Caldeira’s madcap call to ban the production of devices that emit CO2 presumably includes babies, who in common with all human beings emit the inert, life-giving gas that helps plants grow. Is a one child policy not enough for these control freaks? How about we just ban pregnancy all together while putting a tax on breathing?
From an interview with Jack Fleck, San Francisco’s lead traffic engineer….
I guess the main point I drive home is that the atmosphere can only absorb about 8 billion tons of CO2. In about 15 years there’ll be about 8 billion people, so really our goal should be no more than one ton per person, whereas our current level is about 20 tones.
So I think what I try to drive home is, how big the reduction has to be and we really just have to get off of fossil fuels, and there was a good quote from Ken Caldeira, do you know who he is?
He was a speaker at SPUR, and I was curious about him. He’s from Stanford, he said ‘I think we need to more or less make it illegal to produce devices that emit CO2 into the atmosphere. Our target should be zero emissions.’
Showing posts with label carbon dioxide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label carbon dioxide. Show all posts
Friday, July 9, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
A "heroic calculation" finds whale poop fights global warming
Southern Ocean sperm whales are an unexpected ally in the fight against global warming, removing the equivalent carbon emissions from 40,000 cars each year in their faeces, a study shows.
The cetaceans have been previously seen as climate culprits because they breathe out carbon dioxide (CO2), the most common greenhouse gas.
But this is only a part of the picture, according to the paper, published in the British journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
In a heroic calculation, Australian biologists estimated that about 12,000 sperm whales in the Southern Ocean each defecate around 50 tonnes of iron into the sea every year after digesting the fish and squid they hunt.
The iron is a terrific food for phytoplankton - marine plants that live near the ocean surface and which suck up CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis.
As a result of faecal fertilisation, the whales remove 400,000 tonnes of carbon each year, twice as much as the 200,000 tonnes of CO2 that they contribute through respiration.
By way of comparison, 200,000 tonnes of CO2 is equal to the emissions of almost 40,000 passenger cars, according to an equation on the website of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The whales' faeces are so effective because they are emitted in liquid form and close to the surface, before the mammals dive, said the paper.
Industrialised whaling not only gravely threatened Southern Ocean sperm whales, it also damaged a major carbon "sink", the scientific term for something that removes more greenhouse gases than it produces, it added.
Before industrial whaling, the population of this species was about 10 times bigger, which meant around two million tonnes of CO2 were removed annually, said the paper.
The Southern Ocean is rich in nitrogen but poor in iron which is essential for phytoplankton.
The scientists suspect that because sperm whales cluster in specific areas of the Southern Ocean, there is a clear link between food availability and cetacean faeces.
The cetaceans have been previously seen as climate culprits because they breathe out carbon dioxide (CO2), the most common greenhouse gas.
But this is only a part of the picture, according to the paper, published in the British journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
In a heroic calculation, Australian biologists estimated that about 12,000 sperm whales in the Southern Ocean each defecate around 50 tonnes of iron into the sea every year after digesting the fish and squid they hunt.
The iron is a terrific food for phytoplankton - marine plants that live near the ocean surface and which suck up CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis.
As a result of faecal fertilisation, the whales remove 400,000 tonnes of carbon each year, twice as much as the 200,000 tonnes of CO2 that they contribute through respiration.
By way of comparison, 200,000 tonnes of CO2 is equal to the emissions of almost 40,000 passenger cars, according to an equation on the website of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The whales' faeces are so effective because they are emitted in liquid form and close to the surface, before the mammals dive, said the paper.
Industrialised whaling not only gravely threatened Southern Ocean sperm whales, it also damaged a major carbon "sink", the scientific term for something that removes more greenhouse gases than it produces, it added.
Before industrial whaling, the population of this species was about 10 times bigger, which meant around two million tonnes of CO2 were removed annually, said the paper.
The Southern Ocean is rich in nitrogen but poor in iron which is essential for phytoplankton.
The scientists suspect that because sperm whales cluster in specific areas of the Southern Ocean, there is a clear link between food availability and cetacean faeces.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Given the EPA's new powers, "This was the day freedom died"
The Senate just claimed the title of the world's most delusional body by refusing to strip unelected EPA bureaucrats of the power to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. This was the day freedom died.
One wonders why we have a Congress at all. The 53 profiles in cowardice that could not get a cap-and-tax bill through the U.S. Senate voted Thursday to let the Environmental Protection Agency keep the unprecedented power Congress did not expressly give it. It is power that the EPA arrogated to itself through regulation to control every aspect of the American economy and our very lives.
This country was born over anger at taxation without representation. Regulation without representation may spark another revolt come November. The Tea Party movement began precisely because of such arrogant disregard for the wishes of the American people. Unlike health care reform, this time the cowardly lions of the Senate couldn't even do it themselves and ceded their authority to the EPA.
One wonders why we have a Congress at all. The 53 profiles in cowardice that could not get a cap-and-tax bill through the U.S. Senate voted Thursday to let the Environmental Protection Agency keep the unprecedented power Congress did not expressly give it. It is power that the EPA arrogated to itself through regulation to control every aspect of the American economy and our very lives.
This country was born over anger at taxation without representation. Regulation without representation may spark another revolt come November. The Tea Party movement began precisely because of such arrogant disregard for the wishes of the American people. Unlike health care reform, this time the cowardly lions of the Senate couldn't even do it themselves and ceded their authority to the EPA.
Friday, June 11, 2010
What you are exhaling is now a dangerous gas, say Democrats
Senate Democrats yesterday voted to empower unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), trial lawyers and activist judges to enact Obama’s cap and trade national energy tax through regulation and against the will of the American people.
Voting down Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Ak.) resolution of disapproval (S.J. Res.26) by a 47-53 margin, Democrats approved handing the EPA the unprecedented power to drastically regulate carbon dioxide, the very substance human beings exhale when we breathe.
All Republicans voted in favor of the disapproval resolution that would have stripped the EPA’s ability to enforce their “endangerment” finding, six Democrats crossed over to vote with Republicans.
How did your Senator vote?
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Having destroyed the pseudo-science behind global warming, the sane now try to block EPA's fascist social engineering bid
The Senate is set for a key test environmental vote this week and the White House is already threatening a veto.
On Thursday, the Senate will take up Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Ak.) EPA Resolution of Disapproval (S.J. Res. 26) under a consent agreement that was reached before the Memorial Day recess.
The resolution would overturn the EPA back door attempt at enacting a national cap and trade energy tax through regulation.
The White House threatened a veto Tuesday, then attempted to link the vote to the disaster in the Gulf.
“The administration and opponents of the disapproval resolution know they’re losing the argument about the costs of EPA climate regulations. They’ve trotted out one red herring after another, but trying to link this bipartisan measure to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill sets a new low,” Murkowski said.
“There is nothing in my resolution that negates fuel economy gains or makes our country more dependent on oil. Falsely linking this effort to the tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico is an insult to those impacted by the spill and to the hundreds of stakeholders that are concerned about the economic consequences of EPA’s climate regulations,” Murkowski continued. “Farmers, manufacturers, small business owners, and Americans from every corner of the country have weighed in to express their support for this resolution. To suggest they are somehow tools of the oil industry for speaking out against the EPA’s regulatory overreach is cynical and categorically untrue.”
“The EPA’s endangerment finding does nothing to help clean up the Gulf of Mexico, ensure that impacted victims receive timely compensation for damages or prevent future spills. To suggest otherwise is opportunistic and it cheapens the ongoing tragedy while deflecting attention from the government’s lackluster response,” Murkowski added. “The only similarity I see between the oil spill and the EPA’s climate regulations is that both are unmitigated disasters. The difference, of course, is that it’s not too late for Congress to stop the EPA’s regulations.”
The Senate resolution has bi-partisan support from 41 co-sponsors as well as from senators like Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) with a large state coal mining industry.
“I believe we must send a strong message that the fate of West Virginia's economy, our manufacturing industries and our workers should not be solely in the hands of EPA," Rockefeller said.
On Thursday, the Senate will take up Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Ak.) EPA Resolution of Disapproval (S.J. Res. 26) under a consent agreement that was reached before the Memorial Day recess.
The resolution would overturn the EPA back door attempt at enacting a national cap and trade energy tax through regulation.
The White House threatened a veto Tuesday, then attempted to link the vote to the disaster in the Gulf.
“The administration and opponents of the disapproval resolution know they’re losing the argument about the costs of EPA climate regulations. They’ve trotted out one red herring after another, but trying to link this bipartisan measure to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill sets a new low,” Murkowski said.
“There is nothing in my resolution that negates fuel economy gains or makes our country more dependent on oil. Falsely linking this effort to the tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico is an insult to those impacted by the spill and to the hundreds of stakeholders that are concerned about the economic consequences of EPA’s climate regulations,” Murkowski continued. “Farmers, manufacturers, small business owners, and Americans from every corner of the country have weighed in to express their support for this resolution. To suggest they are somehow tools of the oil industry for speaking out against the EPA’s regulatory overreach is cynical and categorically untrue.”
“The EPA’s endangerment finding does nothing to help clean up the Gulf of Mexico, ensure that impacted victims receive timely compensation for damages or prevent future spills. To suggest otherwise is opportunistic and it cheapens the ongoing tragedy while deflecting attention from the government’s lackluster response,” Murkowski added. “The only similarity I see between the oil spill and the EPA’s climate regulations is that both are unmitigated disasters. The difference, of course, is that it’s not too late for Congress to stop the EPA’s regulations.”
The Senate resolution has bi-partisan support from 41 co-sponsors as well as from senators like Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) with a large state coal mining industry.
“I believe we must send a strong message that the fate of West Virginia's economy, our manufacturing industries and our workers should not be solely in the hands of EPA," Rockefeller said.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Senate to vote Thursday on massive EPA power grab that would empower the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant
On Thursday, the Senate will vote on S.J.Res.26, a resolution to block EPA from usurping powers never delegated to it by Congress. Failure means allowing EPA to go forward, apparently in flagrant violation of our constitutional traditions simply because too many in Congress desire, but can’t bear to take responsibility for, more of the Obama agenda.
EPA’s breathtaking Power Grab raises questions critical to our form of governance. The powers EPA has claimed for itself include staking out national policy on the contentious “climate” issue, and even amending the Clean Air Act on its own initiative and authority.
S.J.Res. 26 was originated by Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). It is co-sponsored by 40 others, mostly Republicans but including three Democrats (the math of which also tells you that three Republicans are not on board: Sens. Brown, Collins and Snowe). It seeks to exercise, for just the second time, the Congressional Review Act passed in 1996 as part of the “Contract with America”. That law allows legislators to check bureaucrats gone wild by vetoing a “major rule” within 60 days of an agency publishing it.
In this case, the rule is the Obama EPA’s effort to delegate to itself inherently legislative powers. These include Congress’s authority—wisely eschewed to date—to regulate carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” under the Clean Air Act, which would make EPA an economic regulatory agency despite having been caught as complicit in promoting scandalous “climate science” in the push to spectacularly expand its budget and powers.
You may recall “ClimateGate” from last year and the series of “-gates” befalling the UN’s big-government project, the IPCC. EPA outsourced its scientific assessment responsibilities in this matter, to principally rely instead on the work of the two disgraced bodies caught sexing up their claims of unfolding climate catastrophe. When caught out, EPA silenced their internal whistleblower.
The Senate is not voting on science, however. The Murkowski resolution merely overturns the legal force and effect of EPA’s claim that carbon dioxide endangers human health and the environment (really). Congress has serially rejected that proposition. Now EPA is saying “so what?” This poses a referendum not on climate science but the constitutional propriety of EPA making climate policy without Congress providing any specific guidance to do so.
That is, the Senate will vote whether to let an agency carry out the most expansive regulatory intervention in American history on its own.
EPA’s breathtaking Power Grab raises questions critical to our form of governance. The powers EPA has claimed for itself include staking out national policy on the contentious “climate” issue, and even amending the Clean Air Act on its own initiative and authority.
S.J.Res. 26 was originated by Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). It is co-sponsored by 40 others, mostly Republicans but including three Democrats (the math of which also tells you that three Republicans are not on board: Sens. Brown, Collins and Snowe). It seeks to exercise, for just the second time, the Congressional Review Act passed in 1996 as part of the “Contract with America”. That law allows legislators to check bureaucrats gone wild by vetoing a “major rule” within 60 days of an agency publishing it.
In this case, the rule is the Obama EPA’s effort to delegate to itself inherently legislative powers. These include Congress’s authority—wisely eschewed to date—to regulate carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” under the Clean Air Act, which would make EPA an economic regulatory agency despite having been caught as complicit in promoting scandalous “climate science” in the push to spectacularly expand its budget and powers.
You may recall “ClimateGate” from last year and the series of “-gates” befalling the UN’s big-government project, the IPCC. EPA outsourced its scientific assessment responsibilities in this matter, to principally rely instead on the work of the two disgraced bodies caught sexing up their claims of unfolding climate catastrophe. When caught out, EPA silenced their internal whistleblower.
The Senate is not voting on science, however. The Murkowski resolution merely overturns the legal force and effect of EPA’s claim that carbon dioxide endangers human health and the environment (really). Congress has serially rejected that proposition. Now EPA is saying “so what?” This poses a referendum not on climate science but the constitutional propriety of EPA making climate policy without Congress providing any specific guidance to do so.
That is, the Senate will vote whether to let an agency carry out the most expansive regulatory intervention in American history on its own.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
EPA is dealing with its insane judgment that carbon dioxide, present in plants and animals, is hazardous to life as we know it
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) yesterday announced a new “tailoring rule” to attempt to postpone the disastrous consequences of their earlier “endangerment finding” that declared carbon dioxide, the substance humans exhale, a danger to life as we know it on the planet.
The endangerment finding issued last December was designed to side-step authorization from Congress for the administration’s draconian greenhouse gas permitting regulation scheme using the Clean Air Act (CAA) as a means to regulate carbon. The Democrats’ cap and trade national energy tax is DOA in the Senate.
But the endangerment finding has disastrous consequences to the economy. And for Democrats in the November elections.
As a delaying tactic, the EPA now seeks to modify the CAA -- an actual statute -- with a “tailoring rule” to raise limits on carbon well above the hard and fast numbers designed for actual dangerous substances in the CAA. The limits set forth in the CAA -- if applied to carbon -- could regulate even local donut shops, pizza parlors, nursing homes, and apartment buildings.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), top Republican on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said the tailoring rule violates the clear legal requirements of the Clean Air Act they’re attempting to misuse to regulate carbon.
‘In short, EPA is buying political time because it knows the political and practical consequences that will arise from its endangerment finding,” Inhofe said. “The only way to stop EPA is for Congress to overturn that finding and provide certainty for employers so they can create jobs, expand their businesses, and get America on the path to economic recovery.”
The endangerment finding issued last December was designed to side-step authorization from Congress for the administration’s draconian greenhouse gas permitting regulation scheme using the Clean Air Act (CAA) as a means to regulate carbon. The Democrats’ cap and trade national energy tax is DOA in the Senate.
But the endangerment finding has disastrous consequences to the economy. And for Democrats in the November elections.
As a delaying tactic, the EPA now seeks to modify the CAA -- an actual statute -- with a “tailoring rule” to raise limits on carbon well above the hard and fast numbers designed for actual dangerous substances in the CAA. The limits set forth in the CAA -- if applied to carbon -- could regulate even local donut shops, pizza parlors, nursing homes, and apartment buildings.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), top Republican on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said the tailoring rule violates the clear legal requirements of the Clean Air Act they’re attempting to misuse to regulate carbon.
‘In short, EPA is buying political time because it knows the political and practical consequences that will arise from its endangerment finding,” Inhofe said. “The only way to stop EPA is for Congress to overturn that finding and provide certainty for employers so they can create jobs, expand their businesses, and get America on the path to economic recovery.”
Monday, January 4, 2010
No rise in atmosheric carbon dioxide in 150 years
ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.
However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.
Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.
To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.
In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.
However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.
Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.
To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.
In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
If trees don't fall, will oxygen knock out carbon dioxide and silence the global warming alarmists?
As the left celebrates still another reckless, self-aggrandizing presidency, an even more historic force is about to change the nation's landscape while also altering the daily routine of its citizens.
We are going to save the trees.
To do so, we are going to give up our newspapers.
It is a bargain many of us on the right will gladly make, having concluded that the trees are of absolute value while the newspapers are, as often as not, of value mainly for the unintended mirth that they provide.
I spent most of my career at two newspapers, the Minneapolis Tribune and the Detroit Free Press. Both were first-rate newspapers. Both are in their third reincarnations since I left. A newspaper analyzing any other industry in which leading institutions are changing hands that often would refer to "death throes" and speculate on how long the stricken will survive.
The odd thing about the impending demise of the newspapers is that no one mentions the impact this will have on the issue mainstream newspapers love most - global warming. Leaving aside the question of whether global warming is real, or whether it is caused by human beings, the number of trees that remain in the forest obviously bears on the question.
Human beings breath in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Trees and other plants, on the other hand, absorb carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. It seems obvious, even inescapable, that the more trees there are in the forest the more oxygen, and the less carbon dioxide, there will be in earth's atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide is the main villain among the greenhouse gases that global warming fanatics blame for the meager evidence that global warming actually has been taking place. They have persuaded millions of Americans, including leading politicians, that carbon dioxide is largely to blame for a rise in the average earthly temperature of less than one degree over 100 years.
On that slender reed, alarmist Al Gore has built a fortune and collected a Nobel Prize while persuading politicians to hasten their destruction of the American economy by enacting a carbon tax.
Instead of enacting that tax, why doesn't Congress demand a scientific study of the impact of increased tree preservation on the future level of carbon dioxide.
Would the New York Times, now approaching extremis, dare to editorialize against that?
For the last decade, circulation of many newspapers has been falling off a cliff. As a result, fewer trees have been cut down to make newsprint. During that period, it turns out, global warming has expired everywhere except in the fevered brains of liberal journalists and politicians on the make.
In other words, more and more trees have been singing "I'm still standing" during a period in which global warming has vanished and global cooling seems to have set in.
Is this coincidence? Or, is the window closing on one of the most successful hoaxes in history?
We are going to save the trees.
To do so, we are going to give up our newspapers.
It is a bargain many of us on the right will gladly make, having concluded that the trees are of absolute value while the newspapers are, as often as not, of value mainly for the unintended mirth that they provide.
I spent most of my career at two newspapers, the Minneapolis Tribune and the Detroit Free Press. Both were first-rate newspapers. Both are in their third reincarnations since I left. A newspaper analyzing any other industry in which leading institutions are changing hands that often would refer to "death throes" and speculate on how long the stricken will survive.
The odd thing about the impending demise of the newspapers is that no one mentions the impact this will have on the issue mainstream newspapers love most - global warming. Leaving aside the question of whether global warming is real, or whether it is caused by human beings, the number of trees that remain in the forest obviously bears on the question.
Human beings breath in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Trees and other plants, on the other hand, absorb carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. It seems obvious, even inescapable, that the more trees there are in the forest the more oxygen, and the less carbon dioxide, there will be in earth's atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide is the main villain among the greenhouse gases that global warming fanatics blame for the meager evidence that global warming actually has been taking place. They have persuaded millions of Americans, including leading politicians, that carbon dioxide is largely to blame for a rise in the average earthly temperature of less than one degree over 100 years.
On that slender reed, alarmist Al Gore has built a fortune and collected a Nobel Prize while persuading politicians to hasten their destruction of the American economy by enacting a carbon tax.
Instead of enacting that tax, why doesn't Congress demand a scientific study of the impact of increased tree preservation on the future level of carbon dioxide.
Would the New York Times, now approaching extremis, dare to editorialize against that?
For the last decade, circulation of many newspapers has been falling off a cliff. As a result, fewer trees have been cut down to make newsprint. During that period, it turns out, global warming has expired everywhere except in the fevered brains of liberal journalists and politicians on the make.
In other words, more and more trees have been singing "I'm still standing" during a period in which global warming has vanished and global cooling seems to have set in.
Is this coincidence? Or, is the window closing on one of the most successful hoaxes in history?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
