Carbon dioxide is dangerous and a threat not only to human health but our entire planet. How do we know? The Environmental Protection Agency told us so, officially announcing that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are “the primary driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor or elderly; increases in ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses; as well as other threats to the health and welfare of Americans.” But there’s two important points to make regarding “carbon pollution.” One is that we don’t really know how much carbon dioxide is affecting earth’s temperatures. The second is that we may be underestimating the benefits are carbon dioxide on our planet.
Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. The cause for concern is that carbon dioxide emitted from burning fossil fuels trap heat from the sun, and as the atmosphere heats, it holds more water vapor, produces thinner clouds and increases the temperature. Climate models predict this positive feedback mechanism is what will eventually doom planet earth.
It’s the magnitude of the feedback climate alarmists warn will lead to doomsday scenarios, but even with all the scientific research, there is little conclusion as to what this magnitude is. Dr. Roy Spencer analyzes satellite data in space and found that there is strong evidence that there is negative feedback, which could cause a cooling effect or negate effects of a positive feedback. In March, Spencer wrote, “But if cloud feedbacks in the climate system are negative, then the climate system does not particularly care how much you drive your SUV. This is an issue of obvious importance to global warming research. Even the IPCC has admitted that cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in predicting global warming.”
The other issue is: What happens if we find out carbon dioxide is not a pollutant that has significant effects on global temperature and once we spend trillions of dollars to regulate it, and it disrupts the CO2 vital for plant and marine life? One lesson everyone learned in his or her third grade science class is that carbon dioxide is a critical part of photosynthesis.
A new, pending 501c3 organization emerged called Plants Need CO2 with its missing being “to educate the public on the positive effects of additional atmospheric CO2 and help prevent the inadvertent negative impact to human, plant and animal life if we reduce CO2.” Some of its educational resources include:
• More CO2 Means More Plant Growth
• Rising CO2 Boosts Plant Water Use Efficiency
• Elevated CO2 Helps Plants Cope With Low Levels of Essential Resources
• Elevated CO2 Helps Plants Survive Environmental Stresses
In fact, a new study released in the journal Global Change Biology found that “levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the past 50 years have boosted aspen growth rates by an astonishing 50 percent.” (h/t Anthony Watts)
The idea that man can change the climate behind command and control carbon dioxide regulations is nothing more than arrogance and conceit. To think that “man is able to shape the world around him according to his wishes” is what F.A. Hayek coined the “fatal conceit.”
Leaders from different longitudes and latitudes will make the trip to Copenhagen for the climate change summit from December 7th through the 18th, but many of them are coming empty-handed. The latest comes from India’s Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh who won’t be bringing his treaty-signing pen, “There is no question of India accepting a legally binding emission reduction cut.”
This comes a day after Australia’s Senate rejected its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, its emissions trading program, for the second time. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had hoped to take this to the show-and-tell part of Copenhagen, but now it’s been defeated – twice. More analysis here. Geoffrey Lean of the Telegraph points out that “Gripped by a 13 year drought, [Australia] is thought to be the rich country most vulnerable to global warming. Its climate is already hot and dry. Agriculture, so badly hit by the drought, is central to the economy. And most people and industry are concentrated on coasts, vulnerable to the rising seas and fiercer storms expected to accompany a warming world. On the other side of the coin, it also emits more carbon per person than any other country on earth.”
With all those vulnerabilities, Australia’s failure to pass legislation should be a telling sign that cap and trade schemes are a futile, must too costly approach to addressing climate change.
The Chinese State Council said it would cut the country’s carbon intensity, its “carbon emissions relative to the size of its economy”, 45 percent by 2020, but this is what they’re on track for already. Senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations Michael Levi called the announcement disappointing, saying, “It does not move them beyond business as usual.” China has something for the Copenhagen show-and-tell but it’s like when the 3rd grader brings in fool’s gold and tells the class it’s real gold. China’s commitment is all show and no substance.
President Obama has his bags packed for Copenhagen, and will show up with a Nobel Peace Prize around his neck and a plan to commit the U.S. to near-term emissions cuts but he won’t be joining the other heads of states during the final three days when all the real wheeling and dealing takes place. He can snap some photos and collect the stamp on his passport, but any binding carbon agreement is unlikely. He had hoped to show off an outline of a Senate cap and trade bill but will likely also come empty-handed to show-and-tell. A draft bill written by Senators John Kerry (D-MA.) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has already been published and now Kerry along with Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) are using the rest of 2009 to shape the bill that can be offered in early 2010. They hoped to have their proposal ready in time to be presented at the Copenhagen climate summit, but like everything else in Washington, it’s taking longer than expected.
The reality is the economic consequences are too great and the environmental benefits are too small for any country’s leader to commit to a binding agreement. Copenhagen is going from being the next Kyoto, to a show-and-tell, to leaders just telling what they plan to accomplish. Whatever pre-Copenhagen pep rallies world leaders are holding to create the impetus for a multilateral emissions reduction treaty, they should quit wasting their energy. Show and tell is over.