Open letter to Rep. Neugebauer.
Randy,
There has been a lot of confusion on who can control carbon dioxide emissions from various industrial operations, such as generation of electricity from coal burning power plants. Some individual States, Federal Trial Courts, and Courts of Appeals have previously claimed this right.
However, the US Supreme Court has put an end to that controversy. It concluded that regulating carbon dioxide is a job which Congress reserved for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act.
This is both good and news. In organized society, we need to know who has responsibility for any legal aspects. Designating a specific organization is the good news. Designating the EPA is the news.
We know from much previous analysis that carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere have no significant effect on climate change, but the EPA does not accept that fact. This happens for political reasons. It is the intention of the Obama Administration to develop alternate energy sources (solar and wind) and reduce dependence on oil, and apparently on coal as prime energy sources. We don't know why the Obama Administration has decided on this objective. It seems inconceivable that Obama would intentionally destroy our economy and our society. It is more conceivable that he would use this to develop world socialism through redistribution of wealth, with a taxation process.
The EPA is an agency that operates under the direction of the Obama Administration. Obama is the boss. He develops the rules to follow, and the EPA and its employees are supposed to be good soldiers and follow those rules. This is as it should be in any organization. Collective support and loyalty to a particular program are paramount to the continued existence of an organization. This is true whether it's on a corporate level or in government. Unfortunately, it has its downside. One example is the support of the German people to the Nazi government during World War II, leading to mass extermination of millions of Jews. This is an extreme example, and it's quite possible that employees who are not morally convinced concerning objectives of an organization have the option of lying to themselves for benefits and salary or leaving the organization to pursue other endeavors. We don't know which it is with the EPA and its employees, probably a little of both.
However, the real control lies in Congress. Congress set up the EPA. Congress can take down the EPA. Congress can also specify certain actions that the EPA is allowed to pursue.
Randy, you are a member of Congress. It's up to you and your associates to have the EPA work under a set of rules which will not destroy our economy and society.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Monday, July 4, 2011
New Industrial/Socialist Complex to Fleece Individual US Taxpayers
The global warming hucksters are still after your dollar. They want to redistribute wealth, if there is anything left after they first bleed you.
The topic has been changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". It was found that Global Warming was a little too specific. It was directly connected with the theory that increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase Earth temperatures and cause massive devastation. That fear mongering has been pretty much ridiculed, based on the lack of science logic to support it. However the idea has not been completely discarded and is still supported by new imaginative terms such as "Radiative Forcing", which no one can really give a clear picture of what it actually is. Even the U.S. Congress has started to question global warming as related to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
In addition to changing the name of the topic, the hucksters have now developed a very clever approach. That is to obtain the support of major science industries, who will petition Congress for climate change (global warming) regulation. We will then be back to CO2 emission control, taxing, installing unnecessary emissions capture equipment, and subsequent redistribution of wealth.
This is not really very difficult to do, since the science industry would gain a lot of business through production of chemical control products machinery and construction, whether the objective is justified or not. These are business decisions, and in industry businessmen make the company decisions. Scientists in industry only make recommendations, and they generally tend to support the business leaders, who also control the salaries.
However, the global warming hucksters still use a somewhat devious approach. They ask industry whether industrial philosophy of flexibility, rather than rigidity, will help guarantee that a company will remain in business. You know the obvious answer to that one. It's "yes". The second question is, since climate change is an established fact (one day it's cloudy, the next day it is not), would it not be helpful to know more about climate change and how to control it. The obvious answer is again "yes".
The third question is would you support government research, to establish more information on climate change and allow it to help you in developing new products and protecting the longevity of your business. The obvious answer is again "yes". In this case the affirmative is based on a simple decision that it will cost the companies nothing. All they have to do is holler at Congress, which they been doing anyhow. Congress will listen, because industry is a good source of their campaign funds.
If this thing comes to pass, it will be an unnecessary waste of assets not only in continuing ridiculous grants from government agencies, such as NSF, to academic institutions for "research" to support the fallacy. More importantly, the tremendous waste in building unnecessary CO2 control operations will accelerate the bleeding of the already jeopardized taxpayer.
The only defense against this onslaught is an informed public which actually has the voting right to congressional seats and to convince Congress that this right will be used, in spite of any massive propaganda advertising by an Industrial/Socialist Complex.
Reference: C&E News June 27, 2011, page 13, Climate Change by Marc Reisch
The topic has been changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". It was found that Global Warming was a little too specific. It was directly connected with the theory that increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase Earth temperatures and cause massive devastation. That fear mongering has been pretty much ridiculed, based on the lack of science logic to support it. However the idea has not been completely discarded and is still supported by new imaginative terms such as "Radiative Forcing", which no one can really give a clear picture of what it actually is. Even the U.S. Congress has started to question global warming as related to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
In addition to changing the name of the topic, the hucksters have now developed a very clever approach. That is to obtain the support of major science industries, who will petition Congress for climate change (global warming) regulation. We will then be back to CO2 emission control, taxing, installing unnecessary emissions capture equipment, and subsequent redistribution of wealth.
This is not really very difficult to do, since the science industry would gain a lot of business through production of chemical control products machinery and construction, whether the objective is justified or not. These are business decisions, and in industry businessmen make the company decisions. Scientists in industry only make recommendations, and they generally tend to support the business leaders, who also control the salaries.
However, the global warming hucksters still use a somewhat devious approach. They ask industry whether industrial philosophy of flexibility, rather than rigidity, will help guarantee that a company will remain in business. You know the obvious answer to that one. It's "yes". The second question is, since climate change is an established fact (one day it's cloudy, the next day it is not), would it not be helpful to know more about climate change and how to control it. The obvious answer is again "yes".
The third question is would you support government research, to establish more information on climate change and allow it to help you in developing new products and protecting the longevity of your business. The obvious answer is again "yes". In this case the affirmative is based on a simple decision that it will cost the companies nothing. All they have to do is holler at Congress, which they been doing anyhow. Congress will listen, because industry is a good source of their campaign funds.
If this thing comes to pass, it will be an unnecessary waste of assets not only in continuing ridiculous grants from government agencies, such as NSF, to academic institutions for "research" to support the fallacy. More importantly, the tremendous waste in building unnecessary CO2 control operations will accelerate the bleeding of the already jeopardized taxpayer.
The only defense against this onslaught is an informed public which actually has the voting right to congressional seats and to convince Congress that this right will be used, in spite of any massive propaganda advertising by an Industrial/Socialist Complex.
Reference: C&E News June 27, 2011, page 13, Climate Change by Marc Reisch
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Red Herring on Climate Change
In the May 7 issue of C&E News, Mitch Jacoby reports on a new polymer to capture CO2. CO2 has various uses, among which are carbonation of soft drinks, fracturing to increase oil production, and a raw material in chemical manufacturer.
The basis of the article relates to reducing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, which has been said to negatively affect climate change. The article does not say that laboratory studies have shown carbon dioxide is only slightly more efficient than nitrogen and oxygen as a greenhouse gas, but because of its low concentration in the atmosphere, it has basically no additional greenhouse effect.
The composition of the polymer is insignificant. It will have the usual medium cost per pound of chemical. Stability of the polymer for continued reuse has not been determined.
It is said that the polymer selectively removes carbon dioxide and nitrogen from a mixed gas, with about 30 times more selectivity for carbon dioxide than for nitrogen. The component concentrations of the mixed gas were not mentioned. Since the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is only about 200 ppm, will the selectivity still be 30 to 1?
There is some discussion on using the polymer in membrane form, but a membrane application is only of value if there is restricted pass-through of one gas versus another, with the secondary factor that there is actually no gas absorption by the membrane. This is not the case with the new polymer. In fact, it is stated that the high temperature necessary to de-adsorb CO2 from the polymer reduces the effectiveness of the coal-fired operating plant by about 30%.
The present technology of CO2 capture from a mixed gas, such as electricity power plant emission, is use of an aqueous amine solution, with heating to release the adsorbed CO2. Use of the new polymer will only be practical, if the combination of polymer and hardware costs, with recycle ability and release mechanisms giving a total cost per pound of CO2 less than presently available in the standard amine process.
The basis of the article relates to reducing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, which has been said to negatively affect climate change. The article does not say that laboratory studies have shown carbon dioxide is only slightly more efficient than nitrogen and oxygen as a greenhouse gas, but because of its low concentration in the atmosphere, it has basically no additional greenhouse effect.
The composition of the polymer is insignificant. It will have the usual medium cost per pound of chemical. Stability of the polymer for continued reuse has not been determined.
It is said that the polymer selectively removes carbon dioxide and nitrogen from a mixed gas, with about 30 times more selectivity for carbon dioxide than for nitrogen. The component concentrations of the mixed gas were not mentioned. Since the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is only about 200 ppm, will the selectivity still be 30 to 1?
There is some discussion on using the polymer in membrane form, but a membrane application is only of value if there is restricted pass-through of one gas versus another, with the secondary factor that there is actually no gas absorption by the membrane. This is not the case with the new polymer. In fact, it is stated that the high temperature necessary to de-adsorb CO2 from the polymer reduces the effectiveness of the coal-fired operating plant by about 30%.
The present technology of CO2 capture from a mixed gas, such as electricity power plant emission, is use of an aqueous amine solution, with heating to release the adsorbed CO2. Use of the new polymer will only be practical, if the combination of polymer and hardware costs, with recycle ability and release mechanisms giving a total cost per pound of CO2 less than presently available in the standard amine process.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
The Futile Capture of CO2 Persists
The May 2 issue of C&E News has an article on CO2 capture.
The article says that carbon dioxide is related to climate change and that the rising level of atmospheric CO2 is widely regarded as one of the most pressing environmental concerns of our age. This is obviously an opinion based upon no facts that I have ever seen, and very different from what I personally believe.
Stuart Haseltine, a geoscientist at the University of Edinburgh, says that capturing and storing CO2 emitted by power plants has the potential to decrease global emissions of CO2 by some 20%. So what? Why do I want to decrease global emissions of CO2 by 20%? It doesn't do any harm. No one has ever proven scientifically that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have any significance to climate change. This is merely a game to justify grant money for additional research. It is also intended to justify additional revenue to the federal income by taxing CO2 emissions. Justin Song, a specialist in catalyst and energy related materials at Penn State, says that coal-fired power plants emit 1500 megatons of CO2 per year. Is that supposed to impress me? How much CO2 is emitted by all human beings and animals in a year? How many molecules of water in all the oceans?
CO2 is not a poison. In high concentrations, it can deprive a person of obtaining enough oxygen through breathing. This is also true of nitrogen and argon, which are present in the atmosphere. However, we are not talking about that kind of maximum concentration. We are talking about parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Eliminating that side issue, the drum beaters are really concentrating on the theory that minor concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere affect climate. It is likely true, because the CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So is nitrogen and oxygen, and argon, and water vapor. In fact, we need all of these greenhouse gases in our atmosphere to normalize Earth temperatures. Without the ability of these gases to insulate against loss of heat, nighttime temperatures on Earth could fall to almost absolute zero in the neighborhood of -200°C.
The high concentrations of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere protect us from those radical temperature changes. The very small concentration of CO2 has a minimal effect on the whole.
I'm not opposed to capture of carbon dioxide, if it is worth capturing. Oil and gas drillers are said to be using a new technique of increasing production of oil and gas by a fracturing process, which uses carbon dioxide. The cheaper the CO2 source, the better. In all likelihood, capture would be from a high concentration source or some mixture that needs purification. Natural gas normally contains some carbon dioxide, which should be removed in order to make the remaining methane and ethane more effective as fuel sources. If we can take that carbon dioxide out of the natural gas and use it in fracturing to produce more natural gas, so much the better. However, the key point is not to confuse ourselves into thinking that the major consideration is to remove carbon dioxide from the environment. It is not necessary to do that. Various living plants have been naturally engineered to do that job. In the process, those plants also produce oxygen, which we need as humans for our own metabolism.
Let's get off the kick that carbon dioxide is detrimental to climate change or anything else of practical significance. Nature has already handled that matter. If we want to do something practical, let's get on with building flood control devices. There will be a constant amount of rain falling on the Earth each year. Unfortunately, it is not evenly distributed, nor is the distribution always the same.. We need to protect ourselves against the detriment of floods. We cannot control the amount of rain or its distribution. We can build flood control devices.
The article says that carbon dioxide is related to climate change and that the rising level of atmospheric CO2 is widely regarded as one of the most pressing environmental concerns of our age. This is obviously an opinion based upon no facts that I have ever seen, and very different from what I personally believe.
Stuart Haseltine, a geoscientist at the University of Edinburgh, says that capturing and storing CO2 emitted by power plants has the potential to decrease global emissions of CO2 by some 20%. So what? Why do I want to decrease global emissions of CO2 by 20%? It doesn't do any harm. No one has ever proven scientifically that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have any significance to climate change. This is merely a game to justify grant money for additional research. It is also intended to justify additional revenue to the federal income by taxing CO2 emissions. Justin Song, a specialist in catalyst and energy related materials at Penn State, says that coal-fired power plants emit 1500 megatons of CO2 per year. Is that supposed to impress me? How much CO2 is emitted by all human beings and animals in a year? How many molecules of water in all the oceans?
CO2 is not a poison. In high concentrations, it can deprive a person of obtaining enough oxygen through breathing. This is also true of nitrogen and argon, which are present in the atmosphere. However, we are not talking about that kind of maximum concentration. We are talking about parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Eliminating that side issue, the drum beaters are really concentrating on the theory that minor concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere affect climate. It is likely true, because the CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So is nitrogen and oxygen, and argon, and water vapor. In fact, we need all of these greenhouse gases in our atmosphere to normalize Earth temperatures. Without the ability of these gases to insulate against loss of heat, nighttime temperatures on Earth could fall to almost absolute zero in the neighborhood of -200°C.
The high concentrations of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere protect us from those radical temperature changes. The very small concentration of CO2 has a minimal effect on the whole.
I'm not opposed to capture of carbon dioxide, if it is worth capturing. Oil and gas drillers are said to be using a new technique of increasing production of oil and gas by a fracturing process, which uses carbon dioxide. The cheaper the CO2 source, the better. In all likelihood, capture would be from a high concentration source or some mixture that needs purification. Natural gas normally contains some carbon dioxide, which should be removed in order to make the remaining methane and ethane more effective as fuel sources. If we can take that carbon dioxide out of the natural gas and use it in fracturing to produce more natural gas, so much the better. However, the key point is not to confuse ourselves into thinking that the major consideration is to remove carbon dioxide from the environment. It is not necessary to do that. Various living plants have been naturally engineered to do that job. In the process, those plants also produce oxygen, which we need as humans for our own metabolism.
Let's get off the kick that carbon dioxide is detrimental to climate change or anything else of practical significance. Nature has already handled that matter. If we want to do something practical, let's get on with building flood control devices. There will be a constant amount of rain falling on the Earth each year. Unfortunately, it is not evenly distributed, nor is the distribution always the same.. We need to protect ourselves against the detriment of floods. We cannot control the amount of rain or its distribution. We can build flood control devices.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Environmental Organization and White House Cooperate to Destroy American Wealth Through CO2 Taxation
In the April 11 issue of C&E News, there's an article entitled "Congress Splits on EPA CO2 bill". In this latest C&E News article, Fred Kraut, President of Environmental Defense Fund characterized the legislative efforts as an unprecedented assault on public health protections under the Clean Air Act.
What he was actually saying is that efforts of Republicans in the House and some in the Senate to limit the power of the EPA with respect to enforcing any regulation that CO2 has a pollutant should be controlled. The subterfuge in this statement is that the environmental group believes coal burning power plants should be shut down to the disadvantage of the general public with respect to availability of power and high prices of the remaining power.
This is consistent with my present understanding that environmental organizations are generally subversive in their efforts to reduce the economic and social power of the United States.
The White House supported the Democrats in the Senate for their position of not passing any regulation to reduce the power of the EPA. This is also consistent with Pres. Obama's policy of redistributing US wealth on a worldwide basis through taxation of CO2 emissions.
What he was actually saying is that efforts of Republicans in the House and some in the Senate to limit the power of the EPA with respect to enforcing any regulation that CO2 has a pollutant should be controlled. The subterfuge in this statement is that the environmental group believes coal burning power plants should be shut down to the disadvantage of the general public with respect to availability of power and high prices of the remaining power.
This is consistent with my present understanding that environmental organizations are generally subversive in their efforts to reduce the economic and social power of the United States.
The White House supported the Democrats in the Senate for their position of not passing any regulation to reduce the power of the EPA. This is also consistent with Pres. Obama's policy of redistributing US wealth on a worldwide basis through taxation of CO2 emissions.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
New Book on Global Warming
The March 28, 2011 issue of C&E News has a book review by Jovana J. Grbic. The book is entitled, "Cool It" by Bjorn Lomborg.
This is my commentary on both the review and the book. Since it is a review of the review, it is third hand and may be susceptible to some errors from lack of facts and interpretation of the original work.
Basically, Mr. Lomborg says that there is great exaggeration in attitudes concerning the effects of the global warming discussion. Some persons strongly deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming. Others strongly believe in its existence and predict dire consequences. Mr. Lomborg takes the position that anthropogenic global warming does exist but is neither inconsequential nor dire.. He does not specify how much anthropogenic global warming exists. He estimates that if the $$20 trillion, which is proposed to fight anthropogenic global warming, is actually spent, the global warming reduction would be only 0.1°F. I don't know where or how Mr. Lomborg gets his figures. Perhaps they are in his book.
I generally agree with Mr. Lomborg that there is anthropogenic global warming. Even though he acknowledges global warming at a level lower than those who have radical claims and predict dire consequences, he appears to believe that it is somewhat higher than I do. I claim it is insignificant.
I base my conclusion on laboratory results which show that the passage of infrared radiation through carbon dioxide is only slightly more impeded than passage through either nitrogen or oxygen. I further point out that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, even if doubled from its present value, would be so low as to impede heat radiation from the Earth to only a negligible extent. This procedure seems to have been ignored, even though it is standard practice in determining R values of building insulation materials.
This is my commentary on both the review and the book. Since it is a review of the review, it is third hand and may be susceptible to some errors from lack of facts and interpretation of the original work.
Basically, Mr. Lomborg says that there is great exaggeration in attitudes concerning the effects of the global warming discussion. Some persons strongly deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming. Others strongly believe in its existence and predict dire consequences. Mr. Lomborg takes the position that anthropogenic global warming does exist but is neither inconsequential nor dire.. He does not specify how much anthropogenic global warming exists. He estimates that if the $$20 trillion, which is proposed to fight anthropogenic global warming, is actually spent, the global warming reduction would be only 0.1°F. I don't know where or how Mr. Lomborg gets his figures. Perhaps they are in his book.
I generally agree with Mr. Lomborg that there is anthropogenic global warming. Even though he acknowledges global warming at a level lower than those who have radical claims and predict dire consequences, he appears to believe that it is somewhat higher than I do. I claim it is insignificant.
I base my conclusion on laboratory results which show that the passage of infrared radiation through carbon dioxide is only slightly more impeded than passage through either nitrogen or oxygen. I further point out that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, even if doubled from its present value, would be so low as to impede heat radiation from the Earth to only a negligible extent. This procedure seems to have been ignored, even though it is standard practice in determining R values of building insulation materials.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Another Questionable Condemnation of Carbon Dioxide
The January 10 Issue of C&E News had an article entitled, "Monitoring a Troubling Trend". The article is on ocean acidification and assumes acidification has been occurring and is still in progress.
The Federal Ocean Acidification Research & Monitoring (FOARAM) Act was signed into law in March 2009. The law created a program to monitor and research ocean acidification and inspire him greater investigation by federal agencies of the phenomenon's effect on ecosystems and strategies to conserve Marine life.
I was not even aware that this law was being considered, but now that we have the law I am seriously concerned about its justification. It appears to me that this is another boondoggle operation on which to spend large sums of money. The National Science Foundation, which is a major supporter of such work, announced last fall $24 million in special grants for ocean acidification research. The National Research Council report says that the key element is a broad and integrated monitoring program which would measure ocean temperature, salinity, oxygen, certain critical nutrients, dissolved inorganic carbon, pC02, total alkalinity and pH.
With that background, I am wondering how this program ever got started. Not knowing its exact origin, I can only speculate. As a scientist and a human being, I am endowed with a certain sense of curiosity. There is always something to pique one's curiosity. The C&E News article says that the present pH of the ocean is 8.1 and that it has risen from 8.2. This leads to a couple of obvious questions. How was it determined that the pH is now 8.1? Did someone have a new pH meter and ran around taking the pHs of anything he saw? When and where were these measurements of 8.1 and 8.2 made? Did someone run down to the beach and grab a sea water sample or is this a collection of pH data from samples taken at various locations in the world, including the Mississippi Delta, the Indian Ocean, the Coast of Labrador etc.,? We can also what the sensitivity of the pH determination is. Is it 1/100 of a pH unit? If so, why do we only report it to 1/10?
All this adds up to my suspicion that no one was ever significantly concerned about the pH of the ocean, until someone decided to relate it to carbon dioxide, which was part of the ideology of the present Obama Administration. In other words, the Administration may have questioned whether carbon carbon dioxide could be condemned for some atrocities other than just global warming. How about ocean acidification? Power plants burning coal have previously been shown to contribute significant quantities of sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere, which is later later oxidized to sulfur trioxide and forms sulfuric acid when mixed with rain. Acidification of lakes and ponds and possibly rivers has been noticed from this affect. Surface waters routinely drain into the ocean. Would this be enough to affect pH of ocean waters? Since that thought does not do anything to condemn carbon dioxide, perhaps the Administration has ignored it.
We can also consider motivations for actual investigative work in this area. Again, it is a matter of federal funds being used for research and particularly in private grants, wherein one is obligated to come up with an answer which fits the ideology of the search background.
I'm also critical of C&E News with the title "Monitoring A Troubling Trend". Is the "Troubling Trend" a matter of the pH apparently dropping from 8.2 to 8.1? It does trouble me that C&E News could leap to this conclusion, especially without considering the obvious questions concerning pH determination accuracy and water samples from various locations.
My bottom line is a suggestion that Congress take another look at that law, in these times of budget tightening, and consider whether it should be eliminated.
The Federal Ocean Acidification Research & Monitoring (FOARAM) Act was signed into law in March 2009. The law created a program to monitor and research ocean acidification and inspire him greater investigation by federal agencies of the phenomenon's effect on ecosystems and strategies to conserve Marine life.
I was not even aware that this law was being considered, but now that we have the law I am seriously concerned about its justification. It appears to me that this is another boondoggle operation on which to spend large sums of money. The National Science Foundation, which is a major supporter of such work, announced last fall $24 million in special grants for ocean acidification research. The National Research Council report says that the key element is a broad and integrated monitoring program which would measure ocean temperature, salinity, oxygen, certain critical nutrients, dissolved inorganic carbon, pC02, total alkalinity and pH.
With that background, I am wondering how this program ever got started. Not knowing its exact origin, I can only speculate. As a scientist and a human being, I am endowed with a certain sense of curiosity. There is always something to pique one's curiosity. The C&E News article says that the present pH of the ocean is 8.1 and that it has risen from 8.2. This leads to a couple of obvious questions. How was it determined that the pH is now 8.1? Did someone have a new pH meter and ran around taking the pHs of anything he saw? When and where were these measurements of 8.1 and 8.2 made? Did someone run down to the beach and grab a sea water sample or is this a collection of pH data from samples taken at various locations in the world, including the Mississippi Delta, the Indian Ocean, the Coast of Labrador etc.,? We can also what the sensitivity of the pH determination is. Is it 1/100 of a pH unit? If so, why do we only report it to 1/10?
All this adds up to my suspicion that no one was ever significantly concerned about the pH of the ocean, until someone decided to relate it to carbon dioxide, which was part of the ideology of the present Obama Administration. In other words, the Administration may have questioned whether carbon carbon dioxide could be condemned for some atrocities other than just global warming. How about ocean acidification? Power plants burning coal have previously been shown to contribute significant quantities of sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere, which is later later oxidized to sulfur trioxide and forms sulfuric acid when mixed with rain. Acidification of lakes and ponds and possibly rivers has been noticed from this affect. Surface waters routinely drain into the ocean. Would this be enough to affect pH of ocean waters? Since that thought does not do anything to condemn carbon dioxide, perhaps the Administration has ignored it.
We can also consider motivations for actual investigative work in this area. Again, it is a matter of federal funds being used for research and particularly in private grants, wherein one is obligated to come up with an answer which fits the ideology of the search background.
I'm also critical of C&E News with the title "Monitoring A Troubling Trend". Is the "Troubling Trend" a matter of the pH apparently dropping from 8.2 to 8.1? It does trouble me that C&E News could leap to this conclusion, especially without considering the obvious questions concerning pH determination accuracy and water samples from various locations.
My bottom line is a suggestion that Congress take another look at that law, in these times of budget tightening, and consider whether it should be eliminated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
