Utah conservative falsely asserts: “Greenhouse gas emissions have absolutely nothing whatever to do with clean air. CO2 does not add to pollutants or cause asthma or any of the other things you think of with dirty air. “
One of the classic signs of anti-science syndrome is repeated asserting that because CO2 is needed for life, vast increases of CO2 must perforce be vastly good for life (see Rep. Shimkus: Cutting CO2 emissions is “Taking away plant food from the atmosphere”).
In fact, lots of things are needed for life that are fatal in high doses or amounts. Iron and water come to mind.
Another classic sign of ASS is denying that too much CO2 is harmful to life. This sometimes gets taken to its ASSinine extremes (see House GOP leader Boehner on ABC: “The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical”).
Let’s look at the many anti-science symptoms manifested by Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT), courtesy of Think Progress.
In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, under the stipulations in the Clean Air Act. Last month, the EPA announced that it would phase-in the regulation over several years, starting with the largest sources of emissions. Many “” mostly Republican “” state legislators have recently introduced measures to block or limit the EPA’s authority to regulate the gases.
Reporting on the state action today on Fox News, host Megyn Kelly went a bit overboard…. Taking the discussion a bit further into right field, Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) actually argued that greenhouse gases are helpful:
KELLY: Back in 2007 the United States Supreme Court basically issued a decision saying it was ok for the EPA to start putting its nose into other peoples’ business in this way if it so desired. [...]
BENNETT: Greenhouse gas emissions have absolutely nothing whatever to do with clean air. CO2 does not add to pollutants or cause asthma or any of the other things you think of with dirty air. CO2 is actually a nutrient for plants and helps some parts of the continents grow more and have greater vegetation.
None of this is a terribly big shock, given where Bennett is from (see “Utah: Still the right wing place“). But it remains important to rebut these conservative talking points.
Of course, right now, GHGs have a lot to do with dirty air, since we generate most of our dirty air with the same fossil fuels that cause GHGs. And the hotter it gets, he worst urban air pollution and ashthma incidents are going to get.
Of course the Court didn’t rule that the EPA could “start putting its nose into other peoples’ business” whenever it wants. The decisions specifically stated that the agency is legally required to regulate CO2. And in fact, the auto industry has actually applauded the EPA’s move to regulate car emissions. Apparently they don’t feel the mandate means “the cost of nearly everything in America” will increase, as Kelly claimed.
And Bennett’s claim “” one that climate change deniers regularly make to prevent action on climate change “” is simply wrong. In fact, new scientific research out this month “found that domes of increased carbon dioxide concentrations”¦cause local temperature increases that in turn increase the amounts of local air pollutants, raising concentrations of health-damaging ground-level ozone as well as particles in urban air.”
Since conservatives are working hard to blow smoke in our eyes on this issue, I’ll examine some of the recent science of how CO2 and higher temperatures are directly harmful to human life in future posts.
Related Posts:
- The Lancet medical journal: Cutting greenhouse gas emissions has major direct health benefits
- NRC: Burning fossil fuels costs the U.S. $120 billion a year “” not counting mercury or climate impacts!
- Global Warming Is A Medical Emergency”: Hellish heatwaves to harm health of millions
- Climate change helps spread dengue fever in 28 states
- Climate change endangers human health
- Chinese birth defects “up sharply”
- If you want smarter kids, shut coal plants
Previous in TP Climate Progress
I think that anti-science syndrome gives those who have it some measure of comfort, peace of ASS, as it were.
I did not know that there were direct, local negative effects of CO2 on health. Nevertheless, the real, main reason for regulating CO2 emissions is to reduce climate change. Second, since burning fossil fuels almost invariable increases smog pollutants, reducing fossil fuels to limit CO2 emissions will have the indirect effect of reducing those unhealthy pollutants. The local, “dome effect” while interesting, probably does not have a big enough health (and therefore economic) impact to justify the large investments needed to stop and roll back CO2 emissions. Just an opinion, put I don’t think that we should give much weight to the relatively minor health effects of localized domes of CO2.
Title VI of the 1990 Clean Air Act (amended) specifically states that pollutants that can cause global warming were to be identified. This was added in because the 1989 congressional hearings on global warming had pointed out that eventually, strong action to prevent climate change would be needed. To state the the Clean Air Act is only worried about toxic air pollution (this is just one of several concerns) is garbage.
http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/overview.txt
I don’t watch much Fox News except for seeing clips ridiculed by everyone else, so several things stand out.
One, do they clone these blondish women hosts? They all look and sound surprisingly similar, and by that I mean not even remotely human.
And I’m pretty sure “putting your nose in other people’s business” is harassment at the very least.
Then Megyn (sic) says that “This is another consequence of elections I suppose” as if the consequences of elections are something she and Fox would like to eliminate.
Then her intellectual equal Senator Bob Bennett says that “CO2…helps some parts of the continents grow more” which I believe is news to geologists.
Finally he uses the word “whatever” three times in 27 seconds when I think he meant the word “whatsoever.”
And since CO2 apparently is only a blessing and not harmful to anything in any way in any dosage as their Siamese twin views suggest, how about we put a dome over Utah and Fox News and give them the 97 per cent concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere Venus has, along with the 850 degree heat.
Or whatsoever.
Sorry for the double post above – it didn’t go through the first time.
In addition to saving my comments in a word file so I can spell-check and save them and maybe use elements in comments on other blogs, one thing I just learned is that when you access CP from another server it won’t remember your information and you’ll become anonymous, something I don’t wish to be but can’t seem to help.
” CO2 does not add to pollutants or cause asthma or any of the other things you think of with dirty air.” “CO2 is actually a nutrient for plants.”
Did scientists tell him this?? I thought we don’t trust scientists – they probably manipulated their data to receive more grant money and create an international communist government.
Thanks for the update, Joe.
There are probably hundreds of research studies that refute the “more CO2 is good for plants” canard. One of my favorite reports is the recent one by David Clark – one of the many unsung heroes of climatology.
Annual Wood Production in a Tropical Rain Forest in NE Costa Rica
published in Global Change Biology
February 2010
“Using the repeated remeasurements we directly assessed the relative effects of interannual climatic variation and increasing atmospheric CO2 on wood production….
Our results suggest that wood production in the lowland rainforests of NE Costa Rica (and by extension in other tropical regions) may be severely reduced in future climates that are only slightly drier and/or warmer.”
[emphasis added]
Of course we also need to continually note the adverse and current detrimental effects that CO2 has on the acidification of the oceans. Acidification is measurable, effects are quantifiable, irrefutable, understandable, and serious enough to demand mitigating CO2 in and of itself. Acidification is the second dark side of a two headed coin. Heads you lose, tails you lose.
Cuccinelli’s Climate Denier Lawsuits Could Junk Auto Industry’s Recovery
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/04/05/cuccinelli-destroy-detroit/
Great point as always Leif (#8)!
As we remember from her December 3 testimony before Congress, Jane Lubchenco called Ocean Acidification “climate change’ evil twin.”
Actually I call Climate Change and Ocean Acidification and Species Loss and Resource Depletion (including Peak Oil and Water) and Social Injustice the evil quints of their evil parents, Overpopulation and Overconsumption.
ASS is a kind of mental disorder. Being anti-science is about on par with being anti-watching-where-you-are-driving. Or anti-don’t-walk-into-a-lamp-pole. Or something. I’m not even dumb enough to come up with a good one.
And note, there are people who don’t actually watch were they are driving, which is why we have to pass these seriously alarming laws that say you cannot text into your cell phone while at the wheel of a car. Opa! Now why didn’t I think of that?
So yeah, people are basically anti-save-ourselves. What else is news? They are steadily doing self destructive things on a daily basis, including eating buckets of junk food and smoking cigarettes and leaving guns laying around for the kids to find, so why should they act any differently regarding scary science? Which was their worst subject in school. And that’s because the teacher was a nerdy type who liked gross squishy things. The freak.
ASS; it’s not just for inbred redneck dopes anymore!
So the senator from Utah doesn’t believe in climate change even though one of the largest industries in his state is skiing! I’ve read that the ski industry in Utah is frustrated that their own senators won’t give them the time of day. I’m glad I live in Colorado where we have Udall who gets it and our elevations are higher so hopefully the ski industry last longer in Colorado. Cheers
Is this connected to the nomination challenge that Bennett faces, or do you have to parade ignorance to establish street cred as a Republican?
1. The “other” greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil and biofuels (nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, acetaldehyde and peroxyacetyl nitrates) are ozone precursors which interact with (increasing?) UV radiation. Inexorably increasing levels of tropospheric ozone are killing trees by damaging foliage and needles. The cost of crop losses globally is estimated in the billions of dollars annually.
2.To claim that increased levels of CO2 will feed plants in a beneficial increase in growth rates is about the same as claiming that increased levels of calories in the typical American diet increases weight gain for humans. How’s that high calorie and fat regimen working out? Oops – epidemics of heart disease, and diabetes? Maybe rethink that…
“Oxygen toxicity is a condition resulting from the harmful effects of breathing molecular oxygen (O2) at elevated partial pressures. It is also known as oxygen toxicity syndrome, oxygen intoxication, and oxygen poisoning. Historically, the central nervous system condition was called the Paul Bert effect”
As far as I’m concerned,
Instead of wasting all our time and money on this plant nourishing carbon stuff, we should be getting rid of all that socialist oxygen.
and who is that communist Paul Bert, what part does he play in all of this?
Be enlightened, Sen. Bennett! Here have a dose of these articles:
http://www.ecoseed.org/index.php?option=com_search&searchword=carbon%20dioxide&searchphrase=all&ordering=newest