Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. blog comments powered by Disqus

Toma Harris defeats Science again

watertorture
According to an Emeritus Professor of physics quoted by Tom Harris, so
it must be true.

The following and the references therein must therefore all be lies:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/summary.html

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_coun.html

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n12/full/ngeo1022.html

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

http://www.agu.org/pubs/eos-news/supplements/2011/gerlach_92_24.shtml

We're so lucky to have Tom Harris/the ICSC/the Friends of Science to put
us straight!



Kill CO2 regulations

Tom Harris
National Post
Thu, 6 Oct 2011
English
1156 words
(c) 2011 National Post . All Rights Reserved.

The annual Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change must be intimidating events for
Canadian environment ministers. Year after year they are expected to
present Canada's "green credentials" to appease international
eco-critics.

In the fall of 2010, the Harper government pledged $400-million to
fulfill our Copenhagen Accord "commitments." We had no legal obligation
to do this, but it gave then environment minister John Baird something
to boast about at the Cancun COP summit in December.

This year Environment Minister Peter Kent will have something even more
expensive, and even less useful, to brag about: CO 2 regulations on
coal-fired electricity generation.

Every school child knows what CO 2 is. We breathe it out and plants
breathe it in
. It is odourless, invisible and an essential reactant in
photosynthesis, on which all life depends. Increases in atmospheric CO2
levels have enhanced agricultural productivity across the world,
allowing crops to grow in areas that are otherwise too dry.

Yet, for the past six years, the Canadian government has included CO2
in its "List o Toxic Substances" in Schedule 1 of the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act (CEPA)

Environment Canada tells us that CEPA is "aimed at preventing pollution
and protecting the environment and human health." So, what is CO 2 doing
on CEPA's toxins and pollutants list, which includes PCBs, mercury,
asbestos, lead and sulphur dioxide? The CEPA Web page gives the
startling answer: "This substance is not classified as toxic, but
remains managed under Schedule 1 of CEPA . in order to enable the
government the use of a variety of preventive or control actions."

During their last days as Canada's Official Opposition in late 2005, the
Conservatives fought bitterly against this obvious abuse of process.
Even several key Liberals, including Alan Tonks, MP, then chairman of
the Commons committee on environment and sustainable development, said
they were uncomfortable using an antipollution law to regulate CO 2 .

Testifying before the committee, University of Guelph professor of
economics Ross McKitrick said, "That proposal . runs the risk of
bringing CEPA itself into disrepute by enshrining something obviously
untrue into it.. I can't imagine it was ever in the minds of the people
who wrote that section, that it would be used to cover anything like
carbon dioxide."

Nevertheless, as one of its last acts in power, the Liberal government
added CO 2 to the list of toxins covered by CEPA.

You would expect that the new Harper Conservative government would have
quickly removed CO 2 from CEPA. Even a minority government can add or
remove substances from Schedule 1 of CEPA simply by a decision of the
Cabinet.

Instead, it left CO 2 in CEPA like a time bomb ready to prop up future
regulations.

Fast forward to 2011. The Conservatives have a majority government. The
opposition is in disarray. Canadians are less interested in the
environment than they have been in decades. Will the Conservative
government finally remove CO 2 CEPA? from

Not a chance. Instead they are now using CEPA as the statutory authority
to create new CO 2 regulations.

First it was CO 2 rules on new cars and light trucks. Then there were
Regulations for Renewable Fuel Content in Gasoline. Then it was
heavy-duty-vehicle CO 2 emissions control. Next, we'll address ways to
get a number of heavy industries to reduce their emissions," Kent told
the Senate committee on energy, the environment and natural resources on
Tuesday. The government's new plan will "phase out the use of dirty coal
to generate electricity in Canada."

Power companies fear that these rules will reduce the reliability of the
electricity system while increasing costs in regions that depend largely
on coal-fired power and removing coal-fired electricity as an affordable
option in the future.

Besides its flawed legal foundation, the CO 2 /coal-station regulations
are riddled with serious mistakes and misrepresentations. For example,
the second sentence in the regulations states: "The most significant
sources of GHG emissions are anthropogenic, mostly as a result of
combustion of fossil fuels."

Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics at the University of
Connecticut, responds: "This is either incredibly ignorant or an
out-and-out lie. Combustion of fossil fuels is responsible for about
3.5% of all CO 2 emissions. Is that their idea of "mostly"?"

Kent implies that the new CO 2 /coal regulations are largely about
pollution reduction and clean air, saying in his speech on Aug. 19 that
the proposed rules "will - literally - let all Canadians breathe easier.
Our government understands Canadians' concerns around the quality of the
air we breathe."

But the government's own analysis, as laid out in the proposed
regulations, shows that there will be negligible, in fact immeasurable,
"air-quality improvements experienced by typical residents" of Canada by
2030. Specifically, fine-particulate-matter pollution is forecast to
drop by 0.21% and ground-level ozone by 0.09% for the country as a
whole.

The forecast pollution reduction, according to government modelling,
yields health benefits from reduced smog exposure of $1.4-billion. This
is highly speculative and ignores the fact that, below certain levels,
pollution often has no impact on health whatsoever. Regardless,
practically all of the regulations' supposed benefit of $1.5billion net
present value - the net between the benefits and the cost - is accounted
for by these alleged health benefits.

The Harper government should remove CO 2 from the list of toxins
regulated under CEPA. Doing this would immediately nullify all CO 2
regulations that use CEPA as the statutory authority.

U.S. President Barack Obama's recent rejection of Environmental
Protection Agency ozone rules suggests that the United States will not
be as aggressive on CO 2 reductions as originally feared. Since Canada's
environmental policy is largely driven by a need to be consistent with
the Americans, our government must immediately stop creating new
greenhouse-gas regulations, at least until the situation in the United
States becomes clear. Otherwise, we will be stuck with economically
damaging CO 2 rules that are scientifically unfounded and probably
politically unnecessary as well.

In his Senate testimony, Kent supported the fantasy that humanity could
limit the Earth's temperature rise to "meet the two-degree target set
out in the Cancun Agreement," adding: "In the case of climate change,
our goal remains to have a new international regime that includes all
major emitters and which will take concrete actions to limit global
warming."

Instead of such unrealistic pronouncements, Kent needs to tell the truth
at the UN COP meeting in December: Carbon dioxide is not pollution and
an unbiased assessment of the science indicates that the climatic impact
of our greenhouse-gas emissions is simply unknown. Canada can no longer
afford to waste billions simply to appease irrational campaigners at
international climate conferences.

Schweinsgruber says: If CO2, in ANY concentration, is so harmless as Tom Harris wants to make us believe, why doesn't he give us a demonstration: he sits in his car, doors and windows shut, and CO2 is being introduced steadily. This would solve a big problem.