Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Legal Petition Urges EPA to... Regulate CO2 as Toxic Substance"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Legal Petition Urges EPA to... Regulate CO2 as Toxic Substance"

    From the "just when you thought the Gorebots couldn't get any dumber department...
    The Center for Biological Diversity has issued a petition to get CO2 listed as a toxic substance. CO2 will join the ranks of dioxin, cyanide, etc.
    For Immediate Release, June 30, 2015

    Contact: Miyoko Sakashita, (415) 632-5308, [email protected]

    Legal Petition Urges EPA to Save Sea Life, Regulate CO2 as Toxic Substance

    WASHINGTON— With the world’s oceans and sea life facing an unprecedented crisis from ocean acidification, the Center for Biological Diversity and former Environmental Protection Agency scientist Dr. Donn Viviani today formally petitioned the Obama administration to regulate carbon dioxide under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act. The first-of-its-kind petition under the toxics act seeks widespread reduction of CO2 because it contributes to ocean acidification, driving the destruction of coral reefs and threatening nearly every form of sea life, from tiny plankton to fish, whales and sea otters.

    “Time’s running out to avoid a mass extinction of wildlife in our oceans,” said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans director at the Center. “It may not look like a toxic chemical, but when there’s too much CO2 in the ocean, it turns seawater corrosive and dissolves the protective shells that marine animals need to survive.”

    [...]

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/0...xic-substance/

    Since coral reefs are often the poster children of this sort of nonsense...

    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    Over the last 400+ years the Earth's climate has warmed ~0.8° C, mean sea level has risen by about 9 inches and the atmosphere has become about 100 ppmv more enriched with CO2; and the Great Barrier Reef has responded by steadily growing faster.

    1. Rising Temperature: The Great Barrier Reef likes the warm-up since the depths of the Little Ice Age...



    2. Rising Sea Level: The Great Barrier Reef likes the slight sea level rise since the depths of the Little Ice Age...



    3. Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations: The Great Barrier Reef likes the increase in CO2 levels since the depths of the Little Ice Age...





    The Great Barrier Reef has grown faster as the climate has warmed up from the Little Ice Age...



    The Holocene Climatic Optimum (8,000 to 5,000 years ago) was 1-2 °C warmer than it is today... Coral Reefs thrived.

    The previous interglacial stage, the Sangamonian (~135,000 years ago) was 3-5 °C warmer than it is today... Coral reefs thrived.

    The Mesozoic Era was as much as 10 °C warmer (maybe more) than it is today, atmospheric CO2 was far higher and the average pH of the oceans was significantly lower, yet... Coral reefs thrived.




    Reef data from:
    De'ath, G., J.M. Lough, and K.E. Fabricius. 2009.
    Declining coral calcification on the Great Barrier Reef.
    Science, Vol. 323, pp. 116 - 119, 2 January 2009.

    Lough, J.M. and D.J. Barnes, 2000.
    Environmental controls on growth of the massive coral Porites.
    Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 245: 225-243.

    Lough, J.M. and D.J. Barnes, 1997.
    Several centuries of variation in skeletal extension, density and
    calcification in massive Porites colonies from the Great Barrier Reef:
    a proxy for seawater temperature and a background of variability against
    which to identify unnatural change.
    Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 211: 29-67.

    Chalker, B.E. and D.J. Barnes, 1990.
    Gamma densitometry for the measurement of coral skeletal density.
    Coral Reefs, 4: 95-100.

    Temperature data from:
    Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén. 2005.
    Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low-
    and high-resolution proxy data.
    Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613-617, 10 February 2005.

    University of Alabama, Hunstville

    Sea Level data from:
    "Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago?", Jevrejeva, S., J. C. Moore, A. Grinsted, and P. L. Woodworth (2008), Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L08715, doi:10.1029/2008GL033611.

    CO2 data from:
    D.M. Etheridge, L.P. Steele, R.L. Langenfelds, R.J. Francey, J.-M. Barnola and V.I. Morgan. 1998. Historical CO2 records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.

    Dr. Pieter Tans, NOAA/ESRL (www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends)
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

  • #2
    Over 99% of life on this planet is Flora ~ plants and similar, which require carbon dioxide (CO2) as an essential and needed chemical/gas for their life cycles. Calling CO2 a toxic substance defies reason or logic

    Are the inmates really running the asylum?

    Next on the list is dihydrous oxide.
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

    Comment


    • #3
      Does this mean I'll need a hazmat placard to legally breathe?
      If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Freightshaker View Post
        Does this mean I'll need a hazmat placard to legally breathe?
        Only if you plan to exhale.
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

        Comment


        • #5
          Let's say, the Greenies get their way and somehow remove ALL CO2 from the atmosphere... What then?

          Comment


          • #6
            E.L.E. (Extinction Level Event)
            Last edited by G David Bock; 03 Jul 15, 16:13.
            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              Let's say, the Greenies get their way and somehow remove ALL CO2 from the atmosphere... What then?
              They just want to restore the pristine natural atmospheric CO2 concentration of 280 parts per million by volume... AKA the Goldilocks CO2 concentration.

              As we all know, atmospheric CO2 was always a steady 280 ppmv prior to capitalism...



              And, as the graph above demonstrates, the climate never changed prior to the unprecedented rise in atmospheric CO2. There is no evidence that CO2 has been higher over the last 10,000 years...



              25 million years...



              Or 540 million years...



              Do I need to use the sarcasm smilie?
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                Let's say, the Greenies get their way and somehow remove ALL CO2 from the atmosphere... What then?
                The entire world dies, including all of the plant life which uses CO2. At least we would be rid of the EPA, though.
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yup. Death by stupidity. A fairly common ailment...
                  Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well one thing I would agree with doc on is that AGW is simple too convenient for people like Al Gore. None of the policy recommendations actually solve the problem they just give the IPCC and the like more power to regulate.

                    Seems India is the last significant hold out in accepting the need to come to an agreement on co2 reductions as China seems to be giving lip service to the idea. At the same time Australia has dropped their carbon tax, I have never seen such a colossal mess.

                    As the media is telling us that the "debate" is over more and more scientist seem to be saying hey nobody asked me. They are also the scientist most likely to have their careers sabotaged just at the moment they are most needed.

                    There is no way to paint this situation in a positive light no matter who is right. If warming fails to materialize then it will be harder to regulate pollution. If warming follows the IPCC predictions then it is too late for the policies they recommend and they have placed adaptation mostly off the table. Not to mention the kind of science we need to deal with climate change is either too apolitical to survive in the current hostile atmosphere or to poorly developed to be a policy guide.
                    We hunt the hunters

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                      Well one thing I would agree with doc on is that AGW is simple too convenient for people like Al Gore. None of the policy recommendations actually solve the problem they just give the IPCC and the like more power to regulate.

                      Seems India is the last significant hold out in accepting the need to come to an agreement on co2 reductions as China seems to be giving lip service to the idea. At the same time Australia has dropped their carbon tax, I have never seen such a colossal mess.

                      As the media is telling us that the "debate" is over more and more scientist seem to be saying hey nobody asked me. They are also the scientist most likely to have their careers sabotaged just at the moment they are most needed.

                      There is no way to paint this situation in a positive light no matter who is right. If warming fails to materialize then it will be harder to regulate pollution. If warming follows the IPCC predictions then it is too late for the policies they recommend and they have placed adaptation mostly off the table. Not to mention the kind of science we need to deal with climate change is either too apolitical to survive in the current hostile atmosphere or to poorly developed to be a policy guide.
                      Before you start agreeing with Doc, you need to be aware that he is the same person who has repeatedly labeled everything about global warming and climate change as "junk science" unworthy of any serious consideration by anyone...especially himself.
                      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        Before you start agreeing with Doc, you need to be aware that he is the same person who has repeatedly labeled everything about global warming and climate change as "junk science" unworthy of any serious consideration by anyone...especially himself.
                        The gift that keeps on giving...
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        Sorry, Doc...I'm sure your comments are both interesting and relevant, but I'm under strict orders to ignore you from the forum management.
                        Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                        So you have no idea what the post actually says?
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          If CO2 were declared a "toxin" and regulated as a dangerous substance, then it would also have to be removed from many current uses it has that are beneficial to man.

                          http://www.co2gasplants.com/applications-co2.html

                          Fire Extinguishers: CO2 extinguishes fires.

                          • Beverage: This gas is used to make carbonated soft drinks and soda water.

                          • Solvent: Liquid CO2 is considered as a good dissolving agent for many organic compounds. Here it can be used to remove caffeine from coffee.

                          • Plants: Plants require CO2 to execute photosynthesis, and greenhouses can promote plant growth with additional CO2.

                          • Pressured Gas: It is used as the cheapest noncombustible pressurized gas. Pressured CO2 are inside tins in life jackets. Compressed CO2 gas is used in paintball markers, airguns, for ballooning bicycle tires.

                          • Medicine: In medicine, up to 5% CO2 is added to pure oxygen. This helps in provoking breathing and to stabilize the O2/CO2 balance in blood.

                          • CO2 Laser: The CO2 laser, a common type of industrial gas laser uses CO2 as a medium. Welding: It also find its use as an atmosphere for welding.

                          • Oil Wells: Carbon dioxide is commonly injected into or next to producing oil wells to draw lost traces of crude oil .

                          • Chemical Industry: It is used as a raw material in the chemical process industry, especially for urea and methanol production.

                          • Metals Industry: It is used in the manufacture of casting influences so as to enhance their hardness.

                          • Fumigation: Used as a fumigent to increase shelf life and remove infestations.
                          This is the Left and their fuzzy thinking. They see CO2 as dangerous in the atmosphere in increasing quantities and therefore want to do something about all CO2 even though they have no clue what other uses it has as a gas.
                          The cost is never considered. The consequences ignored.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                            The gift that keeps on giving...
                            So he now has you off ignore. Get used to it.

                            CO2 is only dangerous if we don't have the plants to absorb the carbon.

                            That means deforestation could be a concern. The Amazon may be losing 6000 or more square miles of forest per year. Any massive loss of plant life is absolutely a concern.


                            At least MacDonalds will have more land for cattle to produce hamburgers in the short term. Yeah corporations! .
                            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                              So he now has you off ignore. Get used to it.

                              CO2 is only dangerous if we don't have the plants to absorb the carbon.

                              That means deforestation could be a concern. The Amazon may be losing 6000 or more square miles of forest per year. Any massive loss of plant life is absolutely a concern.


                              At least MacDonalds will have more land for cattle to produce hamburgers in the short term. Yeah corporations! .
                              He's "the gift that keeps on giving" because he replies to his assumptions of what I have posted. It's an endless stream of entertainment.
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X