Newscom
Coral reef in the Red Sea. Ocean acidification, which threatens reefs and other forms of marine life, is also on the EPA's radar screen as it seeks ways to control CO2 emissions.
EPA and CO2: If the right hand don’t get you, the left one might
By Pete Spotts | 04.17.09
The EPA has dropped its long-awaited (since President Obama became president) bombshell, declaring that greenhouse gases — mainly carbon dioxide — generated by human industrial activities is a threat to public health and welfare. You can read the EPA’s press release here. And Monitor colleague Mark Clayton has a story here.
In fact, for now it’s a proposed finding, one subject to public comment for 60 days. The agency will hold public hearings in Arlington, Va., on May 18 and in Seattle, Wash., on May 21. You can read more about that process here.
The vehicle for the EPA’s jurisdiction if and when the finding becomes permanent is the Clean Air Act.
But earlier in the week, the agency took a step to see if it also has jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. The link? Ocean acidification, another serious byproduct of humans pumping CO2 into the air. You can read more about it here, here, and here.
On Tuesday, the EPA placed a notice in the Federal Register seeking data on the acidification problem. It would use the information to draft new pH criteria for ocean water within the country’s jurisdiction. You can read the notice here.
To be sure, it’s something of a backdoor approach to the more straight-ahead regime to control CO2 emissions directly. But the aim is the same.
Like today’s announcement revolving around the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act track approach stems from action by environmental lawyers, in this case lawyers at the Center for Biological Diversity, based in Tucson, Ariz. According to the Center, the EPA first established pH standards in 1976. But the act also requires occasional reviews of the standard to take the last science into account.
<< Pesky coconut beetle’s backbeat could be its downfall | MainComments
2. Liz VV 009 | 04.18.09
No one seems to be using common sense in this picture — if trees need CO2 and humans generate it, let’s go on a massive movement to plant trees — everyone wins — the planet, the beauty surrounding us and we then need to keep re-placing them every ten years to get the optimum control of CO2.
We learned this in basic science classes in school years ago. What’s changed?
3. Astralis | 04.18.09
How can a gas that scientists don’t really know is affecting the climate be regulated?
4. Karl Reinecker | 04.18.09
Plant earth has been going through climate changes long before man discovered fire. During the past 1 million years earth has experienced 10 ice ages, one about every 100 thousand years. The last reached its maximum southern bountary about 15 thousand years ago when ice covered Canada and northern U.S. all the way down to Nebraska. It has been warming every since with a few exception; a warming period about 1000 years ago when sea surface temperatures increased a bit over 1 degree celsius and about 400 years ago(little ice age) when sea surface temperatures dropped 1 degree celsius. Man created greenhouse gasses had nothing to do with thoes changes. What did? Most likly variations in solar energy from the sun, the same as today.
Liz’s point is well taken but for a different reason. Carbon is the building block that supports all life on earth. Plants convert CO2, by a process called photosysthesis, into carbon for cell generation and oxygen which we breath. Animals eat the plants and we eat plants and animals and as long as nothing disrups the cycle we all win, so to speak. But here is a BIG risk. The CO2 in our atmoshere is a very small percent and therefor in delicate balance with all other gasses. Life depends on that delicate balance. If the genius of mankind disrupts that delicate balance by mandating a reduction in atmosphereic CO2 we may all die.
This leads us to the real question for this generation of mankind. What is causing global warming? We are told daily that it is caused by manmade increases in CO2 in the atmosphere. But is it? An alternate explanation, supported by over 33 thousand scientist, is available at www/oism.org/pproject. The Global Warming Petition Project has released a 93 page document that has generated a strong acceptance amoung scientist that have a BE, MS or PHD in a technical field. Almost 10,000 PHD’s have signed the patition. A more readable 12 page summary is available from their website.
The reason our government ignores the petition is simply because a lot of insiders will make a lot of money buying and selling carbon credits which do nothing to reduce atmospheric CO2. Is it true the Al Gore is a principal in such a company?.
5. Becka | 04.19.09
Hsr0601’s comment on toxins hits close to home with me. I am a cancer patient. I have, however, had a relatively comfortable course so far, even though the cancer is slowly growing, due to Dr. Patrick Quillin’s book “Beating Cancer with Nutrition.” Dr. Quillin’s theory is exactly as hsr0601 stated: Toxins lower our ability to fight off cancer and other diseases. See his page on toxins here: http://www.nutritioncancer.com/toxins.html
Dr. Quillin offers nutrition not as an alternative but a complementary treatment alongside traditional medical therapies. I find him sensible and very helpful, for any of you cancer patients out there.
As far as the environment goes, I think the nearly half of this country’s population which is going to be touched by cancer in the near future should stand up on their “hind legs” (as my grandfather used to say) and roar loudly regarding cleanup of toxins in our air, water, and soil.
6. Sean Wise | 04.19.09
How does the EPA regulate CO2 because of a problem anticipated by a computer model (one that does not accurately predict the effects of clouds) 100 years from now? Yet at the same time it considers increasing the ethanol in gasoline from 10 to 15% KNOWING that it inreases food costs particularly on the poorest of the poor, contributed to the starvation of 30 million people last year and likely resulted in the increase of the Gulf of Mexico dead zone (agricultural run-off) while having no discernable effect on greenhouse gas emmisions. From a scientific standpoint these actions are totally inconsistant however, it makes perfect sense considering that the beneficiaries from both these actions are from the very well heeled renewable energy lobby.
7. Deron Triff | 04.20.09
To solve this problem, we need (i) policy (EPA), (2) media to connect with the public around these issues on a personal and emotional level and (iii) individual action. I personally am particularly inspired this week by people like extreme swimmer and eco-activist Christopher Swain who is taking a plunge into the Atlantic Ocean on Wednesday to embark on the first leg of his 1,000 mile swim journey from Marblehead, Massachusetts to Washington, DC to raise awareness about pollution and the impact on our ocean planet (such as acidification as this post references).
9. PIBoulder | 05.07.09
It’s my understanding that the current science says that when the oceans warm they release CO2, and when they cool they absorb it. In fact the oceans are the world’s largest source of CO2 in the atmosphere, dwarfing any contribution by industrial activity. Before we go blaming humans for the acidification we should look at the natural process that’s happening and see if this is natural or if this is really being caused by us. If it can be conclusively shown that it’s being caused by us I’ll change my view, but until then it’s put up or shut up.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. EPA’s GHG Endangerment Ruling Puts Utilities, Manufacturers on Defensive · Environmental Leader · Green Business, Sustainable Business, and Green Strategy News for Corporate Sustainability Executives | 04.20.09
2. EPA and CO2: If the right hand don’t get you, the left one might « Ocean acidification | 04.21.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. hsr0601 | 04.18.09
I guess the diseases the exact causes of which are undisclosed such as cancer, allergy, autism, and more, might take root in environment toxins in the air, water, food.