Category Archives: Global Warming

Obama Kicks Keystone XL Down the Road

Posted on by

A posting on this site was titled “Economic Recovery Versus Red Tape” discussed two pipeline projects. The Ruby natural gas pipeline provided thousands of jobs to construction workers and hundreds of jobs to environmental specialists. It also boosted property taxes in the areas where it was constructed. You would think such a project would have wide support, but the environmental hoops it had to jump through before successful completion, which cost millions of dollars, were tiny. The second pipeline described in the posting was the Keystone XL, which is proposed to bring oil from Canada to be processed in U.S. refineries. I’ve seen estimates that the project would add “shovel ready” jobs ranging from 4,500 (from environmentalists opposing the project) to as many as 20,000.

President Obama has taken the decision to approve the project out of the State Department and announced that he will make the decision after the 2012 election. This comes after three years of intensive study that decided the project had an acceptable environmental impact. (Hmmm, is there any significance to making a final decision after the 2012 elections?) I expect the announcement might have something to do with the fact that environmentalists opposed to the pipeline recently surrounded the White House and the Sierra Club declared that Mr. Obama could not count on the environmental vote if he allowed the project to be approved.

One objection to the project is that the oil from Canadian tar sands has more of an impact on “global warming” emissions than oil from other sources. I’ve seen estimates as low as a 5% increase in “greenhouse gases” to as high as three times by those who don’t like the project. An article in the Washington Post by Steven Mufson points out that any argument on how much more greenhouse gas is produced is meaningless, since the oil will probably be exported to China and consumed if there isn’t a closer market. Mr. Mufson also says several alternatives are being considered, to include a proposal to build a new refinery in Alberta to process the oil. That alternative would of course prevent creation of U.S. jobs to build a pipeline and to process the oil.

Environmentalists of course are demanding that alternate pipeline routes be considered to avoid the Ogallala aquifer (which is at a significant depth under the proposed pipeline). Matthew Brown of the Associated Press points out that there have been thirteen routes rejected. Environmentalists will find a reason, or many reasons, to reject any route. They don’t want a pipeline to be built, and will find compelling reasons to oppose any route.

The New York Times predictably applauded Mr. Obama’s decision to kick the can down the road. They point out that labor unions had supported the project while environmentalists oppose it. Call me a cynic, but I’m guessing that preventing the project until after the election will allow environmentalists to eagerly support Mr. Obama’s reelection, and that he already has done enough to earn the votes of labor union members.

It is interesting that there is already “Plan B” to transport the Canadian oil to U.S. refineries by expanding current pipelines with additional pumping stations. The delay to making a final decision on Keystone XL until after the 2012 elections will probably provide Mr. Obama cover for maintaining votes, but it won’t have any measurable impact on the eventual pathway for the oil except for preventing addition of “shovel ready jobs.”

Is Carbon Dioxide Dangerous?

Posted on by

Too much carbon dioxide can indeed be dangerous, and people have died when they are trapped in an area where carbon dioxide fire suppression systems displace the air with the oxygen needed for life. However, there have been events resulting in the declaration that carbon dioxide is dangerous even in trace quantities. The Supreme Court in 2007 declared that carbon dioxide and other “heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare.”  That ruling set the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in motion to establish regulations to control the gases.  A New York Times article quoted the EPA as saying the science supporting the…endangerment finding “compelling and overwhelming.”  They proposed a law under the Clean Air Act to regulate “heat-trapping gases” (which includes methane, nitrous oxide, and hydroflurocarbons in addition to carbon dioxide). (I first mentioned this in a posting dated June 8.)

Several aspects about the discourse on carbon dioxide and its influence or lack of influence on global warming trouble me. What troubles me most is that I don’t see that there has been an honest presentation of the facts. To give one example, the proposed regulations and the list of “heat-trapping gases” does not include the gas that has the largest effect. Water vapor exerts a much stronger greenhouse gas effect compared to carbon dioxide or any of the other gases that are to be regulated.  None of the gases have much of an influence compared to the sun. It seems too obvious to mention that the sun should always be given first consideration when global temperatures are mentioned.  Warming oceans from increased solar activity results in higher concentrations of both water vapor and carbon dioxide.  The water vapor is obviously created from evaporation and the carbon dioxide results from lower solubility in warmer water.  The question that begs to be asked is why do we focus on regulating carbon dioxide and not worry about water vapor, if water vapor has a much greater greenhouse gas effect?  I will propose an answer, which I predict won’t be well received in the camp that wants us to believe man-made global warming is a risk to life as we know it. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of power production, which gives us industry, jobs, wealth, and a comfortable life style.  The environmental movement has become a powerful political force, and, to state the issue simplistically, many in that movement believe we should be ashamed of all of the benefits we derive from having plentiful generation of energy.  It would be difficult to vilify water vapor, because it has nothing to do with how we generate power.  Therefore, it is ignored.

Something else that is being ignored are all of the positive effects that result from higher concentrations of carbon dioxide.  Revisiting memories of junior high and high school science classes reminds me that we and all other mammals exhale carbon dioxide, which makes it seem incredible that the EPA has decided it “endangers public health and welfare.” Also, carbon dioxide is the fertilizer that allows plants to grow.  Plants combine carbon dioxide with water with the energy from sunlight to produce organic chemicals.  They release oxygen as a result of the process, and we find good uses for oxygen (like being able to keep on living). One would think that increases in plant growth that accompany higher levels of carbon dioxide would be considered a positive by even the most ardent critics of the gas. I suggest readers review Dr. Arthur Robinson’s paper titled “Environmental Effects of Increased Carbon Dioxide.” That article provides details of the increases in plant growth.  I don’t think I’m going too far out on a limb to say that better food crop yields resulting from higher concentrations of carbon dioxide is something we should celebrate.  I will warn readers that Dr. Robinson is not well-liked by the advocates of man-made global warming.  He circulated a petition that questions the validity of that theory, and it was signed by over 31,000 people with scientific degrees.  Kind of puts a new light on the term “consensus,” doesn’t it? I signed the petition, and have yet to be rewarded by the oil industry, which is one of the accusations directed at Dr. Robinson and his petition.

Records of Past Climate Change

Posted on by

The Supreme Court in 2007 declared that carbon dioxide and other “heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare.” That ruling set the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in motion to establish regulations to control the gases. A New York Times article quoted the EPA as saying the science supporting the endangerment finding “compelling and overwhelming.” They proposed a law under the Clean Air Act to regulate “heat-trapping gases” (which includes methane, nitrous oxide, and hydroflurocarbons in addition to carbon dioxide). It is odd that the EPA has a paper that presents a solid argument that much of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the result of natural conditions separate from the activities of man. The paper first observes that the climate of the earth has changed throughout history preceding and following the arrival of man. Various scientific studies show that temperatures and carbon dioxide levels have been higher than present levels for about two-thirds of the last 400 million years. The causes of climate change are listed as:

  • Changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt affect the amount of sunlight received on the surface of the planet
  • Changes in the intensity of the sun is an obvious cause of changes in temperature, and the NASA believes reduced solar activity was the cause of the “Little Ice Age” from the 1400s to 1700s
  • Volcanic aerosols block sunlight; the Tambora Volcano in Indonesia in 1815 lowered global temperatures by as much as five degrees Fahrenheit and caused 1816 to be “the year without a summer in New England 1816
  • Volcanic eruptions release carbon dioxide

I find the most interesting part of the paper to be a discussion under the bullet titled “Changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.” “The heating or cooling of the Earth’s surface can cause changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. For example, when global temperatures become warmer, carbon dioxide is released from the oceans. When changes in the Earth’s orbit trigger a warm (or interglacial) period, increasing concentrations may amplify the warming by enhancing the greenhouse effect. When temperatures become cooler, CO2 enters the ocean and contributes to additional cooling. During at least the last 650,000 years…during warm interglacial periods CO2 levels have been high and during cool glacial periods, CO2 levels have been low.” (Emphasis added) It is thus quite clear that those who blame changes in temperature on changes in carbon dioxide concentrations have ignored that the reverse is true.

I often read that Arctic sea ice coverage is continuing to shrink. I frequently look at the National Snow and Ice Data Center graphs of Arctic sea ice extent, and it is true that current coverage is less than the 1979-2000 average. However, the 2011 data is virtually tracking the 2007 levels (The amounts in April 2011 were higher than April 2007, but June 2011 levels are slightly lower than June 2007). How is it possible for no ice loss since 2007 translate to “continuing to shrink?” Current news reports are once again talking about severe and hot weather are being caused by global warming. The EPA paper describing the causes of past climate change would say that man has little influence on what may or may not happen.