Hoisted with their own petard fighting a lawsuit
Story submitted by Eric Worrall
The EPA is fighting a desperate battle to sink a green lawsuit, a lawsuit which is substantially based on the EPA’s own climate narrative.
The Lawsuit, launched by the Center for Biological Diversity, seeks to impose enhanced clean water act protection upon the Pacific Coast. The suit argues that protection is necessary because, according to the EPA’s own climate narrative, ocean acidification is severely damaging the marine ecosystem.
According to the CBD;
“The CBD points out that the EPA has acknowledged that ocean acidification has killed billions of oyster larvae in the Pacific Northwest but still would not classify the waters as imperilled.”
http://www.law360.com/articles/568751/epa-seeks-to-sink-green-group-s-ocean-acidification-suit
The EPA’s response is that there is insufficient evidence to support an endangerment finding – an apparent contradiction of their own previous climate narrative.
“There were no in situ field studies documenting adverse effects on the health of aquatic life populations in either state,” the EPA’s motion says. “Nor was there any other information documenting effects on indigenous populations of aquatic life in state waters indicating stressors attributable to ocean acidification. The only information available regarding aquatic life in ambient waters under natural conditions was inconclusive.”
If I have understood this ridiculous situation correctly, the EPA is now in a position in which it may have to admit in court that some of its previous official statements about ocean acidification were not supported by available evidence.
Of course, if the EPA loses the case, an even more farcical situation may arise – the EPA’s failure may open the floodgate for compensation lawsuits against the US government, from people who claim their livelihoods are being damaged by ocean acidification, due to the EPA’s failure to protect the environment from CO2 “pollution”.
It’s important to remember that when CO2 dissolves in water 99% remains a dissolved gas. Only 1% reacts to form carbonic acid H2CO3 and carbonic acid is a weak acid that only partially ionizes.
I would not be surprised if this is a “Sue and Settle” operation in progress.
Rud Istvan wrote:
“Seattle based CBD is basing their oyster claim on the Seattle Times series, Sea Change…”
Thanks, Rud, I was afraid that might be the case. The Seattle Times series on ocean acidification was about as schlocky a piece of science journalism as you will ever see, regardless of how you feel about AGW. Cliff Mass, who would rather not have to battle the AGW proponents, nevertheless felt it necessary to point out the worst excesses of the series. But the most bizarre aspect of this entire debacle was the fact that despite a few offhand swipes at AGW, the acidification issues were related to waters that went deep before AGW even started!
Rud: Please post a link.
WUWT has dealt with the ocean acidification oyster ‘problem’ in the Pacific Northwest before. Not man-made at all.
I seem to remember a while back an article positing that some green government agencies invite government-funded green pressure groups to sue them when the desired outcome is otherwise politically unacceptable. The EPA has a well-earnt reputation for probity and would surely never countenance such action.
@ur momisugly Tramp. This paper is heavly cited:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n6/abs/nclimate1200.html
Hehehehe – file this one under keeping up with your own lies! Guess the EPA forgot that bon mot.
Ralph Kramden
August 25, 2014 at 12:20 pm
It’s important to remember that when CO2 dissolves in water 99% remains a dissolved gas. Only 1% reacts to form carbonic acid H2CO3 and carbonic acid is a weak acid that only partially ionizes.
That is true for fresh water, but it is the opposite in alkaline seawater: less than 1% is dissolved gas, ~90% is bicarbonate and ~9% is carbonate. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjerrum_plot
AW Maybe you should enlarge your fonts to size 11 or 12? They look size 9=10 max
The EPA, it is quite clear have an overt political agenda, they are a committee full of left wing bureaucrats playing at science and God but not necessarily in that order.
Outrageously, in their hubristic know it all green advocacy did they so name CO2 a poison for goodness sakes! CO2 a gas, which is a fundamental to life for all varieties of flora……… Well, lets see in that case all natural gases, substances – even water can be a poison if imbibed in sufficient quantity.
What is safe? Which way is up? What direction is north? And are……….. the ocean’s flora, fauna dying of acidification all thanks to MAN MADE CO2?
Hell, don’t ask the EPA.
Normal people don’t.
Now what do we have here on the other side of the Pacific? It’s worse than we thought!
As well as the upwelling of ‘bad’ ocean water we had Vibrio tubiashii disease.
So there you have it.
I don’t get it. Is it worse than we thought, or not?
I thought it was always worse than we thought.
@ur momisugly rogerknights August 25, 2014 at 12:23 pm
Would you clarify your sentence “Needless to say, his response was silenced the alarmists.” as it makes no sense.
Should it be “..his response was silenced (by) the alarmists.”?
Should it be “..his response has silenced the alarmists.”?
Or something else?
Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 25, 2014 at 12:37 pm
You are correct, I stand corrected. However I would never use Wikipedia as a reference, ha.
Hoooray! Pacific oysters can still breed for a while.
This study says the opposite. No wonder they need to keep studying (funding).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022098113000038
Hay. There is a great electro chemistry mashup possible.
1) Remember the Electrolysis story a few days ago,
2) Remember the Story about the Ozone Hole and a befuddled NASA about the pesky CCl4 that the Montreal Protocol did not solve (the two have nothing in common).
3) Just in; Methane from seabed hydrates off the US East Coast.
Mix ingredients gently, stirred not shaken, and not in a blender, and zap (be sure that the Bartender is grounded).
What we got ?
With application of lightening strikes on the oceans, a pinch of salt and a pinch of methane we get CCl4 (carbon tetrachloride) and some Cl2 (chlorine gas, the wonder weapon of the German army in WWI) and HCl (good old hydrochloric acid) — Ocean Acidification without the bicarbonate — “berp”.
Check your old chemistry books; the details are all there.
Ha ha. 🙂
The cyclical changes in currents and wind cause upwelling of lower pH colder water that can impact west coast oysters in locations only marginally within tolerable pH limits to begin with. They also bring up the nutrients which
seem to be critical for out migrating salmon survival.
The monster salmon runs being seen in British Columbia this year would have been heading out at the time local oyster farmers began complaining of low survival and pH.
Which would you rather eat, oysters or salmon?
OOps, forgot the link: http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/02quest/background/upwelling/upwelling.html
Don’t worry Prince Charles will save the Pacific Oyster and make himself a few quid:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-charless-farm-accused-of-ecovandalism-6256927.html
Just do the Clinton thing and say it depends on your definition of “is.”
paddylol,
It isn’t so much the colder temperatures of upwelling currents, but the fact they have a higher concentration of CO2.
I once asked Dr Richard Feeley of NOAA and University of WA how they could be so sure that the change in pH which was impacting oysters in their larval stage was caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration and not a natural phenomenom related to off shore upwelling. The response I got was that climate change can impact upwelling currents by changing surface wind patterns. Pretty weak in my opinion.
Watch out for a settle and consent reponse. It’s an old tactic of the environmental left. Everything is worked out in advance. Start with the super-enviros within an agency such as the EPA. They are frustrated that they can’t yet control every aspect of honest people’s lives. They want more extreme laws and regulations so that they can really, really carry out transformational change, but such laws are politically unachievable, So they secretly recruit some uber-left group, let’s say the “Guardians of the Wild”, to file a lawsuit alleging the feds have failed to properly enforce their own laws. The government, after mounting only a token defense, will then throw its hands up and say “We bad, we bad” and sign a consent decree agreeing to everything the enviros want. Thus does the left wing of government get far more stricter laws than the legislature would ever pass, all under a court’s approval.
Found this meanwhile:
http://www.biogeosciences.net/11/1581/2014/bg-11-1581-2014.html
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00338-012-0979-8
It’s not about volcanic CO2 but nevertheless interesting…
It would be worth it, if they took any monetary award from the EPA budget.