I have supported this website because it seemed to me that it was important to allow balanced reporting of climate issues. I have supposed, perhaps wrongly, that THB's support of the general thesis of 'harm caused by GHGs' was designed to allow the deflection of flak, so that the work of establishing the causes and extent of 'damage' caused by 'climate change' could proceed in calm detail. Fair enough. THB has done a wonderful job. Now that doing away with the endangerment finding has become a political possibility, however, I cannot understand why you continue to support it. The endangerment finding has offered a means by which the enemies of free-market capitalism have done enormous economic damage. I do not pretend to understand the legalities or politics through which change might be effected, but it seems to me that one way or another the endangerment finding, or the agency making it, or the bureaucracies that feed off it, or the parasitic energy policies growing from it, have all got to go. Many commenters here seem to agree with me on this. The tenuous and marginal scientific truth of the finding is so trivial compared with the damage it has done, that a new way needs to be found of expressing the problem, such as it is. Thank you again for THB.
So let me get this straight. A finding that was not made directly by Congress should be addressed directly by Congress now? This is circular logic.
And I am curious. How specifically has CO2 been directly shown to cause harm? You have pointed out time and time again how the purported impacts of climate change (and by implication, CO2) have been vastly overblown or are just plain false. The original ruling was implemented on some vague notion of future harm, and that vague notion is still in place. Why should the government impose crippling policy based on vague and uncertain notions?
The Endangerment finding was a political end run around a comprehensive review. The catastropic predictions made to justify the action were false and never occured. The proponents that made the predictions continue make them as if they never learned a lesson. There are many scientists that strongly disagreed with what the warmest were trying to do, but they were never given a fair hearing. It was a political action to begin with, and it should die a political death.
Thinking about this in the last few days, I currently think that the best thing to do would be to abolish the EPA (or greatly reduce its size), and to simply levy nationwide taxes on pollutants (e.g., for air pollutants, on sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, etc...including GHGs).
The taxes could be levied either at the point of emission, or at the point where the fuel is created, if there is a direct relationship between the fuel created and the emissions, such as occurs for CO2. (Note: CO2 capture could be dealt with by giving tax credits for people who capture CO2.)
When I was working as a contractor for the U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, I saw the many (many!) ridiculous things that happen when a regulatory agency is charged with developing regulations to try to meet congressional laws.
To choose just one example...I the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, there is a requirement that the U.S. EPA develop regulations to address approximately 190 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). One significant problem is that there is no "de minimis" level of emissions, below which the EPA can simply ignore the emissions. For example, at the time I was working, before regulations for mercury for the coal-fired power industry came into effect, the power industry was emitting about 50 tons of mercury per year. In contrast, the 100+ facilities in the secondary aluminum industry probably emitted a couple of pounds of mercury per year. But, theoretically, the EPA was required to write regulations that the whole secondary aluminum industry would have to follow, to address that possible couple of pounds of mercury emitted from those 100+ facilities combined.
This sort of situation can be avoided by having nationwide taxes, for example, on mercury emissions. If the emissions were, for example, $10,000,000 per ton of mercury emitted, the coal-fired power generation industry would have owed $500 million per year, total. In contrast, even at $10,000,000 per ton of mercury, the secondary aluminum industry, if it emitted 2 pounds per year, would have owed $10,000 per year.
Is there another way forward? The "Endangerment Finding" is based on out-of-date science, so any regulations based on that out-of-date science should be rescinded and we start over. Endangerment finding stays but scrap the regulations and start over..
Roger, you wrote a very nice recent piece about the several significant or existential threats to humans. It seems clear to me that, if one is addressing such risks via "endangerment findings," then there should be one of those for each such risk.
The main question becomes: how much authority do we want to give unelected agencies? The endangerment finding was taken by the EPA as their authority to regulate those 6 gases individually, hence their focus on regulating CO2. Translation: they’ve decided unilaterally they have the power to levy fines onto emitters. No election, no debates, they just set about to do it. So the EPA decided they have the authority to regulate an invisible gas - a natural one at that - with no authority from us or congress. An unelected agency can levy fines on an invisible gas with little if any accountability whatsoever - sounds like a bureaucrat’s dream!
Rescind it. It is government overreach defined, and a falsification of science. If the bar is so low that everything that poses a public risk can be regulated then we just continue the weaponized state. Come back when it can be proven. Trying to prevent all perceived risks is folly.
I think that the regulation of CO2 as a pollutant was not the original intention of the CAA and is far too important, controversial and expensive, to rest on a mere judicial interpretation. If we really want to regulate CO2 in this way then let’s amend the CAA.
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.
Absolutely. CO2 is a gas that is fundamental to life and, yes, we don't have enough of it. It is beyond my comprehension that, political scientist, Roger Pielke Jr. would question the likes of W. A. van Wijngaarden1 and Will Happer in his quest to demonize CO2 and other greenhouse gases. He uses convoluted arguments, heavy bias and assumptions created from, it looks like, IPPC.
In their seminal paper of 2019, these men published an extraordinary review of how the concentrations of Earth’s five most important, naturally-occurring greenhouse gases, H2O, CO2, O3, N2O and CH4 control the cloud-free, thermal radiative fluxes Earth to outer space. They explain how the per-molecule forcings of the abundant greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 are suppressed by four orders of magnitude from optically-thin values because of saturation of the strong absorption bands and interference from other greenhouse gases so that doubling the current concentrations of CO2, N2O or CH4 only increases the forcings by a few per cent or 0.7 degrees C. The paper can be downloaded here: https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Infrared-Forcing-by-Greenhouse-Gases-2019-Revised-3-7-2022.pdf
From another paper on Methane and Climate, Wijngaarden and Happer note that the radiative forcing at the tropopause, per added CH4 molecule, is about 30 times larger than the forcing per added carbon-dioxide (CO2) molecule because of the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the abundant greenhouse gas, CO2. But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, is about 300 times larger than the rate of increase of CH4 molecules, Therefore,
the contribution of methane to the annual increase in forcing is one tenth (30/300) that of carbon dioxide which makes the net forcing increase from CH4 and CO2 increases to about 0.05 W m−2 year−1. Or a temperature increase of about 0.011 °C year−1.
I'll leave readers with this little pearl from physicist Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT: "What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison."
Of course, all the reasoning of these well-renowned physicists explains how CO2 levels were up to 20 times greater than today, even at the peak of ice ages. It all relates to the band spectography of the gases involved in our so called 'greenhouse'.
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.”
Thanks for posting this email from John Droz. I would have posted pretty much the same thing absent point e) which I don't necessarily disagree with but is a bit more political than technical. I see a role for regulation of some toxins where the impact on non emitters is quite clear, measurable and negative. That's just not the case for CO2, a natural component of earth's atmosphere, with concentrations that have varied greatly in the past without evidence of harmful effects except where the concentrations have become too low. The cost benefit associated with any mandated reductions are not even close to positive.
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.
I have supported this website because it seemed to me that it was important to allow balanced reporting of climate issues. I have supposed, perhaps wrongly, that THB's support of the general thesis of 'harm caused by GHGs' was designed to allow the deflection of flak, so that the work of establishing the causes and extent of 'damage' caused by 'climate change' could proceed in calm detail. Fair enough. THB has done a wonderful job. Now that doing away with the endangerment finding has become a political possibility, however, I cannot understand why you continue to support it. The endangerment finding has offered a means by which the enemies of free-market capitalism have done enormous economic damage. I do not pretend to understand the legalities or politics through which change might be effected, but it seems to me that one way or another the endangerment finding, or the agency making it, or the bureaucracies that feed off it, or the parasitic energy policies growing from it, have all got to go. Many commenters here seem to agree with me on this. The tenuous and marginal scientific truth of the finding is so trivial compared with the damage it has done, that a new way needs to be found of expressing the problem, such as it is. Thank you again for THB.
So let me get this straight. A finding that was not made directly by Congress should be addressed directly by Congress now? This is circular logic.
And I am curious. How specifically has CO2 been directly shown to cause harm? You have pointed out time and time again how the purported impacts of climate change (and by implication, CO2) have been vastly overblown or are just plain false. The original ruling was implemented on some vague notion of future harm, and that vague notion is still in place. Why should the government impose crippling policy based on vague and uncertain notions?
The Endangerment finding was a political end run around a comprehensive review. The catastropic predictions made to justify the action were false and never occured. The proponents that made the predictions continue make them as if they never learned a lesson. There are many scientists that strongly disagreed with what the warmest were trying to do, but they were never given a fair hearing. It was a political action to begin with, and it should die a political death.
Thinking about this in the last few days, I currently think that the best thing to do would be to abolish the EPA (or greatly reduce its size), and to simply levy nationwide taxes on pollutants (e.g., for air pollutants, on sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, etc...including GHGs).
The taxes could be levied either at the point of emission, or at the point where the fuel is created, if there is a direct relationship between the fuel created and the emissions, such as occurs for CO2. (Note: CO2 capture could be dealt with by giving tax credits for people who capture CO2.)
When I was working as a contractor for the U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, I saw the many (many!) ridiculous things that happen when a regulatory agency is charged with developing regulations to try to meet congressional laws.
To choose just one example...I the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, there is a requirement that the U.S. EPA develop regulations to address approximately 190 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). One significant problem is that there is no "de minimis" level of emissions, below which the EPA can simply ignore the emissions. For example, at the time I was working, before regulations for mercury for the coal-fired power industry came into effect, the power industry was emitting about 50 tons of mercury per year. In contrast, the 100+ facilities in the secondary aluminum industry probably emitted a couple of pounds of mercury per year. But, theoretically, the EPA was required to write regulations that the whole secondary aluminum industry would have to follow, to address that possible couple of pounds of mercury emitted from those 100+ facilities combined.
This sort of situation can be avoided by having nationwide taxes, for example, on mercury emissions. If the emissions were, for example, $10,000,000 per ton of mercury emitted, the coal-fired power generation industry would have owed $500 million per year, total. In contrast, even at $10,000,000 per ton of mercury, the secondary aluminum industry, if it emitted 2 pounds per year, would have owed $10,000 per year.
Is there another way forward? The "Endangerment Finding" is based on out-of-date science, so any regulations based on that out-of-date science should be rescinded and we start over. Endangerment finding stays but scrap the regulations and start over..
Roger, you wrote a very nice recent piece about the several significant or existential threats to humans. It seems clear to me that, if one is addressing such risks via "endangerment findings," then there should be one of those for each such risk.
The main question becomes: how much authority do we want to give unelected agencies? The endangerment finding was taken by the EPA as their authority to regulate those 6 gases individually, hence their focus on regulating CO2. Translation: they’ve decided unilaterally they have the power to levy fines onto emitters. No election, no debates, they just set about to do it. So the EPA decided they have the authority to regulate an invisible gas - a natural one at that - with no authority from us or congress. An unelected agency can levy fines on an invisible gas with little if any accountability whatsoever - sounds like a bureaucrat’s dream!
Rescind it. It is government overreach defined, and a falsification of science. If the bar is so low that everything that poses a public risk can be regulated then we just continue the weaponized state. Come back when it can be proven. Trying to prevent all perceived risks is folly.
I think that the regulation of CO2 as a pollutant was not the original intention of the CAA and is far too important, controversial and expensive, to rest on a mere judicial interpretation. If we really want to regulate CO2 in this way then let’s amend the CAA.
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.
Absolutely. CO2 is a gas that is fundamental to life and, yes, we don't have enough of it. It is beyond my comprehension that, political scientist, Roger Pielke Jr. would question the likes of W. A. van Wijngaarden1 and Will Happer in his quest to demonize CO2 and other greenhouse gases. He uses convoluted arguments, heavy bias and assumptions created from, it looks like, IPPC.
In their seminal paper of 2019, these men published an extraordinary review of how the concentrations of Earth’s five most important, naturally-occurring greenhouse gases, H2O, CO2, O3, N2O and CH4 control the cloud-free, thermal radiative fluxes Earth to outer space. They explain how the per-molecule forcings of the abundant greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 are suppressed by four orders of magnitude from optically-thin values because of saturation of the strong absorption bands and interference from other greenhouse gases so that doubling the current concentrations of CO2, N2O or CH4 only increases the forcings by a few per cent or 0.7 degrees C. The paper can be downloaded here: https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Infrared-Forcing-by-Greenhouse-Gases-2019-Revised-3-7-2022.pdf
From another paper on Methane and Climate, Wijngaarden and Happer note that the radiative forcing at the tropopause, per added CH4 molecule, is about 30 times larger than the forcing per added carbon-dioxide (CO2) molecule because of the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the abundant greenhouse gas, CO2. But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, is about 300 times larger than the rate of increase of CH4 molecules, Therefore,
the contribution of methane to the annual increase in forcing is one tenth (30/300) that of carbon dioxide which makes the net forcing increase from CH4 and CO2 increases to about 0.05 W m−2 year−1. Or a temperature increase of about 0.011 °C year−1.
I'll leave readers with this little pearl from physicist Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT: "What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison."
Of course, all the reasoning of these well-renowned physicists explains how CO2 levels were up to 20 times greater than today, even at the peak of ice ages. It all relates to the band spectography of the gases involved in our so called 'greenhouse'.
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.”
Thanks for posting this email from John Droz. I would have posted pretty much the same thing absent point e) which I don't necessarily disagree with but is a bit more political than technical. I see a role for regulation of some toxins where the impact on non emitters is quite clear, measurable and negative. That's just not the case for CO2, a natural component of earth's atmosphere, with concentrations that have varied greatly in the past without evidence of harmful effects except where the concentrations have become too low. The cost benefit associated with any mandated reductions are not even close to positive.
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?
I'm happy Roger "liked" this comment, but I was hoping to hear ides from him and readers.
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.