that called for “a science-based limit on dangerous carbon pollution that will send a strong signal to the private sector.” Environmentalists have successfully painted a picture of black particle emissions into the atmosphere. This misconception is being used to drive efforts for Cap & Trade legislation, renewable energy, and every sort of restriction on our light bulbs, vehicles, and houses—all in the misguided attempt to stop climate change.
Carbon is integral to our skin, our muscles, our bones, and throughout the body of each person. Carbon forms more than 20% of the human body by weight. We are full of this “dangerous carbon pollution” by natural metabolic processes.
It’s true that incomplete combustion emits carbon particles that can cause smoke and smog. But this particulate carbon pollution is well controlled by the Clean Air Act of 1970 and many other federal and state statutes.
According to Environmental Protection Agency data, U.S. air quality today is significantly better than it was in 1980. Since 1980, airborne concentration of carbon monoxide is down 79%, lead is down 92%, nitrogen dioxide is down 46%, ozone is down 25%, and sulfur dioxide is down 71%. Carbon particulates have been tracked for fewer years, but PM10 particulates are down 31% since 1990 and PM2.5 particulates are down 19% since 2000. Over the same period, electricity consumption from coal-fired power plants rose 72% and vehicle miles driven are up 91%. We do not need Cap & Trade, Renewable Portfolio Standards, or the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32), to reduce carbon particulates.
Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic, Figure 78, data from EPA, 2006
The target of “dirty carbon pollution” propaganda is carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is an invisible, odorless, harmless gas. It does not cause smog or smoke. Humans breathe out 100 times the CO2 we breathe in, created as our body uses sugars. But since it’s tough to call an invisible gas “dirty,” Climatists use “carbon” instead. It’s as wrong as calling water “hydrogen” or salt “chlorine.” Compounds have totally different properties than their composing elements.
Not only is carbon dioxide not a pollutant, it’s essential for life. As pointed out by geologist Leighton Steward, carbon dioxide is green! Carbon dioxide is plant food. Increased atmospheric CO2 causes plants and trees to grow faster and larger, increase their root systems, and improve their resistance to drought, as documented by hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers. Carbon dioxide is the best compound that mankind could put into the atmosphere to grow the biosphere.
This “carbon pollution” nonsense is driven by Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate. In a debate at the Global Warming Forum at Purdue University on September 27, Dr. Susan Avery, President of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, was asked “What is the strongest empirical evidence that global warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions rather than natural causes?” Neither Dr. Avery nor Dr. Robert Socolow of Princeton, who also presented, could provide an answer, except the ambiguous “There is lots of evidence.” In fact, Climatism is based largely on computer model projections. There is no empirical evidence that man-made greenhouse gases are the primary cause of global warming. According to Dr. Frederick Seitz, past President of the National Academy of Sciences, “Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.”
As Joanne Nova, Australian author, points out: “Everything on your dinner table—the meat, cheese, salad, bread, and soft drink—requires carbon dioxide to be there. For those of you who believe carbon dioxide is a pollutant, we have a special diet: water and salt.” So the next time you drink a beer or eat a meal, beware of that “dangerous carbon pollution.”
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Does that include rice?
Does that include non-agricultural tropical plants?
Smokey says:
October 9, 2010 at 10:51 am
“Here is Carol Browner.”
Why is the job of the Energy Czar not done by somebody with knowledge about energy? I mean, she could become the English Czar or the Law Czar, nothing against that…
C.V. of Carol Browner:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1866567,00.html
Flavio fails to point out that while carbon dioxide is admittedly a greenhouse gas, a little bit of common sense will tell you that water is a more effective greenhouse gas. And a little research will show that the amount of water used for irrigation world-wide is 40,000 km3. With 1,000,000,000 tonnes of water in a cubic km, that equates to 40,000,000,000,000 (40 trillion) tonnes of water every year. Now if we assume 10% of that (a highly conservative amount) is transpired by plants into the atmosphere, that’s 4,000,000,000,000 (trillion) tonnes of water anually spewed into the atmosphere.
We just can’t continue putting that stuff (133 times the amount of CO2 per year!) in our atmosphere without messing things up.
Oh, wait… Methinks CO2 isn’t such a big culprit after all.
🙂
Mark says:
October 9, 2010 at 10:58 am
“I’ve learned to hate the word science. […] I hate science now, because it is never questioned. ”
Mark, there have been many, many controversies in history where a new theory was suppressed for a generation or so by the old dogma before becoming the new prevailing opinion… Nothing new; normal scientific conflicts. Not always pretty to watch. Evolution, plate tectonics, relativity, Galilei, Newton, string theorists vs non-string theorists…
No reason to hate science as such.
Earlier this year, Bill Clinton called carbon dioxide “Plant Food”. I thought it was the opening round of the Hillary/Obama Deathmatch, but it may have just been a shot across the bow. He’s certainly been kowtowing to ‘Big Green’ ever since.
==============
What really, REALLY cranks me is this statement:
In July, 2009, President Obama lauded the “Cash for Clunkers” program, stating that the initiative “gives consumers a break, reduces dangerous carbon pollution, and our dependence on foreign oil…”
“Foreign oil?”
I wonder: How many people haven’t yet figured out the lie in that statement?
Think about this: Once the oil companies get their hands on whatever oil, no matter from whence it arrives, it is THEIR oil, and NOT foreign oil.
Oil extracted from these (U.S.) shores is PRICED EXACTLY as is the ‘foreign’ oil.
Hell, there might well be several countries which sell their oil below cost in order to make ends meet, but once that oil reaches these shores? That doesn’t make a bit of difference, because those oil companies will charge exactly what they figure they might get away with.
And let’s face it: The board members of one oil company also sit on the boards of OTHER oil companies, so the prices are pretty much fixed, one way or the other.
So then, the whole argument about ‘foreign oil’ is but a crass deception, because were the U.S. to declare that ONLY U.S. oil be used, the oil companies would reap one hellacious profit!
And that’s really what they are after, isn’t it?
Ergo, the whole argument regarding ‘foreign oil’ stinks to high blue heaven!
REMEMBER: Create a problem, and then offer a solution.
Flavio, a few things to keep in mind:
Rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature.
The planet is currently starved of CO2.
There is not a consensus on the issue of CO2 residence times. The IPCC is especially confused about this.
And we cannot know the short term rising slope of CO2 millions of ybp. Therefore it is wrong to state that the current rise is “unprecedented.” How would you know that?
CO2 is beneficial for the biosphere:
click1
click2 [note “Key Findings”]
click3
CO2 is harmless and beneficial. It has an effect on temperature, but that effect is minuscule and can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. Further, additional CO2 has a diminishing effect — which is already so tiny that it can not be measured.
Thus, the CO2=CAGW conjecture is again falsified, and wasting more $billions on it is a misappropriation of taxpayer funds.
The EPA enforces increasing real pollution (particulates) to reduce CO2. The EPA stated: “The increased use of renewable fuels will also impact emissions … Overall the emission changes are projected to lead to increases in population-weighted annual average ambient PM [particulate matter] and ozone concentrations, which in turn are anticipated to lead to up to 245 cases of adult premature mortality”
See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Biofuels.htm
Couldn’t it be shown that cutting CO2 output is potentially dangerous to endangered plant species which have a better chance of survival with a higher CO2 level? Or an animal species which depends on said endangered plant species? Couldn’t we then sue the EPA for any attempt to cap CO2 output?
I’m serious. Global Warming Alarmists twist and turn both the law and the English language to their advantage. There must be some way to turn this on its head and sue them for damaging a species which needs higher CO2 levels to insure its survival.
My thanks to Steve Goreham for a very clear, straight-forward explanation.
It is interesting how the language morphs. It wasn’t long ago that “skeptic”, as applied to those questioning AGW, was a somewhat insulting term, but now skeptics happily identify with the word. Similarly, many skeptics have now fallen into line with referring to carbon dioxide as carbon, referring to anthropogenic climate change as climate change, and so on.
Just a follow-up on irrigation, which land produces 40% of all foodstuffs while comprising just 16% of the total agricultural area world-wide (plus crops grown on irrigated land have a higer market value). Water for growing crops is competing increasingly with other municipal uses, but with approximately 30% less water required by plants due to increased atmospheric CO2, what water is available will go 30% further.
CO2 is mankind’s friend, not our enemy!
I object to the claim that carbon dioxide is harmless. It is beneficial, not only to primary production (plants), but to animals as well. I just looked up chicken eggs growth carbon dioxide in an academic search engine and got two refs for you:
Buys, N. , Dewil, E. , Gonzales, E. and Decuypere, E.(1998) ‘Different CO2 levels during incubation interact with hatching time and ascites susceptibility in two broiler lines selected for different growth rate’, Avian
Pathology, 27: 6, 605 — 612
found that High CO2 (10X atmosphere) improved growth and hatchability in one line of broiler chicken eggs over “normal” carbon dioxide (only 5X atmosphere), while another strain was unaffected.
Willemsen, H (03/01/2008). “Effects of high CO2 level during early incubation and late incubation in ovo dexamethasone injection on perinatal embryonic parameters and post-hatch growth of broilers”. British poultry science (0007-1668), 49 (2), p. 222.
Found that sealing the air over chicken egg incubators caused a gradual rise in CO2 to 1% (25 times atm), which resulted in faster hatching and better growth post-hatch.
It is a good thing you folks were not around when I searched 12 000 mouse and rat citations on carbon dioxide looking for the effects of varied CO2 levels between about 300 ppm and 1000 ppm or so. When I did not find a single one, I was screaming mad!
I did find out that the normal burrow concentrations for such creatures is about 1 to 4%, about 25 to 100 times atmospheric concentrations of CO2. And that 7% is used in incubators for human preemies to help their lungs mature faster.
The science is suppressed, as in “settled” per NSF, meaning settled in its grave, as they will not tolerate results counter to global warming hysteria. The tiny tiny bit of science that does exist indicates that more carbon dioxide is very beneficial indeed to terrestrial vertebrates, both indirectly ( more food) and directly, and that this includes people.
The first study also found higher T3 (thyroid) hormone levels in the embryos. Ernest Sternglass (Low-level Fallout) found in his studies of human embryos and atomic test fallout, that fallout reduced this hormone in human fetuses and that this effect reduced human IQ 18 years later. These two studies together suggest that increasing CO2 levels may raise human intelligence. Maybe some day, they’ll be smart enough to see past all the econazi screaming.
Carbon dioxide is a very valuable commodity chemical, uses include:
a) Substitute solvent for dry cleaning vs. perchlorethylene, a known carcinogen:
http://www.us.lindegas.com/international/web/lg/us/likelgus30.nsf/docbyalias/ind_chemrein
b) Your soft drinks have been carbonated with carbon dioxide harvested from ethanol fermentation processes.
c) Flooding played-out oilfields with carbon dioxide boosts hydrocarbon recovery by dissolving the oils in the geologic structures….this is very important for domestic oil production.
d) We increasingly use carbon dioxide for pH control in wastewater plants, replacing very dangerous, concentrated sulfuric acid.
The greens are opposed to any industrialization or economic development, and carbon dioxide is merely a proxy.
So Lady Life, are you saying we should all get pets and put the houseplants outdoors? How interesting…
Although it is true the young have been indoctrinated with AGW pseudo-science, the same internet that brought us climategate is showing the young how they have been fed a load of BS. They watch and learn and the coming cold is a very good teacher.
Each day the house of cards loses a few more cards. Facts are on the side of real climate science not the AGW ooops Climate change ooops Climate disruption BS.
You’ve never heard that there can be too much of a good thing?
Water is good, but drowning is bad. 280 ppm CO2 is good, but 500 ppm is bad for planet.
And climate change is about more than temperature. Droughts have pushed down global plant growth despite CO2 being plant food. Turns out plants gota’ drink too!
http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/plant-growth-decline-drought-0459/
One dimensional thinking is always a bad for the planet.
“Environmentalists have successfully painted a picture of black particle emissions into the atmosphere.” I would venture that “Environmentalists have successfully PLANTED a picture of black particle emissions into the atmosphere.” Also Squidly says: October 9, 2010 at 9:54 am
“Unfortunately, our President is misinformed about carbon pollution.”
“I disagree. I believe he is WELL informed. He knows very well this is all crap.”
Spot on, as do the rest of his counterparts.
Flavio says: October 9, 2010 at 10:16 am
A little bit of commonsense is a dangerous thing. You need a hefty chunk of the stuff, enough to think outside the box of city-dwellers who forget about the oceans’ power to outgas CO2. Oceans cover 2/3 of the Earth’s surface. They are not just surface, their depth has far greater potential to hold or release CO2 than the biosphere. But due to slow moving depth currents, their rate of release is slow. 800 years’ delay after temperature changes right through the last four Ice Ages, is what has been measured.
As to the CO2 measured in ice cores. Top experts Jaworowski and Segalstad paid the price for speaking up about the travesty of science going on here, that has produced Lonnie Thompson’s CO2 Hockey Stick that even sceptics don’t often mention.
Major on commonsense, and discover just how little good science there is in official Climate Science.
Mike claimed that:
“Water is good, but drowning is bad. 280 ppm CO2 is good, but 500 ppm is bad for planet And climate change is about more than temperature. Droughts have pushed down global plant growth despite CO2 being plant food. Turns out plants gota’ drink too!”
Why is 500 ppm CO2 bad for the planet exactly Mike? We know more CO2 equals more biomass and warmer temperatures assist biomass expansion so what is the problem?
Droughts have not actually pushed down plant growth at all and precipitation has increased worldwide and warmer temperatures guarantee more rainfall anyway so your points come across as a little confused and mixed up. In fact there has been lots of rain everywhere, Spain and Australia and south America and the USA and the UK and Europe and many other places.
Warmth alone does not cause droughts, geographical location is key to cyclic drought affected areas because if warmth alone was the cause of drought then south America and Asia would be one great desert wouldnt it?
As far as I am aware, no study has found any link between CO2 levels and drought but perhaps you have a link?
RockyRoad says:
So Lady Life, are you saying we should all get pets and put the houseplants outdoors? How interesting…
Research shows that pets do enhance human well-being in way ways, but CO2 has never before been proposed as the mechanism. It was always thought to be the cmpanionship and loyalty. Indoor plants benefit fromour CO2, and they clean the air of many pollutants.
Mike says: 280 ppm CO2 is good, but 500 ppm is bad for planet.
That is exactly the AGW hysteria and it is false. 280 pm is too low and harms most living things, including foodstuffs, birds, mammals and people by being too low. 500 ppm is provably better and what few studies we have suggest that 5000 ppm would be much better yet.
I have killed research animals with CO2; it is a popular way to do it, and some of the CO2 research I found deals with that (how to make it more humane). It takes about 40% CO2 for a rodent to lose conciousness, and 70% to kill him. We are not remotely talking about such concentrations with Crap and Tax or other proposals–we are talking about reducing CO2 well below ideal levels, with almost zero research on what those levels might actually be.
Cassandra,
I was just preparing a response to Mike’s peculiar comment, and then I saw yours. And you said it better than I could have anyway. Thanks.
On what evidence is that assertion based? Why would 500ppm be bad? In what way would it be bad? Can you explain your reasoning for that comment?
Academic studies show that doubling CO2 content in a pine forest doubles the growth rate of the trees and results in 10x the viable seed production. Modern sea life such as corals and most mollusks that live today evolved when atmospheric CO2 as about five times today’s levels.
I am willing to say that halving CO2 levels would be much more dangerous than doubling them.
@ur momisugly 899 says:
October 9, 2010 at 11:50 am
What really, REALLY cranks me is this statement:
In July, 2009, President Obama lauded the “Cash for Clunkers” program, stating that the initiative “gives consumers a break, reduces dangerous carbon pollution, and our dependence on foreign oil…”
“Foreign oil?”
I wonder: How many people haven’t yet figured out the lie in that statement?
Think about this: Once the oil companies get their hands on whatever oil, no matter from whence it arrives, it is THEIR oil, and NOT foreign oil.
Oil extracted from these (U.S.) shores is PRICED EXACTLY as is the ‘foreign’ oil.
True. Oil ( and many other products ) are “fungible” commodities. Many people do not understand this. Methane is another example, as is CO2. An explanation follows:
Fungibility is the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution. Examples of highly fungible commodities are crude oil, wheat, orange juice, precious metals, and currencies.
It refers only to the equivalence of each unit of a commodity with other units of the same commodity. Fungibility has nothing to do with the ability to exchange one commodity for another different commodity. It refers only to the ease of exchanging one unit of a commodity with another unit of the same commodity.
* Cash is fungible: one US$10 bank note is interchangeable with another.
* Crude oil is fungible: a barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude oil is fungible (direct exchange) with another barrel of the same type and grade of crude oil.
* Different issues of a government bond (maybe issued at different times) are fungible with one another if they carry precisely the same rights and any of them is equally acceptable in settlement of a trade.
* Diamonds are not fungible because diamonds’ varying cuts, colors, and sizes make it difficult to judge the value of one diamond against the value of another.
Fungibility does not imply liquidity, and liquidity does not imply fungibility. Diamonds can be readily bought and sold (the trade is liquid) but individual diamonds, being unique, are not interchangeable (diamonds are not fungible). Indian rupee bank notes are mutually interchangeable in London (they are fungible there) but they are not easily traded there (they cannot be spent in London). In contrast to diamonds, gold coins of the same grade and weight are fungible, as well as liquid.
This is the central (financial ) problem with the various carbon trading schemes. They artificially create “liquidity” in an attempt to value one unit of CO2 higher than another. For example: CO2 generated in country A being worth more ( of some other commodity, such as money or gold ) than CO2 generated in country B. This is why such schemes will ultimately fail – the bubble pops.
At a symposium Oct 2. In Tucson, Jonathan Overpeck, IPCC lead author repeated several times that he has high confidence that human carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for the global warming we are experiencing. In the Q&A after the talk, I asked him to cite some specific physical evidence that human carbon dioxide emissions have produced significant warming. He could not do so. Instead he said that climate models work best when carbon dioxide is added in. He also made what I thought was an extraordinary statement. He said that most climate scientists (of his group) believe that carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming “because they can’t think of anything else” that would cause such warming.
There is a great bumper sticker, available from the Climate Realists in New Zealand, saying “CO2 is Good for You”, over a picture of some flowers. Nice. I’ve got one on my car.