I disagree. CO2 is not a pollutant and the only endangerment to Earth is not enough CO2. If endangerment was true, implausible scenario RCP8.5 wouldn't have been invented along with false claims about the likes of more frequent and more intense hurricanes. Also, the EPA has a long history of producing junk air pollution epidemiology to order in order to regulate the economy out of existence, much of which comes out of Harvard School of Public Health since the Chinese purchased it.
If I were Lee Zeldin, I would say (with Donald Trump behind me):
"The 1970 Clean Air Act was *obviously* not intended to apply to GHGs, particularly carbon dioxide. If the 1970 CAA *had* been intended to apply to CO2, then "CO2" would have appeared extensively in the 1970 CAA."
"For example, the 1970 CAA *was* meant to apply to "hazardous air pollutants", which specifically mentioned 'asbestos, beryllium, mercury, radionuclides, inorganic arsenic, benzene, and vinyl chloride'. However, for two decades, the EPA was not able to regulate those pollutants to the satisfaction of Congress. Therefore, in 1990, Congress passed Clean Air Act Amendments that specifically dealt with a list of almost 190 specific hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The 1990 CAAA amendments not only specified that the EPA should regulate those almost 190 HAPs, Congress even outlined what the regulations should look like."
"This is what is absolutely needed for GHGs, and in particular CO2. It is simply insane, and contrary to the Rule of Law, that the EPA would regulate CO2 without any directions with regard to the level of stringency, industries to be targeted, or costs to be deemed to be acceptable. The president and I await the the directions of Congress--not the courts!--in the matter of what the U.S. should be doing with regard to GHGs."
:-)
Then, as all the reporters are filing away, Lee Zeldin should "hot mike" the mumbling whisper, "Y'all realize that the entire EPA is unconstitutional, right? That there's nothing in the Constitution that even resembles an authorization for the federal government to perform the function of "environmental protection"?
“ As you stated the word "risk" is utilized in the Endangerment Finding a few hundred times!
a) Why?
The EPA's objective here was to be able to increase their regulatory authority. It's a proven strategy that instilling fear is an extremely effective methodology in getting people to be willing to bypass logical thinking and give up their rights. Think COVID policies.
b) Perspective.
Essentially EVERYTHING involves some type of risk. For example, getting married involves substantial risks. Does that mean that the government should regulate all aspects of marriage?
c) Net Benefit.
Essentially everything that has risks also has rewards. Life is a series of judgments about the Net Benefit after comprehensively and objectively assessing the risks and rewards. There was no Net Benefit consideration in the Endangerment Finding.
d) Science.
A genuine Scientific Assessment includes four required elements: 1) Comprehensive, 2) Objective, 3) Empirical, and 4) Transparent. That was not done in the Endangerment Finding — ergo it is not a scientific assessment regarding CO2 or anything else.
e) Politics.
Arguably the most significant societal threat we are facing today is the persistent and purposeful undermining of real Science. (This starts in K-12 education — see the NGSS.) A primary tactic used to fool the technically-challenged public (and Supreme Court justices) is to substitute political science for real Science. That is exactly what happened in the Endangerment Finding (and COVID policy, and All of the Above energy policy, etc.).
Please reconsider your support of the horrifically bad Endangerment Finding — as it is an endangerment to Science, citizens, and America.”
And what kind of advice, to whom, would this independent panel give?
Would it go beyond (would it go as far as) modeling costs of different atmospheric CO2 concentration trajectories net of costs of adaptation to said trajectories?
Would it model different, necessarily global, policy sets to effect the different trajectories?
While emission of CO2 into the atmosphere have costs, unlike most things regulated by EPA. most of the costs from US emissions are incurred outside the US and reduce life and prosperity on non-US residents and most of the costs to US life and prosperity arise from CO2 emissions elsewhere. As such EPA regulation of net CO2 emissions from US sources is not an idea policy instrument for reducing the costs to US residents (or to non-US residents for that matter) of net global CO2 emissions.
So, Roger, who would be your "dream team" of "truly independent" experts on such a WH committee? You obviously believe such people exist out here in Nature, I'd like 6 to 10 names.
I would propose an empaneling process that gives both Ds and Rs to appoint experts. In the past I have suggested that the chair and ranking member of the House Science Committee could make these selections
Independent would mean that the appointed expects meet FACA guidelines for conflict of interest and bias.
Such a committee would be advisory, of course.
In short, the sort of expert advisory body that we expect in any area of policy.
Yes, that is not how science advisory mechanisms work. You don't get to pick your favorites and I don't get to pick mine. The legitimacy of a process matters.
Ok. So, who can better determine the objectivity of a climate expert? A policy wonk? A lawyer? They do no have the expertise. Only the experts know what biases other experts have. We know the biased peer reviews, the plotting to prevent others from getting published. In short, the experts are the only ones who know where the bodies are buried. There are no "independent" experts that I am aware of, and even if a few exist, the lawyers representing the opposite sides will determine the way forward.
Of course no one is either independent or objective. That’s why balance is necessary to achieve legitimacy. For the EF, very little climate science is actually needed. My first pick would be a legal/constitutional expert. Honest brokering does not result from purity but by embracing the diversity.
While I agree that the focus of our resources should go towards combatting the adverse effects of climate change, we cannot leave the debate about CO2 unchallenged. If untrue then the waste of resources and hence weakening particularly of western economies, already happening, will get worse. I am no scientist but I do understand the scientific method and there are ample observations which contradict the CO2 hypothesis. Observation “trumps” theory. For example none of the many climate models can hindcast temperature with any accuracy or consistency; if there is a warming climate then the oceans have to release CO2 as they warm in volumes which dwarf fossil fuel emissions as is completely consistent with historic data; in fact geologists tell me that if the IPCC theories were correct there has been sufficient CO2 to cause the oceans to boil and evaporate leaving planet earth like Venus and that all seven ice ages started with more CO2 than there is today….and the list goes on!
For what my opinion is worth the only theory that stacks up is that the greenhouse effect is primarily caused by atmospheric pressure.+ gravitational lapse rate. Atmospheric composition is irrelevant. This certainly holds true when comparing earth, venus and mars whose temperature differentials cannot be explained by differences in solar flux and albedo alone. Also satellite data shows that there is more IR energy escaping from the planet anyway which bears out the theory that direct radiation from the surface (which is slowed by CO2) is a very minor player in earth’s ability to release energy out into the cosmos, the primary process being convection and the release of long wave radiation from the top of clouds. The constant presence of water vapour over a high proportion of the earth and the unique three phases of H2O combine to provide a unique balance between increasing the release of energy towards the cosmos and the increase of albedo through cloud cover…The effect of +1ppm CO2 per year is immaterial.
As long as the IPCC ‘s CO2 hypothesis remains largely unchallenged, there will continue to be constant political drag away from pragmatism to ideological environmentalism and to what I believe to be largely pointless policies to decarbonise at highly risky speeds (if indeed there is any need to decarbonise at all) as a new cold spell will cause the oceans to absorb more CO2 which could reach dangerously low levels. At 180ppm all life is on the cusp of coming to an end! We were at 280ppm. Do the math. .As long as the hypothesis about CO2 remains it provides a strong argument for the developed countries to pay reparations for climate damage and for politicians to be led up the garden path!
The wording of the Clean Air Act wherein an "air pollutant is "any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical … substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air … .” §7602(g)" makes no technical sense absent a definition of "pollutant." Consider water vapor. Water vapor enters air, condenses, rains back down and fills lakes and oceans (and swimming pools) which occasional kill people while it is also allowing plants to grow and all other life as well. Water vapor enters air by natural means and by unnatural (man-made) means as well. So is water vapor an air pollutant? Under the Clean Air Act, someone in the EPA seems empowered to declare it so. And then CO2, much like water vapor enters the atmosphere by way of releases from bodies of water, volcanoes, perhaps asteroids and exhalents from mammals and other animals but so far as we know, kills no one but is essential for all life on earth, at least life on or near the surface such as people. The problem seems due to the failure of the law to recognize the definition of pollutant. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as something that "contaminate(s) (water, air, or a place) with harmful or poisonous substances." Does water vapor cause harm? Yes, occasionally, so it seems eligible to be regulated as a pollutant. Does CO2? All of the evidence to date shows that it does not cause harm at levels as high as thousands of ppm in air based on know geological history and on experience in green houses, submarine atmospheres and even my own office where currently, the CO2 level is 741 ppm (I have a meter) and my own breath at about 40,000 ppm. Can use of fossil fuels ever cause the atmosphere to reach such levels? No, there is not enough coal, oil and gas on earth, if all is combusted, to ever reach such levels. Does an increase a bit higher than common in recent history cause harm? Data to date show unmistakably that storms, fires, floods, droughts and other climate variations are not changing as our temperature rises although tornadoes are declining - a favorable effect of CO2? Can a small temperature increase alone cause harm? There are plenty of "hot" places (Houston TX, Miami FL) and cold places (all of the UK, Russia, Norway and so forth from which to gather data. The answer is no. Regulation of CO2 as a "pollutant simply makes no sense on any basis.
CO2 is not and cannot be a pollutant by definition: "pollutant : something that pollutes. especially : something (such as anthropogenic waste) that makes an environment unsuitable or unsafe for use."
CO2 makes the atmosphere suitable for use, not unsuitable. CO2 is an absolutely necessary constituent gas for life on Earth, thus making it safe, as in life giving and life promoting, not unsafe. More CO2 increases life on Earth, it does not endanger life on Earth.
The CO2 Climate Hypothesis is just that -- the idea that maybe it is the increasing CO2 concentrations that have caused recent warming. It could be. It could also be reduced cloud cover as per a recent study. It could be just a natural cycle of warming after cooling. The Earth has warmed and cooled over and over again and the best evidence we have shows that those warmings and coolings have not be preceded by changes in CO2 but rather that CO2 concentration changes followed the warming and cooling.
The world's best atmospheric physicists tell us the CO2 cannot cause much warming, being overwhelmed and overlapped by the warming action of atmospheric water vapor.
There is lots of evidence that the climate has warmed -- but that is not evidence that CO2 is the cause nor that it is a pollutant needing to be regulated.
Roger, this post got me to thinking about risk perception and risk management, and when a risk rises to the need for action. And how much action. For example, NASA recently announced that there was an asteroid headed in our direction which had a calculated 3% probability of impacting the earth in the year 2032. This is a non-negligible risk of global catastrophe. But would it justify tearing down every surface structure in every city, rebuilding them 100 feet underground, and stocking all of them with four years' food and water? Opinions might differ on that action. Yet for the last 30 years we have been told ad nauseum that rising CO2 is an existential threat to all civilization that justifies completely and urgently tearing down existing energy infrastructure and remaking it with intermittent renewables. Until January 20th of this year, it was government policy. This apocalyptic perception of the risk of rising CO2 has been vigorously nurtured by environmental true believers backed by mega dollars of tax money extorted from many of us who perceive the risk of CO2 as small. It was a significant factor in the recent election.
Roger - I am concerned with CO2 being labeled a pollutant since humans (and many other animals!) would freeze to death and/or starve to death without some level of it that no one seems to know. I am not comforted by the level of CO2 in 1800 - 1850 being 'x' (I can't remember the number) or the temperature then being 'x', when there were vastly fewer people on Earth then. And why is the baseline 50 years when the comparison period is maybe 20? And do we actually have global weather data from that 50-year period (1800 - 1850), or even just temperatures? Since I know that even today, there are issues with just temperature data for the gobe, I confess to little confidence in temperature records from the 'pre-Industrial' era or 50 years or so. When I come to understand that those years represent the world pulling out of the "little Ice Age', I am even less comfortable. We have no idea where we might have been, or whether we would even have had an Industrial Age, without fossil fuels and CO2. The counter-factual is never known, only imagined and always in the rosiest terms. I am also bothered that many people keep eliding US temperatures from the 1930's, which appear to be quite high. So, no, I don't think the EPA finding of endangerment should continue, even updated (although that, at the very least). The whole idea of CO2 being a pollutant, or some level of CO2 being a pollutant, makes me nervous. Can you allay my nervousness? p.s., I read Vaclav Smil's wonderful "How the World Really Works", which was beautifully footnoted and cited except when he got to gloal warming/climate change, when he started just making assertions. Yes, someone in the early 1900's found a relationship (correlation or causation?) between CO2 and climate (looking back, over some period), but was it causation and, as you say, how much? What are scientists doing to quantify how much? p.s., I recently went through your series on IPCC WG1's work - thank you for that! and still love your analogy to the blackjack card game. I remain curious, however, what the 'repeat cycle' is for temperature and what that translates into as far as the analogy is concerned? Maybe I am just asking that someone write about that IPCC finding of a causal link beteen CO2 and temperature . . . explaining what, exactly, in terms of data and assumptions supports it. Thanks for listening!
Pamela ==> In a strict scientific sense, there has been exactly zero science finding a direct and irrefutable causal relationship between increasing CO2 concentrations and rising temperatures. There has been a lot of science that is said to "support" the hypothesis. A lot of correlation, but not direct correlation and certainly not for historical data.
A lot of what could be called "excuses" for the lack of more direct correlation over historical periods is offered -- trying to explain why in the past temperatures rise before CO2 rises. The excuses are just that though, we don't know why that is. One possible explanation, the one that would be favored if not for the current CO2 Climate hypothesis, is that warming causes CO2 to rise. That is complicated by the fact that we know that burning stuff -- any stuff -- creates CO2 that enters the atmosphere and we have been burning a lot of stuff for many years.
You have though "hit the nail on the head" when you ask "what, exactly, in terms of ..... assumptions supports" the CO2 hypothesis. And the answer to that is "a great many, some of them may be right."
Many leading scientists for across a multitude of scientific fields are of the opinion that the IPCC-led consensus, which is heavily enforced with draconian effectiveness, has held back climate science from making any real progress on the causality point.
Respectfully, your post, Roger, and some of the comments thus far perfectly illustrates the extent to which the EPA finding and everything around it has suppressed critical thinking. The question is whether we can discern the incremental contribution our industrial gases might make relative to the vast set of interacting natural factors that drive long-term variability in earth's complex climate system. Over the years we've gained additional useful knowledge that has had a diminishing effect on previous assumptions. From greatly improved construction of recent (2k to 10k) patterns to distinguishing an enormous feature of human activity (urbanization) to isolating the sheer problems in measurement to ongoing parsing of the models that underlie general climate models (the "thermal" effects of trace gases, to ice sheets and sea levels to feedbacks etc) and much, much more - all of this needs to be taken seriously. In fact it's amazing that these efforts have continued given the bias in research funding (the only way to publish of course is to couch in terms of accepted conventional wisdom). It's not just a matter of updating GCM scenarios for changing emissions. You've been on that theme for a long time. It goes well beyond. The body of work is large and compelling enough to justify a rethink, which fully counters contentions that the finding still has merit.
You continue to make conflicting statements - endangerment should be left alone but IPCC scenarios are no longer relevant.
I also absolutely disagree that we have "managed ok" since 2009. The finding spawned an escalation in climate politics and "lawfare"', contributing to partisan divisions that led us to where we are. Indeed it has been part of intentional efforts to "divide and conquer" the American polity for elections using "climate" as a wedge. Enough already!
For the first time in my 50 years as a working professional the EPA web site sends a message that the agency intends to be constructive - to ensure responsible development. I hope Lee Zeldin can prevail and achieve a lasting change in the culture at EPA and how we do things.
Thanks for the comment ... in response to the comments here that express absolute certainty that GHGs pose zero risks, I'm skeptical of any argument that is expressed with 100% certainty.
Even if GHGs pose small risks (in absolute or relative terms) then an EF is scientifically justifiable. Those who disagree have much stronger footing arguing the law and not science.
An EF does not dictate or mandate particular regulations, which necessarily must pass other tests prior to implementation (like costs vs benefits). Arguing that the EF should be rescinded because one is leery of the regulations that might follow is a fine argument over a beer or on a Substack, but it is not grounded in US law.
A final point (for the moment!) many of the comments here express concerns about the wording or interpretation of the CAA -- that is perfectly legitimate. But to address concerns about the CAA requires legislative not administrative action.
Great article and discussion to bring up Roger! I will throw out one question to ponder: if you take the quote you pull from the Mass v. EPA opinion at face value, why is water vapor not also a pollutant? I've never heard a reason why, if CO2 is a pollutant under the CAA, water vapor is not. Must there be some sort of threshold of warming to make CO2 a pollutant and water vapor benign? I've never heard this discussed before, and maybe this august group will have an opinion.
I'll also offer two reasons that it will be easy for the EPA to overturn the existing GHG rules. First, it violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to send the 2009 finding to the Science Advisory Council. It can rescind the 2009 finding and redo it based on this error alone. Also, the EPA has made a bold, and likely illegal, step of applying the endangerment finding for mobile sources to that of stationary sources. The standard for stationary sources says that pollution must "significantly contribute" to endangering the public health and welfare, instead of merely cause or contribute. Instead of making a separate finding for stationary sources, it forged ahead with rules based on the 2009 finding. Look for the EPA to use these prior missteps in the near-term to overturn existing GHG rules while also inviting litigation to try to get SCOTUS to overturn Mass v EPA. If I were the environmental groups, I'd avoid pursuing litigation because the current court is probably ready to overturn Mass v EPA.
Dr. Pielke ==> "All of this IMO has little connection with common sense and pragmatic energy policy making!"
Absolutely correct. This is why the use of the Endangerment Finding by the EPA to attempt to control how the country produces electricity and how it powers its cars and trucks -- what energy to use to transport people and goods -- and what energy it uses to manufacture steel and cement and a million other things -- how we cook and how we heat out homes -- is all massive overreach by the EPA -- the EPA driving far out of its legislatively approved lane.
Revoking the Endangerment Finding will obviate the EPAs excuses for such overreach.
The endangerment finding is absurd because it has never been shown that CO2 or any other greenhouse gases are dangerous to humans. All we have are models in which the initial assumptions are that CO2 causes dangerous climate change and then the model output shows CO2 cause dangerous climate change, big surprise! There is more evidence that food and water are dangerous.
As a non scientific person, life spent in finance, I find it difficult to understand why this country should spend say a trillion dollars to alleviate something that we alone can’t fix. Just because we are blessed with a great economic vitality does it mean we should spend money that will in the end fix nothing? Why not spend the money on ways to adapt so that the world can benefit from our ingenuity which potentially enriches us and the word benefits. In my judgement our response to climate change has been knee jerk virtue signaling that enriches a few at the expense of the majority. Should congress fix this hell yes. Will they doubtful. So hopefully Trump and the EPA along with three SC must act.
I disagree. CO2 is not a pollutant and the only endangerment to Earth is not enough CO2. If endangerment was true, implausible scenario RCP8.5 wouldn't have been invented along with false claims about the likes of more frequent and more intense hurricanes. Also, the EPA has a long history of producing junk air pollution epidemiology to order in order to regulate the economy out of existence, much of which comes out of Harvard School of Public Health since the Chinese purchased it.
If I were Lee Zeldin, I would say (with Donald Trump behind me):
"The 1970 Clean Air Act was *obviously* not intended to apply to GHGs, particularly carbon dioxide. If the 1970 CAA *had* been intended to apply to CO2, then "CO2" would have appeared extensively in the 1970 CAA."
"For example, the 1970 CAA *was* meant to apply to "hazardous air pollutants", which specifically mentioned 'asbestos, beryllium, mercury, radionuclides, inorganic arsenic, benzene, and vinyl chloride'. However, for two decades, the EPA was not able to regulate those pollutants to the satisfaction of Congress. Therefore, in 1990, Congress passed Clean Air Act Amendments that specifically dealt with a list of almost 190 specific hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The 1990 CAAA amendments not only specified that the EPA should regulate those almost 190 HAPs, Congress even outlined what the regulations should look like."
"This is what is absolutely needed for GHGs, and in particular CO2. It is simply insane, and contrary to the Rule of Law, that the EPA would regulate CO2 without any directions with regard to the level of stringency, industries to be targeted, or costs to be deemed to be acceptable. The president and I await the the directions of Congress--not the courts!--in the matter of what the U.S. should be doing with regard to GHGs."
:-)
Then, as all the reporters are filing away, Lee Zeldin should "hot mike" the mumbling whisper, "Y'all realize that the entire EPA is unconstitutional, right? That there's nothing in the Constitution that even resembles an authorization for the federal government to perform the function of "environmental protection"?
:-) :-) :-)
John Droz sent this via email which I am sharing
“ As you stated the word "risk" is utilized in the Endangerment Finding a few hundred times!
a) Why?
The EPA's objective here was to be able to increase their regulatory authority. It's a proven strategy that instilling fear is an extremely effective methodology in getting people to be willing to bypass logical thinking and give up their rights. Think COVID policies.
b) Perspective.
Essentially EVERYTHING involves some type of risk. For example, getting married involves substantial risks. Does that mean that the government should regulate all aspects of marriage?
c) Net Benefit.
Essentially everything that has risks also has rewards. Life is a series of judgments about the Net Benefit after comprehensively and objectively assessing the risks and rewards. There was no Net Benefit consideration in the Endangerment Finding.
d) Science.
A genuine Scientific Assessment includes four required elements: 1) Comprehensive, 2) Objective, 3) Empirical, and 4) Transparent. That was not done in the Endangerment Finding — ergo it is not a scientific assessment regarding CO2 or anything else.
e) Politics.
Arguably the most significant societal threat we are facing today is the persistent and purposeful undermining of real Science. (This starts in K-12 education — see the NGSS.) A primary tactic used to fool the technically-challenged public (and Supreme Court justices) is to substitute political science for real Science. That is exactly what happened in the Endangerment Finding (and COVID policy, and All of the Above energy policy, etc.).
Please reconsider your support of the horrifically bad Endangerment Finding — as it is an endangerment to Science, citizens, and America.”
And what kind of advice, to whom, would this independent panel give?
Would it go beyond (would it go as far as) modeling costs of different atmospheric CO2 concentration trajectories net of costs of adaptation to said trajectories?
Would it model different, necessarily global, policy sets to effect the different trajectories?
As I wrote in the post, it would simply update the endangerment finding to 2025
While emission of CO2 into the atmosphere have costs, unlike most things regulated by EPA. most of the costs from US emissions are incurred outside the US and reduce life and prosperity on non-US residents and most of the costs to US life and prosperity arise from CO2 emissions elsewhere. As such EPA regulation of net CO2 emissions from US sources is not an idea policy instrument for reducing the costs to US residents (or to non-US residents for that matter) of net global CO2 emissions.
So, Roger, who would be your "dream team" of "truly independent" experts on such a WH committee? You obviously believe such people exist out here in Nature, I'd like 6 to 10 names.
Good Q!
I would propose an empaneling process that gives both Ds and Rs to appoint experts. In the past I have suggested that the chair and ranking member of the House Science Committee could make these selections
Independent would mean that the appointed expects meet FACA guidelines for conflict of interest and bias.
Such a committee would be advisory, of course.
In short, the sort of expert advisory body that we expect in any area of policy.
Now, see, this is exactly the kind of response I expected. You did not answer my question.
Yes, that is not how science advisory mechanisms work. You don't get to pick your favorites and I don't get to pick mine. The legitimacy of a process matters.
Ok. So, who can better determine the objectivity of a climate expert? A policy wonk? A lawyer? They do no have the expertise. Only the experts know what biases other experts have. We know the biased peer reviews, the plotting to prevent others from getting published. In short, the experts are the only ones who know where the bodies are buried. There are no "independent" experts that I am aware of, and even if a few exist, the lawyers representing the opposite sides will determine the way forward.
Of course no one is either independent or objective. That’s why balance is necessary to achieve legitimacy. For the EF, very little climate science is actually needed. My first pick would be a legal/constitutional expert. Honest brokering does not result from purity but by embracing the diversity.
While I agree that the focus of our resources should go towards combatting the adverse effects of climate change, we cannot leave the debate about CO2 unchallenged. If untrue then the waste of resources and hence weakening particularly of western economies, already happening, will get worse. I am no scientist but I do understand the scientific method and there are ample observations which contradict the CO2 hypothesis. Observation “trumps” theory. For example none of the many climate models can hindcast temperature with any accuracy or consistency; if there is a warming climate then the oceans have to release CO2 as they warm in volumes which dwarf fossil fuel emissions as is completely consistent with historic data; in fact geologists tell me that if the IPCC theories were correct there has been sufficient CO2 to cause the oceans to boil and evaporate leaving planet earth like Venus and that all seven ice ages started with more CO2 than there is today….and the list goes on!
For what my opinion is worth the only theory that stacks up is that the greenhouse effect is primarily caused by atmospheric pressure.+ gravitational lapse rate. Atmospheric composition is irrelevant. This certainly holds true when comparing earth, venus and mars whose temperature differentials cannot be explained by differences in solar flux and albedo alone. Also satellite data shows that there is more IR energy escaping from the planet anyway which bears out the theory that direct radiation from the surface (which is slowed by CO2) is a very minor player in earth’s ability to release energy out into the cosmos, the primary process being convection and the release of long wave radiation from the top of clouds. The constant presence of water vapour over a high proportion of the earth and the unique three phases of H2O combine to provide a unique balance between increasing the release of energy towards the cosmos and the increase of albedo through cloud cover…The effect of +1ppm CO2 per year is immaterial.
As long as the IPCC ‘s CO2 hypothesis remains largely unchallenged, there will continue to be constant political drag away from pragmatism to ideological environmentalism and to what I believe to be largely pointless policies to decarbonise at highly risky speeds (if indeed there is any need to decarbonise at all) as a new cold spell will cause the oceans to absorb more CO2 which could reach dangerously low levels. At 180ppm all life is on the cusp of coming to an end! We were at 280ppm. Do the math. .As long as the hypothesis about CO2 remains it provides a strong argument for the developed countries to pay reparations for climate damage and for politicians to be led up the garden path!
The wording of the Clean Air Act wherein an "air pollutant is "any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical … substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air … .” §7602(g)" makes no technical sense absent a definition of "pollutant." Consider water vapor. Water vapor enters air, condenses, rains back down and fills lakes and oceans (and swimming pools) which occasional kill people while it is also allowing plants to grow and all other life as well. Water vapor enters air by natural means and by unnatural (man-made) means as well. So is water vapor an air pollutant? Under the Clean Air Act, someone in the EPA seems empowered to declare it so. And then CO2, much like water vapor enters the atmosphere by way of releases from bodies of water, volcanoes, perhaps asteroids and exhalents from mammals and other animals but so far as we know, kills no one but is essential for all life on earth, at least life on or near the surface such as people. The problem seems due to the failure of the law to recognize the definition of pollutant. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as something that "contaminate(s) (water, air, or a place) with harmful or poisonous substances." Does water vapor cause harm? Yes, occasionally, so it seems eligible to be regulated as a pollutant. Does CO2? All of the evidence to date shows that it does not cause harm at levels as high as thousands of ppm in air based on know geological history and on experience in green houses, submarine atmospheres and even my own office where currently, the CO2 level is 741 ppm (I have a meter) and my own breath at about 40,000 ppm. Can use of fossil fuels ever cause the atmosphere to reach such levels? No, there is not enough coal, oil and gas on earth, if all is combusted, to ever reach such levels. Does an increase a bit higher than common in recent history cause harm? Data to date show unmistakably that storms, fires, floods, droughts and other climate variations are not changing as our temperature rises although tornadoes are declining - a favorable effect of CO2? Can a small temperature increase alone cause harm? There are plenty of "hot" places (Houston TX, Miami FL) and cold places (all of the UK, Russia, Norway and so forth from which to gather data. The answer is no. Regulation of CO2 as a "pollutant simply makes no sense on any basis.
CO2 is not and cannot be a pollutant by definition: "pollutant : something that pollutes. especially : something (such as anthropogenic waste) that makes an environment unsuitable or unsafe for use."
CO2 makes the atmosphere suitable for use, not unsuitable. CO2 is an absolutely necessary constituent gas for life on Earth, thus making it safe, as in life giving and life promoting, not unsafe. More CO2 increases life on Earth, it does not endanger life on Earth.
The CO2 Climate Hypothesis is just that -- the idea that maybe it is the increasing CO2 concentrations that have caused recent warming. It could be. It could also be reduced cloud cover as per a recent study. It could be just a natural cycle of warming after cooling. The Earth has warmed and cooled over and over again and the best evidence we have shows that those warmings and coolings have not be preceded by changes in CO2 but rather that CO2 concentration changes followed the warming and cooling.
The world's best atmospheric physicists tell us the CO2 cannot cause much warming, being overwhelmed and overlapped by the warming action of atmospheric water vapor.
There is lots of evidence that the climate has warmed -- but that is not evidence that CO2 is the cause nor that it is a pollutant needing to be regulated.
Roger, this post got me to thinking about risk perception and risk management, and when a risk rises to the need for action. And how much action. For example, NASA recently announced that there was an asteroid headed in our direction which had a calculated 3% probability of impacting the earth in the year 2032. This is a non-negligible risk of global catastrophe. But would it justify tearing down every surface structure in every city, rebuilding them 100 feet underground, and stocking all of them with four years' food and water? Opinions might differ on that action. Yet for the last 30 years we have been told ad nauseum that rising CO2 is an existential threat to all civilization that justifies completely and urgently tearing down existing energy infrastructure and remaking it with intermittent renewables. Until January 20th of this year, it was government policy. This apocalyptic perception of the risk of rising CO2 has been vigorously nurtured by environmental true believers backed by mega dollars of tax money extorted from many of us who perceive the risk of CO2 as small. It was a significant factor in the recent election.
Roger - I am concerned with CO2 being labeled a pollutant since humans (and many other animals!) would freeze to death and/or starve to death without some level of it that no one seems to know. I am not comforted by the level of CO2 in 1800 - 1850 being 'x' (I can't remember the number) or the temperature then being 'x', when there were vastly fewer people on Earth then. And why is the baseline 50 years when the comparison period is maybe 20? And do we actually have global weather data from that 50-year period (1800 - 1850), or even just temperatures? Since I know that even today, there are issues with just temperature data for the gobe, I confess to little confidence in temperature records from the 'pre-Industrial' era or 50 years or so. When I come to understand that those years represent the world pulling out of the "little Ice Age', I am even less comfortable. We have no idea where we might have been, or whether we would even have had an Industrial Age, without fossil fuels and CO2. The counter-factual is never known, only imagined and always in the rosiest terms. I am also bothered that many people keep eliding US temperatures from the 1930's, which appear to be quite high. So, no, I don't think the EPA finding of endangerment should continue, even updated (although that, at the very least). The whole idea of CO2 being a pollutant, or some level of CO2 being a pollutant, makes me nervous. Can you allay my nervousness? p.s., I read Vaclav Smil's wonderful "How the World Really Works", which was beautifully footnoted and cited except when he got to gloal warming/climate change, when he started just making assertions. Yes, someone in the early 1900's found a relationship (correlation or causation?) between CO2 and climate (looking back, over some period), but was it causation and, as you say, how much? What are scientists doing to quantify how much? p.s., I recently went through your series on IPCC WG1's work - thank you for that! and still love your analogy to the blackjack card game. I remain curious, however, what the 'repeat cycle' is for temperature and what that translates into as far as the analogy is concerned? Maybe I am just asking that someone write about that IPCC finding of a causal link beteen CO2 and temperature . . . explaining what, exactly, in terms of data and assumptions supports it. Thanks for listening!
Pamela ==> In a strict scientific sense, there has been exactly zero science finding a direct and irrefutable causal relationship between increasing CO2 concentrations and rising temperatures. There has been a lot of science that is said to "support" the hypothesis. A lot of correlation, but not direct correlation and certainly not for historical data.
A lot of what could be called "excuses" for the lack of more direct correlation over historical periods is offered -- trying to explain why in the past temperatures rise before CO2 rises. The excuses are just that though, we don't know why that is. One possible explanation, the one that would be favored if not for the current CO2 Climate hypothesis, is that warming causes CO2 to rise. That is complicated by the fact that we know that burning stuff -- any stuff -- creates CO2 that enters the atmosphere and we have been burning a lot of stuff for many years.
You have though "hit the nail on the head" when you ask "what, exactly, in terms of ..... assumptions supports" the CO2 hypothesis. And the answer to that is "a great many, some of them may be right."
Many leading scientists for across a multitude of scientific fields are of the opinion that the IPCC-led consensus, which is heavily enforced with draconian effectiveness, has held back climate science from making any real progress on the causality point.
I think you may have meant to say “none of us are omniscient”
Respectfully, your post, Roger, and some of the comments thus far perfectly illustrates the extent to which the EPA finding and everything around it has suppressed critical thinking. The question is whether we can discern the incremental contribution our industrial gases might make relative to the vast set of interacting natural factors that drive long-term variability in earth's complex climate system. Over the years we've gained additional useful knowledge that has had a diminishing effect on previous assumptions. From greatly improved construction of recent (2k to 10k) patterns to distinguishing an enormous feature of human activity (urbanization) to isolating the sheer problems in measurement to ongoing parsing of the models that underlie general climate models (the "thermal" effects of trace gases, to ice sheets and sea levels to feedbacks etc) and much, much more - all of this needs to be taken seriously. In fact it's amazing that these efforts have continued given the bias in research funding (the only way to publish of course is to couch in terms of accepted conventional wisdom). It's not just a matter of updating GCM scenarios for changing emissions. You've been on that theme for a long time. It goes well beyond. The body of work is large and compelling enough to justify a rethink, which fully counters contentions that the finding still has merit.
You continue to make conflicting statements - endangerment should be left alone but IPCC scenarios are no longer relevant.
I also absolutely disagree that we have "managed ok" since 2009. The finding spawned an escalation in climate politics and "lawfare"', contributing to partisan divisions that led us to where we are. Indeed it has been part of intentional efforts to "divide and conquer" the American polity for elections using "climate" as a wedge. Enough already!
For the first time in my 50 years as a working professional the EPA web site sends a message that the agency intends to be constructive - to ensure responsible development. I hope Lee Zeldin can prevail and achieve a lasting change in the culture at EPA and how we do things.
Thanks for the comment ... in response to the comments here that express absolute certainty that GHGs pose zero risks, I'm skeptical of any argument that is expressed with 100% certainty.
Even if GHGs pose small risks (in absolute or relative terms) then an EF is scientifically justifiable. Those who disagree have much stronger footing arguing the law and not science.
An EF does not dictate or mandate particular regulations, which necessarily must pass other tests prior to implementation (like costs vs benefits). Arguing that the EF should be rescinded because one is leery of the regulations that might follow is a fine argument over a beer or on a Substack, but it is not grounded in US law.
A final point (for the moment!) many of the comments here express concerns about the wording or interpretation of the CAA -- that is perfectly legitimate. But to address concerns about the CAA requires legislative not administrative action.
Great article and discussion to bring up Roger! I will throw out one question to ponder: if you take the quote you pull from the Mass v. EPA opinion at face value, why is water vapor not also a pollutant? I've never heard a reason why, if CO2 is a pollutant under the CAA, water vapor is not. Must there be some sort of threshold of warming to make CO2 a pollutant and water vapor benign? I've never heard this discussed before, and maybe this august group will have an opinion.
I'll also offer two reasons that it will be easy for the EPA to overturn the existing GHG rules. First, it violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to send the 2009 finding to the Science Advisory Council. It can rescind the 2009 finding and redo it based on this error alone. Also, the EPA has made a bold, and likely illegal, step of applying the endangerment finding for mobile sources to that of stationary sources. The standard for stationary sources says that pollution must "significantly contribute" to endangering the public health and welfare, instead of merely cause or contribute. Instead of making a separate finding for stationary sources, it forged ahead with rules based on the 2009 finding. Look for the EPA to use these prior missteps in the near-term to overturn existing GHG rules while also inviting litigation to try to get SCOTUS to overturn Mass v EPA. If I were the environmental groups, I'd avoid pursuing litigation because the current court is probably ready to overturn Mass v EPA.
Thanks Brent!
The EF discusses water vapor at length, and I'll point you there and we can then follow up.
Yes, there may be procedural and legal issues associated with the APA.
Overturning Mass vs EPA I think has a higher bar, especially post-Chevron, but who knows.
All of this IMO has little connection with common sense and pragmatic energy policy making!
Dr. Pielke ==> "All of this IMO has little connection with common sense and pragmatic energy policy making!"
Absolutely correct. This is why the use of the Endangerment Finding by the EPA to attempt to control how the country produces electricity and how it powers its cars and trucks -- what energy to use to transport people and goods -- and what energy it uses to manufacture steel and cement and a million other things -- how we cook and how we heat out homes -- is all massive overreach by the EPA -- the EPA driving far out of its legislatively approved lane.
Revoking the Endangerment Finding will obviate the EPAs excuses for such overreach.
Yes, feel free to DM me with what you are talking about regarding water vapor in the EF. Would love to understand that better.
The endangerment finding is absurd because it has never been shown that CO2 or any other greenhouse gases are dangerous to humans. All we have are models in which the initial assumptions are that CO2 causes dangerous climate change and then the model output shows CO2 cause dangerous climate change, big surprise! There is more evidence that food and water are dangerous.
As a non scientific person, life spent in finance, I find it difficult to understand why this country should spend say a trillion dollars to alleviate something that we alone can’t fix. Just because we are blessed with a great economic vitality does it mean we should spend money that will in the end fix nothing? Why not spend the money on ways to adapt so that the world can benefit from our ingenuity which potentially enriches us and the word benefits. In my judgement our response to climate change has been knee jerk virtue signaling that enriches a few at the expense of the majority. Should congress fix this hell yes. Will they doubtful. So hopefully Trump and the EPA along with three SC must act.