Global Warming Science - www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming

US Congress – Rein in the EPA

[last update: 2011/03/26 – LungUSA section added]

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/04/us-epa-emissions-bill-idUSTRE7226UJ20110304]

Obama wants the US to cut emissions (which would have no effect given China’s emissions growth).

But then Obama isn’t the brightest bulb. In 2009 he showed his grasp of science and the CO2 issue: "At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air we breathe” (from “Obama urges Congress to move swiftly on climate change bill”[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/23/obama-climate-change-congress]) CO2 contaminates water? We buy carbonated water as soda. Pollutes the air we breathe? But CO2 is non-poisonous.

The U.S. can do nothing on its own to significantly reduce global CO2 emissions (even if CO2 had anything to do with climate). The following figure from the Global Carbon Project compares CO2 emissions between developed and developing nations. The growth of emissions is in the developing nations is outpacing the emissions from developed nations. [http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/08/files/GCP2009_CarbonBudget2008.pdf]

And Keep in mind that the United Nation plans are only for the Developed Nations to reduce emissions.

The Ignorance is Pervasive

The politics of CO2 is so strong that many groups, including the American Lung Association, throw away logic. They conflate the attempt to prevent CO2 regulation with the rest of the Clean Air Act.

[http://www.lungusa.org/press-room/press-releases/reject-clean-air-rollback.html]

“The Buteyko Breathing Technique is gaining popularity as people with many sicknesses, who begin using the therapy, notice changes in their health in just a few days. … Have you been led to believe that carbon dioxide (CO2) is just a by-product that our bodies expel and can’t use? Then think again! We need our carbon dioxide too. Buteyko breathing exercises help balance carbon dioxide levels in the blood that helps to take the needed oxygen to the brain and other organs and aids in lowering high blood pressure. Carbon dioxide helps regulate the pH balance in your body. When it is reduced through hyperventilating, it can lead to abnormal blood pressure and hypertension, besides other complications.” [http://www.highbloodpressureinfo.org/buteyko-breathing.html]

But the ALA joins the political scam claiming that stopping the EPA from regulating CO2 will somehow cause health problems.

U.S. Summer

Warmest summer: 1936 [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html]

Alarmists confuse the cyclical nature of climate with the rise in atmospheric CO2

See: http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm

EPA

EPA’s Jackson testified before Congress regarding the bill referred to in the Reuters article

[http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/53C1EBF66CFD05CE8525783200003C67]:

“The bill appears to be part of a broader effort in this Congress to delay, weaken, or eliminate Clean Air Act protections of the American public. I respectfully ask the members of this Committee to keep in mind that EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act saves millions of American children and adults from the debilitating and expensive illnesses that occur when smokestacks and tailpipes release unrestricted amounts of harmful pollution into the air we breathe. … EPA found in 2009 that manmade greenhouse gas emissions do threaten the health and welfare of the American people.”

Standard operating procedure for alarmists – twist the truth – in this case to confuse the bill’s goal of preventing CO2 emissions regulation with the whole Clean Air Act. And lie – greenhouse gas emissions threaten the health?

Does the EPA really care about health?

A 2010 EPA ruling (EPA-420-F-10-007, February 2010, [http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420f10007.htm]) mandates the use of 36 billion gallons of “renewable fuels” by 2022.

From the EPA’s document: “The increased use of renewable fuels will also impact emissions with some emissions such as hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides (NOx), acetaldehyde and ethanol expected to increase and others such as carbon monoxide (CO) and benzene expected to decrease. However, the impacts of these emissions on criteria air pollutants are highly variable from region to region. 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.”

So EPA chooses increased mortality to try to reduce CO2, a non-toxic gas.

See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Biofuels.htm for more info on this.

Waxman of California

From the Reuters article: “But many other Democrats reacted strongly against the measure."It exempts the nation's largest polluters from regulation at the expense of public health and energy security," said Representative Henry Waxman, a co-sponsor of a climate bill that passed in the House in 2009.”

Waxman apparently has never looked at his own state’s climate trends.

The following figure superimposes the Hadley CRUTEM3 average California temperature data (green), on the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). While CO2 continues to simply increase, the California temperature follows the trend in PDO. (See: http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/RS_California.htm)

California is also the major agriculture state in the U.S. Waxman apparently doesn’t understand the benefits of CO2.

[http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0603-can_carbon_dioxide_be_a_good_thing.htm]

From the above article: “The more carbon emissions we dump into the air, the faster forests and plants grow”

So why do Democrats want this CO2 regulation so much? Follow the money.

(At the time) House speaker Pelosi (Jan. 2009): “She said she hopes to hold a vote before December, when climate negotiators gather in Copenhagen, Denmark, to work on a successor to the treaty many countries adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997. "I believe we have to because we see that as a source of revenue," she said, noting that proposed cap-and-trade bills would raise billions of dollars by forcing major emitters to buy credits to release greenhouse gases.” [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/22/MN5Q15EJQ2.DTL]