‘Smokey’ Joe Barton: Regulating CO2 Could ‘Close Down The New York And Boston Marathons’
‘Smokey’ Joe Barton: Regulating CO2 Could ‘Close Down The New York And Boston Marathons’
Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), known as “Smokey Joe” for his efforts on behalf of big polluters, is one of Congress’s most aggressive deniers of man-made climate change. For instance, in March, he said that the climate is changing “for natural variation reasons” and that to deal with it, humans should just “get shade.”
In a new interview with Newsmax, Barton continued his nonsensical approach to the issue, claiming that the Obama administration’s efforts to regulate carbon dioxide would potentially “close down the New York and Boston marathons“:
Barton says the average healthy adult exhales between four-tenths of a ton and seven-tenths of a ton of CO2 a year.
“So if you put 20,000 marathoners into a confined area, you could consider that a single source of pollution, and you could regulate it,” Barton says. “The key would be whether the EPA said that 20,000 people running the same route was one source or not.”
One indication that the EPA likely would consider 20,000 runners a single source of pollution is that the agency is trying to regulate waste-water runoff and emissions of drilling rigs in oil fields by attempting to define entire areas as a single source of pollution, Barton says.
A common conservative attack against addressing greenhouse gas emissions is to say that there are natural sources of CO2, so if we regulate industry we would have to regulate those sources as well. But this is straw man argument. As the the EPA notes, it is industrial sources of CO2, not natural sources, that “have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere“:
Natural sources of CO2 occur within the carbon cycle where billions of tons of atmospheric CO2 are removed from the atmosphere by oceans and growing plants, also known as ‘sinks,’ and are emitted back into the atmosphere annually through natural processes also known as ‘sources.’ When in balance, the total carbon dioxide emissions and removals from the entire carbon cycle are roughly equal.
Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700’s, human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation, have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution.
In the interview, Barton mocked the EPA’s recent declaration that carbon dioxide was a pollutant that endangers public health and welfare. “There’s never been anybody who’s been treated in an emergency room for CO2 poisoning. It doesn’t cause asthma; it doesn’t cause your eyes to water; it doesn’t cause cancer.”
Of course, the EPA declared CO2 a threat to public health because of the catastrophic consequences of climate change, not because it is a carcinogen.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Sure, this is another example of hysterical anti-science being pushed to the limits of absurdity in order to ridicule actual science, but really, it’s just “a different viewpoint”. Right, CFP?
May 12th, 2009 at 11:04 amI like to use what I call the “pissin’ in a stream” scenario. If a person pees in a river, it isn’t necessarily pollution and is a natural source of a natural fluid (urine). Now if a factory sets up and starts pouring hundreds, thousands, or millions of gallons of urine into the same river, 7 days a week; then it becomes pollution, even though it is the same urine.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:08 amIf anyone wonders why the GOP is an endangered species…I give you “Smokey” Joe.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:09 amIt’s so hard to distinguish “real” right wing commentators from their comedians.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:11 amThis sort of ‘comedy’ offends me more than anything Wanda Sykes ever said.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:11 amWow. TWO straw men from Barton in the same interview. Marathons closed down! CO2 doesn’t cause cancer!
Is he going for an award or something? Will he give us THREE in the next interview?
May 12th, 2009 at 11:14 amNo one gets CO2 “poisoning?” Those millions of emphysemics should just quit fakin’ it then. Elevated CO2 levels in the body is part of the definition of respiratory failure. You can’t buy stupid better’n what the GOP gives away for nuttin’.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:16 amIn the interview, Barton mocked the EPA’s recent declaration that carbon dioxide was a pollutant that endangers public health and welfare.
___________
I think the relatives of the 1,200 Cameroonians who died of CO2 poisoning in 1986 would disagree with this.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:16 amThe main difference is that the commentators are funny.
Xe Technology: To Purify America
May 12th, 2009 at 11:16 amfletc3her Says:
It’s so hard to distinguish “real” right wing commentators from their comedians.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:11 am
___________
This statement is more true than you might think. According to a recent study from Ohio State University, a surprising number of people believe Stephen Colbert is actually conservative.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:18 amJoe Barton: placing the interests of the internal combustion engine over those of the human race — on the taxpayers’ dime no less — since 1984. Thanks a lot Texas.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:18 am“So if you put 20,000 marathoners into a confined area, you could consider that a single source of pollution, and you could regulate it,”
– - Smokey Joe, do your part for reduction of CO2 emissions and “regulate” yourself into the ground.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:19 amGee, a moron from texas is a republican, what’s next, will the sun rise in the east tomorrow?
May 12th, 2009 at 11:21 amI wonder if barton would feel the same way about co2 if he was confined in a garage with a car with a full tank of gas was left running…and he had no means of escape available to him…just wondering…
:|
May 12th, 2009 at 11:22 amWhat an idiot! Words fail me.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:22 amI live directly north of smokin’ joe’s district. We have any unusually high number of ozone alert days for a county that is mainly rural. The cause, the many, many concrete plants in smokey’s district blowing all their particles our way.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:26 amWhy, that’s true!! Everybody knows that!!
WATER is natural – it couldn’t possibly be harmful!
Just ask the citizens of New Orle—oh, waitaminnit…
May 12th, 2009 at 11:28 amThink Joe is in the tank with the Texas petroleum industry?
May 12th, 2009 at 11:29 amHow soon can Texans put the finishing touches on that secession thingie?
May 12th, 2009 at 11:29 amplasticgoat Says:
I live directly north of smokin’ joe’s district. We have any unusually high number of ozone alert days for a county that is mainly rural. The cause, the many, many concrete plants in smokey’s district blowing all their particles our way.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:26 am
___________
It’s not ozone, it’s just “enhanced oxygen.”
May 12th, 2009 at 11:29 amchiroptera toasterhead Says:
It’s not ozone, it’s just “enhanced oxygen.”
Bravo!!! Well done ;)
May 12th, 2009 at 11:31 ampastcaring, carbon monoxide is CO, carbondioxide is CO2. Just sayin’. However, your point is valid. I would suggest that Smoky Joe tie a plastic bag tightly around his head for 30 minutes, then give a report on carbon dioxide poisoning.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:32 amAnd that’s the real crux of the matter isn’t it? I think Joeby knows he’s spouting his own brand of pollution with his lies, but money is the reason for the season folks. To these people, if it don’t make dollars it don’t make sense. It’s all about the green…just not the green that’s good for the environment, or the rest of us.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:33 amMaybe each marathoner should carry a potted plant. Makes as much sense as Barton’s argument.
PEACE
May 12th, 2009 at 11:35 amWingnut. And they wonder why voters are fleeing the Right.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:38 amAbout 33% of U.S carbon dioxide emissions comes from the burning of gasoline in internal-combustion engines of cars and light trucks (minivans, sport utility vehicles, pick-up trucks, and jeeps)
Source
May 12th, 2009 at 11:40 amAnti science coupled with blind superstition posing as religious faith is frightening .
May 12th, 2009 at 11:41 amsincerely,
The tooth fairy
spencers mom Says:
May 12th, 2009 at 11:42 am————————————————————–
Maybe each marathoner should carry a potted plant. Makes as much sense as Barton’s argument.
I like it .
“The key would be whether the EPA said that 20,000 people running the same route was one source or not.”
– - Using Barton’s logic he should be in favor of allowing abortions. Fewer humans means less CO2.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:43 amHell, Plutonium occurs in nature naturally, so let’s just ask the congressman to eat up a big bowl of Plutonium since it clearly cannot hurt you as it occurs “naturally”.
Or how about we ask the congressman to stand naked in the direct sunlight right along the equator with no shade for a few days and stare directly at the Sun while he is at it.
That can’t harm him either since it “naturally occurs”.
It makes NO DIFFERENCE it also occurs naturally.
Perhaps conservatives should study a little science when being home-schooled instead of looking to the Bible for all their answers.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:46 amBarton Says: “So if you put 20,000 marathoners into a confined area, you could consider that a single source of pollution, and you could regulate it,”
Huummm. He may have a point. 20 thousand is about the number the GOP is adding up to at the rate they are going. So, by his logic, we could regulate ( and hopefully ban) the brainless gass-baggery of the RNC at their next convention… or Rush Limbaugh? Which ever is grater?
Works for me.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:46 amThere is no such thing as a right-wing comedian. They have no concept of humor. Therefore, right-wing commentators substitute for comedians in wingnut world.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:47 amDang spelling errors. Which ever is greater? Gass baggyer?
May 12th, 2009 at 11:50 amI’m thinking Rush wins.
pastcaring Says
May 12th, 2009 at 11:22 am
I wonder if barton would feel the same way about co2 if he was confined in a garage with a car with a full tank of gas was left running…and he had no means of escape available to him…just wondering…
____________________________________________________________
I think in that scenario, the CO might get him before the CO2 did. A fairer demonstration might be putting a plastic bag over his head and sealing it around his neck.
I’m not advocating any harm to him, mind you. He’d be free to unseal the bag as soon as it occured to him that the CO2 was presenting a health hazard to him. I don’t think it would take long.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:52 amfergus Says
May 12th, 2009 at 11:32 am
pastcaring, carbon monoxide is CO, carbondioxide is CO2. Just sayin’. However, your point is valid. I would suggest that Smoky Joe tie a plastic bag tightly around his head for 30 minutes, then give a report on carbon dioxide poisoning.
___________________________________________________________
You beat me to it! Sorry I didn’t read your post first.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:55 am“Teh Stupid” is strong in this one.
Typical Straw-man attacks from the morons on the right.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:55 amspencers mom Says @ 24:
Maybe each marathoner should carry a potted plant.
See what I get for scanning the comments too quickly – I thought your were advocating that each runner should carry a pot plant.
Not sure anyone would ever finish the race, but the delis would make a killing selling munchies…
May 12th, 2009 at 12:00 pmmisscoleopteramolly Says:
May 12th, 2009 at 11:52 am
fergus Says
May 12th, 2009 at 11:32 am
__________________________________________
About 33% of U.S carbon dioxide emissions comes from the burning of gasoline in internal-combustion engines of cars and light trucks (minivans, sport utility vehicles, pick-up trucks, and jeeps)
Source
May 12th, 2009 at 12:00 pmFossil fuels are generally combusted for the purpose of producing energy for useful heat and work. During the combustion process, the carbon stored in the fuels is oxidized and emitted as CO2 and smaller amounts of other gases,
Source
May 12th, 2009 at 12:02 pmThat’s true. But as both fergus and missmolly pointed out, in the scenario you suggested (a sealed garage with a running car) carbon dioxide is not what would kill him.
The threat from vehicle emissions is of a different nature than you presented.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:06 pmAnother GOoPer with more than the usual amount of greed and stupidity. Oddly though, he does make a valid point that human respiration produces CO2. However, that’s as far as it goes.
It doesn’t make a whole lot of difference whether the people are spread out or grouped together. They could be in Australia or Antarctica and still affect global CO2. Plus, adding 20,000 people to New York at any given moment isn’t much difference anyway.
NOTE: I can’t believe I just took this guy’s argument seriously. I feel dirty.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:07 pmshoeless Says:
Therefore, right-wing commentators substitute for comedians in wingnut world.
____________
You misunderstand the true meaning of movement conservatism. They’re all true Rugged Individuals™, kinda like the Marlboro Man… but slightly gayer…
They don’t need no stinkin’ govt hand outs… they’re Entrepreneurs…
They don’t need no stinkin’ comedians… they make up their own jokes…
They don’t need no stinkin’ women… they just…
May 12th, 2009 at 12:11 pmPerhaps I can clear this up?
A car does indeed produce more CO2 than CO. However, CO is much more toxic so it will kill a person before the CO2.
So? Everybody’s right!
May 12th, 2009 at 12:11 pmIm taking comfort from the fact that co2 would be present, regardless if it would be the final decisive factor in the scenario.
Sorry if I seemed too strident in expressing that.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:13 pmpete Says:
Oddly though, he does make a valid point that human respiration produces CO2.
___________
Sure… and arsenic, cadmium, and lead exist naturally in trace amounts in drinking water and the food we eat, but that doesn’t mean I want ENHANCED amounts due to human activity in my water or foodstuffs…
May 12th, 2009 at 12:15 pmOh, for the love of Pete.
No offense, pete.
I don’t recall the logic coming from one political party so flawed before in my life. Really, Joe. STOP. Stop disputing evidence with disconnected logic. Stop implying to the American people that the respiration of the human race is akin to that of pollution being churned into the atmosphere.
Just…STOP.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:17 pmmisscoleopteramolly Says:
I would suggest that Smoky Joe tie a plastic bag tightly around his head for 30 minutes, then give a report on carbon dioxide poisoning.
___________
And if he stuck his head up Limbaugh’s cheney for 30 minutes, he give a report on a different kind of poisoning, huh?
May 12th, 2009 at 12:17 pmHey Joe:
May 12th, 2009 at 12:25 pmhttp://www.inspect-ny.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm
pastcaring Says:
Im taking comfort from the fact that co2 would be present, regardless if it would be the final decisive factor in the scenario.
Sorry if I seemed too strident in expressing that.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
_____________
No apology necessary – I always appreciate factual injections into this type of dicussion. I like to do the same when people here start asserting that cows fart methane and not carbon dioxide.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:26 pm20,000 marathoners into a confined area ….. hmmmm. So what about those humans breathing in the city AFTER the marathoners leave?
Everyone! HOLD YOUR BREATH! THE EPA IS COMMING!
May 12th, 2009 at 12:26 pmAnd you know that the EPA is one bad a$$ bullies when it comes to such things (/snark). This guy is so corrupt or stoopid (or both) that it’s sick.
pete Says:
Another GOoPer with more than the usual amount of greed and stupidity. Oddly though, he does make a valid point that human respiration produces CO2.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
____________
Actually, he doesn’t, if you want to get technical about it. Human respiration merely recycles carbon that was already present in the natural environment. When we break down glucose into ATP and produce CO2 as a by-product, it isn’t introducing any new carbon into the atmosphere. The net balance of carbon dioxide remains the same.
On the other hand, when we burn fossil fuels, we’re taking carbon that was stored underground, out of the biosphere, and re-introducing it to the environment, resulting in a net gain of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is a quite different process than animal respiration.
Smokey Joe would do well to learn this key distinction.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:37 pmVery true, chiroptera toasterhead. Respiratory CO2 does not result in a net increase in carbon. I neglected to finish my thought.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:48 pmFirst chart, directly from the EPA site. Appears the CO2 levels were just as high many thousand years ago, when there were no marathons, nor industries causing all this pollution. So while I agree that we should cut down on the pollutants we produce, the levels of CO2 seem pretty much like a natural cycle in the earth’s history.
And the stop with the whole plastic bag over the head arguement, its just dumb. The plastic bag in this case is the earths entire atmosphere, not a bag you get from the grocery store.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:50 pmRespiratory CO2 most certainly WOULD result in a net increase in carbon–if there are enough animals breathing it out.
I can think of more than a few wastes of oxygen on this planet–mostly neoconservatives. There’re millions of ‘em.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:51 pmcrap, i’m bad at the whole link thing.. but work with me here
May 12th, 2009 at 12:52 pmThe same can be said about burning wood.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:52 pmshoeless Says:
The same can be said about burning wood.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
_____________
Exactly. Or decomposing wood, for that matter, when microorganisms break down dead trees. These both release carbon dioxide that had been stored in the wood – burning is just much quicker. That’s still carbon that’s in the biosphere already.
It’s still quite different from the process of digging up dead trees and animals and plankton from millions of years ago and burning them. You’re introducing carbon into the biosphere that natural processes had taken out.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:02 pmStampede88 Says:
crap, i’m bad at the whole link thing.. but work with me here
May 12th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
_________
And the whole “critical thinking” thing, but I doubt there’s much we can do to help that.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:06 pmWingnuts Michelle Bachmann and John Shimkus call it plant food.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:23 pmIdiot.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:33 pmI’ll help you out with a link, stampede88. If you don’t trust Wiki? Follow their links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
May 12th, 2009 at 1:41 pmThat is truly idiotic to say that CO2 poisoning has never been treated in the ER. My cousin killed herself by running the car in a closed garage, and what do cars emit; CO2.
I think there needs to be an intelligence test given to politicians in order for them to run for office. I just don’t feel safe knowing that there are 10 year old’s smarter than some of them.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:51 pmIt’s my guess that Smokey Joe could mitigate global warming by keeping his mouth shut — and laying off the beans…
May 12th, 2009 at 1:55 pmWhere does Texas get these folk? And next door Oklahoma ?
Despite the saying, I’m beginning to think that Texas is perfectly sized to be an asylum.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:05 pmlink
May 12th, 2009 at 2:09 pm“There’s never been anybody who’s been treated in an emergency room for CO2 poisoning.”
WTH? I believe that’s called “suffocation”.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:27 pmIt’s so cute when Republicans try to get all scientifical and stuff.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:36 pm.
Dear Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX),
Please reduce the CO2 output from your mouth.
XXOO
America
.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:48 pmHate to bring this up, but in labs, a common way of killing mice is to put them in a CO2 chamber. They go out like a light.
But let me be honest, the CO2 levels associated with global warming are far, far, less than in the CO2 chambers. A few degrees rise in temperature will purget the planet quite effectively.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:26 pmstampede88,
Trying to take you seriously, initially.
Your link’s charts do show a pattern of rising and falling over vast stretches of geologic time, with the middle chart reflecting a shorter interval. notice how much higher the spike reaches as it nears within a century or two of the present? a good 25-50 ppm higher than the highest spikes in the previous 700,000 years or so. that increase can cause the increased warming of the natural “greenhouse effect” that results in climate change and melting glaciers. nobody has said anything about CO2 poisoning or carcinogens at stake here except the genius Joe Barton.
May 12th, 2009 at 6:10 pmClimate change and melting glaciers happened during all of those previous spikes in CO2 as well. But there were no factories, nor people causing it. So, it is incredibly arrogant to believe that–since it has happened 4 other times during history– this is caused by mankind. Certainly looks like the same cycle as the 4 previous spikes on said chart.
May 12th, 2009 at 7:59 pmHere’s a better look Stampede (although we’re up to 800,000 years at this point):
http://understandit.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/co2-650.jpg
And there is a difference between between a glacial period thaw (triggered by Milankovitch forcing and amplified by CO2 & water vapor feedback), and potentially rapid change during a populous extended interglacial.
May 13th, 2009 at 12:04 amStampede88 clearly has no ability to understand that climate change of many thousands of years is natural, but climate change of the same or even worse severity over the course of 150 years is NOT natural.
He also seems to not realize that much of the carbon that was in the atmosphere thousands and millions of years ago has since been locked away in underground stores of oil and coal, and was thus taken out of the carbon cycle, creating a more stable climate. We are digging that up and putting it back into the carbon cycle, against the clear wishes of the planet that locked it away in the first place.
Yes, the climate does change on its own through natural cycles. Yes, the planet has undergone radical climate changes in the past. But both of those statements grossly misunderstand the problem – the Earth corrected the problem of radical and dramatic shift naturally, by locking away the excess carbon and creating a balance that results in (relatively minor) shifts in climate. We are releasing all of that back. It’s actually not particularly arrogant to think that we can effect our planet. It is, however, insanely arrogant, selfish, and yes more than a little stupid, to think that what we do has no effect on our planet.
Sorry Stampede88, but you very obviously have no clue what you’re talking about.
May 13th, 2009 at 9:29 amsomeone wrote: They don’t need no stinkin’ comedians… they make up their own jokes…
I suggest is should read: They don’t need no stinkin’ comedians… they are their own jokes…
May 13th, 2009 at 10:53 amFrom this comment, it appears that he is still getting big bucks to help out companies that pollute and does not give a **** about the bigger picture.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:22 amHe needs to crawl back in his hole and stay there.
the graph you presented covers some 600000+ years. Each 100000 is broken up into 20k years. So, your graph shows that the current spike in CO2 started roughly 20000 years ago.
Explain to me how you can take a 200 year section out of the current spike to say humankind is causing all of this. Your own graph shows that it started around 20k years ago, but we cause all of it in the last 200 years?
Show me a graph showing the increase in CO2 during only the current spike. You can take a section out of any graph and make it show your side.
The earth has gone through its own radical changes in climate, and all of that was purely natural. While I agree that we pollute too much and should work on reducing it, I dont not believe in a false science saying we are the cause of global warming. It has clearly happened many times throughout the history of the planet. Each time it returns to lower levels without human intervention.
But I will ask, when all of this comes about, and the current spike in CO2 ends, and starts to dramatically fall, who are you going to blame when the world starts cooling and begins another ice age?
May 13th, 2009 at 11:24 amThe earth has gone through its own radical changes in climate, and all of that was purely natural.
The problem is, there is no natural source of CO2 that would explain the current spike. There has been no asteroid impact, and the volcanoes are pretty quiet compared to the other geological times of CO2 spike.
May 13th, 2009 at 12:22 pmNot to mention, the current spike pretty much dates to the exact moment the Industrial Revolution started.
May 13th, 2009 at 12:25 pmAll the chart shows, Stampede, is a slow recovery of CO2 to interglacial levels thousands of years ago. Then we took the ball and started running with it. This really isn’t rocket science. If humans emit gigatons of CO2 annually, overwhelming Earth’s absorption capacity, we get a long-lasting accumulation. For now, though, nature takes up around half of what we emit. Meaning Earth is still a net SINK for CO2, not a net source. That, along with isotope ratios, is an independent line of evidence that fossil fuel combustion is the primary source of accumulation.
May 13th, 2009 at 1:48 pm