Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?
"Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life!" That's the slogan of two 60-second TV ads airing in 14 U.S. cities May 14-28. The ads are being run by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). According to their web site, CEI is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. They tout a Wall Street Journal article which calls CEI "the best environmental think tank in the country".
Who funds the Competitive Enterprise Institute?
A variety of businesses fund CEI, but the fossil-fuel industry is one of their main contributors. Exxon documents show that the company gave $270,000 to CEI in 2004 alone. $180,000 of that was earmarked for "global climate change and global climate change outreach." Exxon has contributed over $1.6 million to CEI since 1998. Other oil companies, such as Amoco and Texaco, also contribute to CEI, through the American Petroleum Institute. So, it is safe to mentally replace the "paid for by the Competitive Enterprise Institute" tag on the ads with, "paid for by the fossil fuel industry." I speculated in an April blog that the Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT (and other op-eds that appeared nationwide about the same time) were funded as part of an orchestrated public relations campaign by the fossil fuel industry. The appearance of the new TV ads are also likely part of the same PR campaign. The ads use language similar to the April op-ed pieces, using the word "alarmist" or its variations to describe those who warn that climate change presents a danger. The ads were timed to launch just before the opening of Al Gore's new film on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth", due out today in New York City.
What do the ads say?
Here is the full transcript of the narration for the second ad, titled "Glaciers":
You've seen those headlines about global warming. The glaciers are melting, we're doomed. That's what several studies supposedly found.
But other scientific studies found exactly the opposite. Greenland's glaciers are growing, not melting. The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner.
Did you see any big headlines about that? Why are they trying to scare us?
Global warming alarmists claim the glaciers are melting because of carbon dioxide from the fuels we use. Let's force people to cut back, they say. But we depend on those fuels, to grow our food, move our children, light up our lives.
And as for carbon dioxide, it isn't smog or smoke, it's what we breathe out and plants breathe in. Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life.
What is the validity of the scientific results quoted in the ads?
When the narrator says "Greenland's glaciers are growing, not melting", the screen image is of a 2005 paper that appeared in Science magazine, "Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland". A glowing halo appears around the word "Growth". If you go to the trouble to read the article, you'll discover that it discusses satellite measurements which show that the interior of Greenland's ice sheet has thickened by about 6 cm/year since 1999. This thickening is attributed to increased precipitation, primarily due to natural cycles. However, 25% of the increase is attributed to increased atmospheric water vapor from heightened evaporation caused by global warming. The paper also notes that the glaciers at the edge of Greenland have thinned by about 2 cm/year since 1999, and conclude that their measurements cannot be used to tell if the glaciers of Greenland are showing a net gain or loss in recent years. So, the claim that "Greenland's glaciers are growing, not melting" is a half truth. Ice in Greenland's interior is getting thicker, but the the glaciers at the edges are getting thinner. As I discussed in a blog on Greenland's Greenhouse, this is a very complicated system with many unknowns! Making a simple statement that Greenland's glaciers are not melting--or are melting--hides the very high scientific uncertainty about what is going on there. Also left out from the ads is that most of Greenland's glaciers have shown a marked increase in flow rate in recent years.
Is the Antarctic ice sheet getting thicker?
When the CEI ad claims, "The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner", an image of another 2005 Science paper appears, Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise. Another halo of light appears around the word "Growth". Again, we are being subjected to a partial truth. Antarctica is divided into two ice sheets, and East and West Antarctic ice sheets, and this paper is only talking about one of the ice sheets. As I discussed in my March 7 blog, Antarctica Melting?, the question of whether Antarctica is undergoing a significant net melting or mass gain is not known--this is another very complicated system that we do not understand very well. In the words of the lead author of the paper, Professor Curt H. Davis, Director of the Center for Geospatial Intelligence at the University of Missouri:
"Our result is only for East Antarctica. Moreover, we make it clear that our results are for the interior and it is well known that the edges are losing mass." In a University of Missouri press release issued May 19, Dr. Davis states: "These television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate. They are selectively using only parts of my previous research to support their claims. They are not telling the entire story to the public."
Is Carbon Dioxide a pollutant?
The fossil fuel industry points out in their ads that carbon dioxide it essential for both plant life and human life. Is it wrong, then, to label carbon dioxide as a pollutant? The definition of pollution in Webster's dictionary is "to make physically impure or unclean: Befoul, dirty." By that definition, carbon dioxide is not pollution. However, Webster's also has the definition: "to contaminate (an environment) esp. with man-made waste." Carbon dioxide is a waste gas produced by fossil fuel combustion, so can be classified as man-made waste. One can also make the case that carbon dioxide is contaminating the environment, since increased CO2 from burning fossil fuels has already harmed sea life. Carbon dioxide, when dissolved in sea water, is deadly to shell-building microorganisms that form an important part of the food chain in some cold ocean regions. The extra CO2 lowers the pH and make the water too acidic for these organisms to build their shells. As I reported in my blog on Acidifying the Oceans, the observed increase in acidity of 0.1 pH units during the past century due to fossil fuel burning, and expected continued acidification in the coming decades, could cause a massive die off of marine life and collapse of the food chain in these ocean areas. Based on these arguments, the fossil fuel industry's slogan, "Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life!" could just as truthfully be phrased, "Carbon dioxide. We call it pollution, and we call it death." One need only look at our sister planet, Venus, to see that too much "life" can be a bad thing. There, an atmosphere of 96% carbon dioxide has created a hellish greenhouse effect. The temperatures of 860 F at the surface are hot enough to melt lead. There's not too much life there!
Crediting fossil fuels for our economic prosperity
The fossil fuel industry ads point out that the burning of fossil fuels has brought dramatic increases in wealth and prosperity to the world. This is a good point, and we should not seriously damage the basis of the world economy through reckless efforts to cut CO2 emissions. We can credit a good portion of the marvels of modern civilization to the availability of cheap fossil fuels to power our technological revolution. However, we shouldn't get all misty-eyed about the wondrous things we've accomplished by using this ready source of energy left for us by the fossilized plants of Earth's past. Any technology can bring about terrible suffering if used unwisely. Consider that fossil fuels have also made possible the horrors of modern warfare. The tanks of Hitler's blitzkrieg--and the aircraft that have dropped the bombs that have killed millions of innocent people this past century--were all powered by fossil fuels. Air pollution from fossil fuel burning has killed millions as well. We need to be honest about both the importance of fossil fuels, and the dangers they pose if used unwisely. The threat of climate change due to burning fossil fuels needs to be addressed truthfully, so that we can make wise decisions about the future of our energy technology. The untruthful new ad campaign by the fossil fuel industry is harmful to this end.
Jeff Masters
PS, my next blog will be Friday, when I'll probably review the global weather for April and give an update on the tropics. In a later blog, I'll be sure to review Al Gore's new movie, and comment on its truthfulness. However, I don't think the movie is playing until mid-June here in Michigan. BTW, most of us will never get to see the "we call it life" ads on TV. They are only playing in Albany, Albuquerque, Anchorage, Austin, Charleston WV, Dallas, Dayton, Denver, Harrisburg, Phoenix, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Springfield IL, and Washington DC. I guess the fossil fuel industry wanted to run them in some test markets to see how they did before attempting a more widespread release.
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index
Z
I urge everyone who can pick up a caulk gun to reseal your house, especially if it got hit by a cane. After 2 canes here our electric more than doubled, the air conditioner could just run & never cool the house in the day. Got in the attic, gooped up vents, put insulation back & added more. We recaulked the house, every piece of molding, vents, all of it. Finished making drapes with or added on to origanals, black out material on the outside. We covered the skylights during the summer & convereted the barn to solar~ "Light My Shed" lights. When the washer & dryer went, we bought the more efficent models & we've changed nearly every light bulb to those energy efficent ones. Our house (an '80's developement boom, frame one) now uses less than 1/2 the energy it did before the canes hit us. Every dime spent has already payed for itself + dividends. It's easier & not nearly expensive to improve on our existing house's energy use than we have been led to believe.
Solar has a lot of great uses from exterior lighting to charging cell phones, cameras & even some laptops~ here is some that start at $36. If only more was put into the research.
BBC News asked a range of opinion leaders how worrying climate change is - and what we should do about it.
This is taken from the Director of Competitive Enterprise Institute, the same organization that Dr. Masters was reffering to in the above article he wrote. READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH IN THIS, HILARIOUS.
"Myron Ebell, director of global warming policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Potential global warming is much less worrying than the policies proposed to deal with it.
The world cannot be put on an energy rationing diet because the world is not energy rich, but poor.
Around two billion people cannot hope to participate in the benefits of industrial civilization until they have electricity. This cannot be achieved using the most expensive forms of energy, but will require using vast amounts of the cheapest - coal.
Building brighter futures for the world's poor will almost certainly not cause climate catastrophe.
Global warming alarmism is an implausible theory for which there is remarkably little scientific evidence.
The claim that the 20th Century was the warmest in the last millennium has been shown to be based on methodological errors handling complex data.
If the computer models that predict rapid future warming were realistic, then there should have already been much more warming than the miniscule rise over the past 30 years.
Even if significant warming occurs, the potential adverse impacts have been vastly exaggerated (sea level rise) or made up (more storms, malaria).
And even if all the scare stories became real, the Kyoto Protocol isn't the solution. It's a tremendously destructive dead end. "
Link
That's what the signs all over Long Island said after he grazed the East End that summer. Gloria was the 'cane that left us all without electricity for 2-3 weeks during the first week of school. REALLY sucked having to go to school without showers and electricity. That storm also gave rise to the Long Island joke: What's yellow and sleeps six? The LILCO truck!
I was only 6 or 7 when Belle hit in '76. I remember running around outside with my friends the day before she hit--having no clue what was coming. Next morning we toured the 'hood on our bikes and there trees down everywhere.
These were pretty mild hurricanes and if anything Cat 3 or above hit there now it would be pretty bad as they are not as prepared up North as we are now down here in Florida.
I also went through the Perfect Storm--living in a basement apartment with my buddy. Flooding was bad and the snow covered our little casement windows, throw in the fact that there was no electricity and you have two mole men living underground by candle light with no idea of time, too much drugs and alcohol and a lot of Scrabble. Those were the days! :D
http://www.hurricanecity.com/city/longislandny.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/satellite/satelliteseye/cyclones/pfctstorm91/pfctstorm.html
You're exactly right. Each of has the opportunity to be an "early adopter" in our little world, and not only "do our part" to reduce usage for the common good, but save money doing so.
In fact, in change there is opportunity, so once you figure out how to save (or create!) some energy at a net $$ gain, you should be able to make money helping others do so as well.
Zap
RL3AO ... that graphic you showed said there was a 2% chance for it do so something. What is that something?
SJ
I would think a simple disclaimer such as the one of the Colorado site would suffice. I put one on my page as well.
Oh, I agree with you on the pollution aspect of fossil fuels. Unlike "global warming", the effects of pollution are immediate and well documented...pollution is a BAD thing...there's no real debate about that.
If I had my way, we'd have lots more nuclear power plants to support an electric and hydrogen based transportation infrastructure. Electric cars, while lacking the visceral appeal of the "rumbling V8" and all that, can actually have performance better than that of gasoline powered cars. Electric motors make 100% of their rated torque from 0 RPM all the way to redline. AWD electric cars (a motor at each wheel) can go 0-60 in under 3 seconds, with zero emissions.
Please read my previous post more carefully. I did mention nuclear power plants.
Yes, I know that...that's why I said, "If I had my way..." in that post. I wasn't debating about the way things are right now, but rather saying how I would like them to be. Understand?
I maintain it's a "given" that we're going to burn through the rest of our fossil reserves, and the planet will warm, so what we should do is push for clean, efficient combustion; take personal steps to ready ourselves for the coming eco-political storm; and promote technology to ease the pain of the shift as it comes. There is no real reason to argue whether or not global warming is coming except for the fun of it -- we've got pollution and cheap power availability to deal with regardless -- and people won't stop using oil until it's gone because it's cheap and useful.
The expense of high-efficiency houses and electric cars would be more palatable if we didn't design (and tax incentivize) vehicles to be scrap at 150K miles and houses to be least-upfront-cost. I think most people would more readily trade a gas car for a hybrid and then an EV than do away with personal transportation entirely, but we'll STILL need lots of cheap electricity to do even that.
I see that CO2 injection into oil fields is being tried to a small degree. That would tend to imprison the CO2 (and other pollutants) while aiding oil recovery but will probably have side effects of its own. Won't it be fun when CO2 leaks into mines and basements from natural fissures?
Zap
POSSIBLE LOW PRES CENTER 1010 MB NEAR 11N102W. CONVECTION HAS
BEEN QUITE ACTIVE DURING THE NIGHT AND HAS SHOWN SIGNS OF
ORGANIZING INTO A BAND ON THE RIGHT SIDE. ANTI-CYCLONIC FLOW
OVER TOP OF THE CONVECTION WITH LITTLE SHEAR IS AIDING THE
CONVECTION.
CO2 isn't poisonous, so that wouldn't be too big of a deal.
And all you have to do is look at Venus to understand why returning all the CO2 that used to be in the atmosphere back to it is an Extraordinarily Bad Idea. Returning even a miniscule fraction of it to the atmosphere is a Very Bad Idea,
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/oriondarkwood/show.html
It would be a mistake to assume that ANYBODY in gov't, corporations, or lobby groups really cares about YOU as a person. It's a nice thought, and some might, but it's safer to assume that they'll do what they think is best to further their own ends. Beyond that it's just spin and marketing. That's why capitalism remains vigorous but ever-changing and communism turns into oppression, with some "more equal" than others.
Zap
Check this link out. hopefully it will be in place for this season and if anyone can find a link to view the images, post them!
Zap wrote: "I see that CO2 injection into oil fields is being tried to a small degree. That would tend to imprison the CO2 (and other pollutants) while aiding oil recovery but will probably have side effects of its own."
CO2 injection into producing wells has been going on for 20 plus years. Much of the CO2 comes back to the surface as a major component of the associated natural gas stream.
CO2 is routinely removed from the liquid product generated in natural gas processing facilities. Specifically, it follows the ethane component in a ethane/propane/butanes/natural gasoline liquid mixture. Ethane product contracts typically have a maximum CO2 specification because the CO2 is a contaminant in the processes that use the liquid ethane to make other products such as plastics. The removed CO2, after further processing, is vented to the atmosphere because it is not combustible.
Your link about Carbon Dioxide Poisoning made me think about free diving and the dreadedShallow Water Blackout, which can kill you within just a few feet of breaking the surface...scary!
Once formed, gov't are staffed by individuals, and a bureaucracy inevitably grows where the interests of the bureaucrat, dep't, and gov't overall vie for survival with those of the populace served. Over time gov't will tend to grow in power and overhead until the margin between it and the external threat equals the ability of the corresponding marketing entities to convice you. The external threat and the internal ones will both try to tell you they are harmless and on your side while working to take your money and power for themselves, and it's true at every level.
The nice thing about capitalism and democracy is that since everybody is trying to get your money and take your power nobody tends to win for too long, and when it gets too one-sided we all gang up on the winners and vote them into submission. That's why your congressman IS on your side a little more than the others, and they're mostly on the US side more than other nations, but they're ALWAYS on their own personal side first and foremost. How many poor retired Senators and ex-Presidents are there?
You can't depend on capitalism and democracy to control the external forces, though. The Chinese gov't and their national oil company are far more of a threat to you than Exxon. Exxon is a selfish company that wants your money. China is a selfish nation that will want your money, your oil, your food, and eventually your land. That's why it's good if other nations are capitalistic and democratic as well -- it tends toward long term stabililty with no guarantees of short-term behaviors.
Not too pleasant, huh?
Life according to Zap is not warm or fuzzy, nor terribly safe, but it's fairly predictable and therefore a pretty easy place to live successfully.
Zap
do we have a tropical wave out there and if so where is it????
could someone please let me know??? will check back later for the answer.
Thanks everyone! Have a great Thursday!!!
Gams
SJ, I work in the fossil fuel industry(natural gas processing). I have ZERO desire to kill anyone.
I have a great many friends who work with producing companies(the JR Ewings of the world)and some who work in the refining industry and I know that they don't want to kill you either.
I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck, but I read many of these fairly tense/extreme posts regarding, or inferring, how oil companies and other fossil fuel related industries are leading some kind of world damaging conspiracy plot and I am forced wonder if the author of the extreme post rode his/her bike to work.
My point is, even at the risk of getting myself in trouble, is we each have to look in the mirror and hold ourselves accountable as well. I don't think it is fair to point a finger at an Exxon and accuse them of being a money hungry polluter when you get in your V-8 driven car to drive a mile to pick up a carton of milk packaged in plastic made by another polluter.
Sorry for the heavy post and feel free to swing away at me.
FSU Meteorology has received a memorandum from the administration requiring us to take actions which seem to us to restrict our ability to continue to offer real-time weather forecasts (even clearly identified experimental models) of any kind to the general public. Until we obtain further clarification, in the interest of due caution, these pages have been withdrawn from the web until further notice. That is basically all we can say about it right now.
Paul Ruscher/Meteorology
Viewing: 151 - 201
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index