Subscribe to RSSJindal wants carbon bucks but bucks carbon regs.
Editor’s note: Louisiana journalists have been doing yeoman coastal work lately. Below you can link to two newspaper articles that capture an exquisite political corner into which Louisiana elected officials are haplessly painting themselves. This corner is reserved for hypocrites of the highest order.
First, Cain Burdeau wrote an important coastal story for A/P on September 22 in which he describes a newly-announced plan supported by Garret Graves with Governor Jindal’s coastal office. The concept is to supplement the funding of restoration projects by selling carbon dioxide (CO2) credits to industrial polluters. The projects would presumably act beneficially as a sink for some of the CO2.
Burdeau’s article is noteworthy in that he infers an acknowledgment by Louisiana’s conservative governor that climate change is real and a serious threat to south Louisiana. This inference is clearly misplaced, as shown by this direct quote from Kyle Plotkin, Jindal’s press secretary:*
“Governor Jindal has made it clear he believes that the House passed cap and trade bill punishes the American energy industry and that’s the last thing we need to do when we are trying to become more energy independent. The legislation will make it harder to create new manufacturing jobs in the US, and the Governor opposes it.”
Second, an article by Jonathan Tilove in the September 24 Times-Picayune describes a September 23 meeting at the US Capitol. Coastal advocates assembled to try to convince Congress that: (1) restoring the Louisiana coast is in the national interest; and (2) anthropogenic climate change is jeopardizing restoration. Meanwhile David Vitter was upstairs drafting amendments to impede CO2 regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
I strongly recommend reading both articles.
Carbon cap-and-trade system
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently declared carbon dioxide (CO2) an air pollutant that is threatening public health and safety and therefore subject to regulatory control.** Rising public concern over climate change, a federal administration that respects science – and the threat of regulation on industry – have stimulated congressional action to use carrots rather than sticks to reduce America’s 25% contribution to global atmospheric CO2 levels.
The fundamental element of this legislation is a carbon cap-and-trade concept. Cap-and-trade is modeled after the free market solution conceived during the eighties by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). This highly successful legislation to reduce atmospheric sulfur dioxide (SO2) was signed into law in 1990 by Bush 41.
In June 2009 the House of Representatives passed its version of a carbon cap-and-trade bill (Waxman-Markey) that now faces a serious challenge in the Senate. Energy industry opposition to carbon cap-and-trade legislation has presumably influenced serious objections to the concept from every member of the Louisiana delegation, except for Congressman Cao.
Cap-and-trade creates a carbon market with a cash incentive to produce less CO2 and a penalty for producing more. A heavy CO2 producer can purchase pollution credits from an enterprise capable of storing carbon, such as a landowner willing to plant trees.
Cap-and-trade requires the establishment of two metrics: (1) a ceiling (cap) on total national CO2 production; and (2) a dollar value for every ton of fossil fuel-based CO2 produced. The former is based on allocating CO2 emission levels among major economic sectors. The latter represents the public cost of the release of a ton of CO2, or conversely the public benefit of sequestering it. Specific enumeration of each metric will no doubt generate intensive and extensive discussion.
Establishing a cash value for CO2
I decided to attempt to bracket the range of estimates for the cost/value of capturing and storing a single ton of CO2. On the basis of a very cursory review, the high side of this cost/value may be approximately $150/tCO2. This figure was reported in a July 2009 article in Climate Progress that reviews a 2008 Harvard study of a carbon capture and storage process (CCS) in a coal-fired power plant, using currently available technology. According to the study, CSS would double the cost of coal-fired electrical generation (from $0.10 to $0.20/kwh).
The low end of the cost/value of CO2 seems to be about $10/tCO2. A web-based calculator for estimating ones personal carbon footprint suggests that the average American directly and indirectly generates ~25 tons of CO2/year. The authors of this site use $10/ton ($250/year) as the dollar amount that should be invested annually by each American to offset this carbon footprint, e.g., for planting trees. By this estimate, the current population of 310 million Americans could neutralize its carbon footprint by investing $77.5 billion per year for the permanent storage of CO2. Note that this figure is miniscule when compared with the 2008 US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $14.26 trillion.
Carbon storage in Louisiana coastal wetlands
The premises of the CO2 trading concept that the governor’s office is promoting are that: (1) Louisiana coastal wetlands are a sink for CO2; (2) the money spent to restore Louisiana coastal wetlands represents an investment in CO2 storage that could be sold to CO2 emitters, thus offsetting an unknown but possibly significant portion of the restoration cost.
Louisiana coastal wetland ecosystems are reported capable of storing and sequestering ~230 g C m-2 yr-1. Because the carbon atom represents 27.3% of the molecular weight of CO2, a square meter of coastal wetland would store ~843 gCO2 yr-1. If my arithmetic is correct there are 4,124 square meters in an acre. To complete this calculation, 843 gCO2/m2 yr-1 would equal ~3.4 million gCO2/acre yr-1, which converts to ~85,500 lbs, or ~43 tons CO2/acre yr-1.
Finally, if my numbers are correct, based on the wide range of value from $10-$150/tCO2 captured, an acre of sustainably restored coastal wetland would capture 43 tons of CO2 every year, worth from $430 to $6,400 per acre, for a mean value of ~$3,400. At this rate, five hundred square miles restored would theoretically be worth ~$1 billion/year!
At this point, the idea of selling carbon credits for restored coastal wetlands is purely an academic exercise. The Louisiana delegation has recently been getting a spate of satirical publicity on TV and the internet. If this pattern continues Louisiana’s coastal message will be perceived nationally as a cynical attempt to game the climate change issue and we should expect another huge roadblock to what is beginning to resemble a lost coastal cause.
Len Bahr
*Kindly sent by a friend and former staffer at the LouisianaDepartment of Natural Resources.
**Just as I got ready to press the “publish” button, Don Boesch sent me this article from The Washington Post, which spotlights a familiar name in south Louisiana, H. Leighton Steward, former CEO of the Louisiana Land and Exploration Company (LLE). Steward is a co-author of the “Sugar Busters!” dieting books, and (ironically) the winner of an EPA award for a report on damage being done to Mississippi wetlands. This colorful man, who has no science background, has taken the lead in attempts to discredit anthropogenic climate change, claiming that CO2 is the Earth’s best friend!
41 Comments
2009-11-02
03:55:25
A part of me wishes the Democrats (dumbocrats?) would pass their moronic cap and trade legislation. It would lead to their utter demise, but at the expense of the nation with them. Newsweek, which has become a liberal partisan rag, is actually trying to clue in it's people. This thing is a disaster in the making, for the country and for the Democratic party which will go down in flames with it.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/220523
2009-11-03
07:08:15
Engstfeld-
If the Democrats actually succeed in passing energy legislation that ultimately reduces American CO2 emissions it will reflect the respect for science that characterizes the Obama administration. In a country in which an alarmingly high proportion of its citizens think that the sun revolves around the earth and that the 14 billion year old universe was created in six days, that will be a truly extraordinary achievement.
You and your fellow Luddites should pick up a copy of R. Crumb's new illustrated depiction of the book of Genesis: http://www.amazon.com/Book-Genesis-Illustrated-R-Crumb/dp/0393061027.
2009-10-01
15:13:40
Such is the purpose of life- to keep people laughing......
All the way to the bank......
With carbon credits.....
Round and round she goes; where she stops nobody knows.....
2009-10-11
08:42:42
HH,after all this discourse, it's pretty clear that your mind is closed or overcome by laughing gas (another naturally occurring greenhouse gas). But, for those LaCoastPost readers who really want to understand how we know that the increase of carbon dioxide is causing global warming, here is an excellent scientific explanation http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html
Contrast that to the nonsense of Leighton Steward's "CO2 is Green Campaign" which argues that we need to increase CO2 concentrations by 300 ppm to fertilize crops and feed the world. For a serious analysis on the combined effects of CO2 increases accompanied by warming on U.S. agriculture see Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States www.globalchange.gov
2009-09-30
20:47:23
The Baltimore Sun link above contained this quote as a comment:
"This isn't great science, it isn't even good science. It's debatable whether this is science at all. It sounds like a complete waste of time and money."
Sums things up pretty well......
Thanks for the link Don.....
2009-10-01
14:27:59
This are the last electrons I'll waste responding to HH's logic just to put this quote in correct context: It was a reader comment added to the web site (not part of the actual article)and said reader wrote in the same comment that there is no way marshes can be submerged by rising sea level since "The rate of plant growth is fast (inches per year) while the rate of sea level rise is slow (mm per year)". Tough to argue with logic like that, lol!
2009-09-30
19:51:58
So how does this relate to "Carbon Dioxide," that is the question????
Carbon Dioxide is the debate here, not what we flush down the toilet....
2009-09-30
10:37:42
Nutrients and metabolism is great, but the core question I asked remains "is Carbon Dioxide really a POLLUTANT???"
I'm sure it can be conveniently labeled as such depending upon the agenda at hand.
But we all keep exhaling a pollutant; so we are all polluters....
2009-09-30
10:59:15
HeidiHoe:
One last time, hoping that you're not completely unable to comprehend an argument. We keep producing, (how shall I put it?), human waste. Do you wish to argue that what we flush down our toilets is not a polutant when discharged into the water we drink? If we just declare it isn't a pollutant because it is a natural human byproduct, that would certainly obviate the need to spend billions annually on sewage treatment.
David Muth
New Orleans
2009-09-28
21:09:52
HeidiHoe,
Phosphorus and nitrogen are both essential nutrients as well as eutrophying pollutants in large quantities in aquatic systems.
Phosphorus and nitrogen are part of every scrap of protein that you eat, and also are a large part of what your body excretes, yet they can be pollutants.
Come now, I'm sure you understand how nutrients and metabolism work.
2009-09-28
18:52:48
Guys, one of the cardinal rules of human relations is that not only does positive reinforcement work better than negative reinforcement, but that using negative reinforcement when someone does something you have been asking them to do is, well, counterproductive.
So, the State commits to looking into a program that could both fund wetlands restoration and take carbon out of the air, and the response is to criticize and attack. What's the goal?
On specifics, first, something to consider is that there is currently a voluntary market for carbon offsets. While there is no cap on emissions, which is a major problem, this doesn't stop people and companies from investing in wetlands restoration (or other land use practices or technologies) that will reduce greenhouse gas concentrations.
Second, there is no question that you have to prove additionality to have a carbon credit certified. Would those wetlands have been restored without the project? To overuse a statistic, we do know that we lost another football field's worth while reading this post, so we can all do the math.
Third, David's question about landowners is spot on and a major issue that the program development will address. But, we do know that there is very little that wetlands landowners can do to restore their wetlands (as opposed, perhaps, to slowing their degradation). Only the State and the federal government can do this by using the resources of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers. And, if the state and the feds are not able to act then the landowners will loose everything. So, again, we all need to do the math and then act accordingly.
Best to friends like Len and all the coastal advocates out there, we'll get there somehow.
Paul
2009-09-28
23:33:03
David and Paul-
You both describe a classic issue - spending public money to save private landscape has been discussed since at least 1992 when Breaux Act $$ started to flow.
My impression is that the legislation passed around 1998 allowed landowners to negotiate for subsurface mineral rights, in return for allowing surface projects to proceed. On the other hand multiple owners make for endless real estate problems.
I would guess that ~$640 million has been spent on the restoration program from 1992-2008 ($40 million/year). Of that, I would bet that < than 1/3 has been spent on actual construction - let's say $200 million. If coastal wetlands are 80% privately owned that would equal ~$160 million of public money spent so far to restore private land.
I know that a proposal to establish a public trust to manage the entire surface has been floated but I don't know where it stands. Given the current political climate it sounds pretty radical. Buyouts are another possibility.
This entire complicated subject deserves a guest post, perhaps by Sea Grant Legal?
2009-09-30
15:34:11
Yes, the ownership and management of lands that are acquired (or should be acquired) or that are re/created by coastal restoration and protection projects is an important issue for the taxpayers, not just Louisiana taxpayers, who are footing the bill for them. That consideration should be on the table in the negotiation of every restoration & protection project, with the public's interest firmly represented. The Louisiana Wildlife Federation has advocated for a state coastal land trust or another appropriately-structured public management entity to accept and provide for the management of properties that become available through the coastal protection & restoration program. Some have advocated for a private land trust to accomplish this, though, despite the jaundiced view some may have of state managemet, public $ = public management as far as we are concerned. One vehicle to do this was adopted by the Legislature last year:http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=503704
2009-09-29
07:03:17
Good points, Paul, I agree that this opportunity should be pursued for the reasons you mentioned. However, as a practical matter I am sure you realize from your DC vantage point that an initiative to secure funding for carbon sequestration from wetland restoration will be met with some skepticism if it is not accompanied by equal commitment by Louisiana political leaders to reduce CO2 emissions. Unless these emissions are greatly reduced and soon (we just can't sequester our way out of this crisis), there is a high probability of accelerated sea level rise and therefore a low probability that the wetland carbon will be sequestered long enough to secure assurance of permanence.
At the risk of further inciting HeidiHo about the benefits of CO2, Lacoastpost readers might be interested in this Baltimore Sun article on the relationships of CO2 to marsh plant growth
http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/green/bal-md.gr.climate26sep29,0,5893905.story
2009-09-29
07:19:09
I second Len's suggestion about some news on where land rights issues stand. The hard thing about coastal restoration is not the decision to do it, but putting all the pieces together.
Don, I agree with you on the vulnerability of Louisiana to climate change, and that there are many in DC and elsewhere looking for leadership from Louisiana. And, frankly, there is some out there. Oh, and certainly we won't come anywhere near to sequestering our way out of climate change -- we have to cut back on the greenhouse gasses we put into the atmosphere. But, my point is that our role, if we want to be successful coastal restoration advocates, is to encourage engagement on the issue. Here the State is stepping forward and we're negative. I don't mean to harp on Len's post, it's for some reason normal human behavior to make the perfect the enemy of the good and many had this same reaction. But, it's not the best political strategy and a good opportunity for all of us to reflect. Support the good steps, even challenge our officials to think more broadly, but keep the criticism for when we disapprove of the actual actions.
2009-09-29
07:49:29
Paul-
I agree with your point about reinforcing with praise positive state coastal policy decisions. Garret Graves told me Monday evening at a coastal meeting sponsored by the League of Women Voters in St Tammany Parish that the Louisiana Department of Economic Development is now represented on the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) by Paul Sawyer, long term aide to former Congressman Richard Baker. This is good news in terms of exploring partnership opportunities for riverside projects under consideration, such as a 4,000 acre purchase by the Nucor Corporation in St. James Parish for a possible pig iron plant (see Gary Perrilloux's article http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/62492312.html).
A new river management paradigm will depend on such partnerships.
2009-09-29
09:15:48
Paul, I'm not at all negative about pursuing the wetland carbon credit idea. I'm just trying to tell my home staters that to be successful in this pursuit they need also to be prepared to address the full challenge of climate change mitigation and adaptation, not just the parts they like. It's hard for me to see how this works without that.
2009-09-30
15:41:04
Don, I agree, Louisiana's duplicity (thus far) on climate change should not be condoned.
2009-10-01
15:33:55
I'm not being "negative" just for the sake of argument, but would like us to be objective and make decisions based on sound science. This is a corollary to Don's comments about addressing "the full challenge". This is a complex problem where we don't yet fully understand the consequences of multiple and simultaneous actions, much less the risks.
I see a rush to embrace carbon sequestration because it appears to be a solution which is basically pain-free to individuals and has other desirable benefits(e.g., funding coastal restoration). Very attractive. Added to this mix are special interests and the lure of large amounts of fast money in enterprises that have an unknown probability of delivering the goods over the next 50-100 years. Sorry if this is negative, but this scenario has been played out many times and I believe these are legitimate concerns.
2009-09-28
15:36:42
I'm not sure I agree with spf that restoration should not qualify because restoration projects "would happen anyway". Would that it were so. Grabbing carbon credits is an attempt to make it workable economically.
But spf raises a point I've been meaning to raise--who will own the credits? Will landowners claim them? Which brings us back to the elephant in the room--who will own the fruits of restoration?
2009-09-28
11:49:38
Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman wrote this column on climate change for the September 28 NY Times www.lacoastpost.com/blog/wp-admin/admin.php in which he says that economic modelers are reducing their estimates for the cost of offsetting CO2 emissions. This is good news but unfortunately he doesn't provide a cost per ton of CO2 prevented or sequestered.
2009-09-28
07:42:27
on September 27 well known Louisiana climatologist Jay Grymes posted the following comment on a post from June 26, where few readers would see it. I took the liberty of copying it here:
Hi, Len & LACoastPost –
Thanks for being a practicing proponent in the use of the term “climate change” over the popular buzz of “global warming” in your LACoast posts.
While many may debate how we ‘quantify’ the human contribution to recent climate change (or IF we can ‘quantify’ it, for that matter), it is crucial that we re-train ourselves (including the media) and move away from the myopic perspective that rising temperature is the element of primary concern. Lessons over recent decades shows that the Bayou State is likely more threatened — at least in the coming decades — by factors other than a warming of even a few degrees (locally).
Most of us realize this, but an occasional reminder is a good thing.
Climate variability and change are not symptoms of warming … if anything, it is (better said, “it may be”) the other way around.
Changing temperatures — regionally, globally — are a product of changes in the larger-scale, multi-faceted climatic patterns. Focusing solely on temperature in the climate science discussion is akin to assessing your personal state of health by only checking your pulse.
In the last 30 years, Louisiana has experienced some of its wettest years of record (1980s into the mid 1990s) and one of the most severe droughts in a century or more. Dramatic changes in the state’s hydrology have left their marks in the coastal zone (ex., the “Brown Marsh” phenomenon during the 1998-2001 drought). For the nation’s “wettest” state, per capita flood losses are among the highest in the country, yet at the other extreme, drought impacts are evidenced by reduction in water quality for rivers, bayous and lakes, difficult challenges for the agriculture and forestry sector, and can even cripple water supplies for smaller communities.
And no one can question the abnormally high frequency of tropical weather impacts we’ve endured in the past 10 years, arguably Louisiana’s most active decade in more than two centuries.
Many experts suggest that increased variability in climatic and meteorological extremes may be the most notable signature of climate change, at least over the next 20-50 years.
Whether it is “Mother Nature,” “Father Sapiens,” … or the combination … thank you for subtly reminding your readers to think (and monitor) the big picture and not just watch the thermometer.
Jay Grymes
Former LA State Climatologist
Past President, American Assoc of State Climatologists
WAFB Chief Meteorologist
2009-09-28
07:30:35
With respect to the cost/value of carbon trading to slow down climate change the September 24 NY Times carries a story by John Tierney (http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/scrubbing-the-atmosphere/?ref=science) about a new study in Science that advocates more research on scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere. The story says that substituting solar voltaic electricity for coal-generated electricity would cost a whopping $500 for each ton of CO2 offset!
2009-09-27
15:18:48
Interesting that one of Len's linked sites above (CarbonFund.Org) mentions that methane is 23 TIMES MORE POTENT (whatever than means) than Carbon Dioxide.
Maybe thats the carbon critter culprit (CCC) worth pursuing.
Oh for the good olde days when CCC meant something simpler.....
2009-09-27
08:17:05
Don and Len- I didn't bring Sen Ihnofe into this present discourse; as well as the 'climate change denier' thing. I'll leave that discussion to you all.
Exactly why is Carbon Dioxide being labeled a pollutant???? Global warming??? Climate change??? Exactly what????
I don't think "correlation" is necessarily "causation" and my guess is that is what is going on here. A convenient culprit has been found and now a few bucks can be made and control perhaps exerted.
I also think it quite interestingly strange that a substance which is part of the respiration and photosynthetic process is now labeled a "pollutant."
I think that this is something to ponder as one quaffs the next soda pop. Wonder why those things fizz anyway????
I'm sure they next will have a "pollutant tax" placed on them to help things out a bit.
2009-09-26
08:42:00
I think it all boils down for another way to "control the flock" as well as to further "fleece the flock."
Us flock of sheeples that is.
Since CO2 is part of our daily life process I'm sure this will be easy to do on a wide scale.
Very creative.
2009-09-26
09:39:15
Heidihoe-
Speaking of gullibility and flocks of sheep, pull up this video of Sen. James Inhofe from Oklahoma speaking on Cspan. Inhofe, God bless him, is the godfather of climate change deniers. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/25/inhofe-god-cycles/
2009-09-27
06:58:33
HeidiHoe,
You're just not willing to listen, I guess, preferring Sen. Ihnofe as your personal shepherd rather than the overwhelming science.
2009-09-26
08:09:30
I don't know how many readers come back to these comments, so I hope you will do a follow up that will make your readers aware of the more substantive issues in this discussion rather than leaving them with the impression that this is a win-win to get a lot of money if not for the *^*^&%&%*& in power. While too complicated to debate in this comment section(Richard's comment on permanence is spot-on), I'm a firm believer that none of this should qualify for carbon credits because it is not "additional". In simple terms, this means that the carbon benefits of these projects would happen anyway, so let's spend the dollars on real additional solutions that will have greater impact on atmospheric CO2.
Simplistic summary and I will pre-empt the obvious criticism that these projects won't happen without this cash to create the state match with this: if it is that important to national carbon mitigation then re-write the match rules and use the tens of billions of new off-shore royalties for the whole project.
While I believe the problem is real and there are real gains to be made on the sequestration side, my skepticism of all of these schemes is bolstered by
1) the enormity and complexity of what we are actually trying to accomplish - stabilize atmospheric CO2 until we can re-tool our energy sources and reduce emissions
2) we probably don't know enough to predict how much carbon will actually be stored by these projects over the next 50-100 years
3) even if we attain the maximum amount of this kind of carbon storage, we still have a huge emissions surplus that is the real key to reducing atmospheric CO2, and
4) the primary purpose of capitalism and free markets is to make money and objectives like restoring ecosystems and storing carbon are secondary. As we know (and feel) all too well right now, it is a system that is easily manipulated for the benefit of a select few at the expense of many.
However, free markets are still better than anything else humans have come up with, but we need to be aware and objective and realistic about actual outcomes. The fact that people who don't even believe climate change is a real problem want to cash in on this should be one red flag. If they don't think it is a problem, then I can't believe they really care whether additional carbon is stored or not; that's not their goal.
Our fatal flaw as both individuals and a species is our ability to rationalize away likely bad consequences and pretend the world is as we wish it to be, even when we know in our gut it is too good to be true.
One last question that I haven't heard mentioned in these discussions is how much of those hypothetical 500 restored square miles belong to the state vs. private landowners. Who would actually own those credits?
2009-09-26
09:55:26
spf-
Your comments are provocative and "followup-worthy." This post was probably too ambitious, in terms of describing two important but separate issues: political hypocrisy and carbon sequestration. The responses deal only with the second topic.
Anyhow, I will do a followup and deal with some of the issues you raise (or I'd entertain publishing a guest post).
2009-09-25
17:47:43
Somehow I don't think I'll be ingesting too much carbon monoxide and ammonia on a regular basis.
My point is that Carbon Dioxide is a bit more of a part of things living though being a part of respiration and photosynthesis. I again do think it quite a stretch of the imagination to name it as a "pollutant."
But again I'm sure there is a bit more to all this than meets the eye. Some might call it "hidden agendas" I believe.
I'm sure to some that "di-hydrogen monoxide" is quite evil stuff; it can kill people in the right situations. To others, its just plain H2O; AKA water.
Will be interesting to look back on this all in 100 years......
I'm sure some groups even then will still be laughing as they count their dinero gained through the process of naming Carbon Dioxide as a "pollutant" as they sit and drink their "carbonated water...."
We are such gullible creatures; but a fool and his money are easily parted as they say.....
This is one of those "gullible" situations that I personally just don't buy into. Sorry about that......
2009-09-26
07:32:55
Like carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, ammonia and water are all produced and consumed by natural metabolic processes--it's the concentrations that matter. You can die breathing in too much of any of these four four compounds, although at different concentrations, for sure.
But all this is beside the point, which is that, according to Merriam-Webster pollution is "the introduction of contaminants into an environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem, i.e. physical systems or living organisms," including, but not limited to humans. Think, for example, of the pollutants that deplete the oxygen supply needed by fish in lakes and rivers or contaminate the air to the point of killing forests.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has increased by about 35% as a result of emissions from human activities since industrialization and is now the highest is has been in 800,000 years (and probably a lot longer)--far longer than the the human species has been on the planet. Scientific evidence is unequivocal that this increase in CO2 is already changing the climate in deleterious ways, directly acidifying the oceans, and, if the 2% per year increase in atmospheric concentrations is not abated very soon, will cause a meltdown of polar ice that will inundate most of South Louisiana south of I-10 if not during this century, then very likely the next.
What's not a pollutant about that? Who's gullible?
Learn more about the science behind this and consequences for the U.S. by reading Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, available at www.globalchange.gov. BTW, this report was commissioned by and largely completed during the Bush Administration.
2009-09-25
15:42:30
I personally think naming Carbon Dioxide as a "pollutant" is a bit of a stretch.
Its one of those things that I wish I could look back on in 100 years and see where it all would lead to.
I'm sure there is a "bigger picture" here than just what meets the eye. And I'm sure little bugs like me will never be privy to this information.
But it is good to know that every day we exhale and plants inhale a "pollutant."
Not to mention all those carbonated drinks that people consume.......
Again, I'm sure a lot of people are laughing all the way to the bank on this one....
2009-09-25
16:20:26
Among the other naturally occurring gases regulated as pollutants: carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, and ozone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution
Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions are “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act.
2009-09-25
11:02:11
This is a real toughie!!!!
An "air pollutant" being part of the respiration process and photosynthesis.
But I'm sure there are $$$ to be made here and someone is laughing all the way to the bank.....
2009-09-25
13:22:00
Heidihoe-
Virtually any substance can be harmful to living things beyond the concentration to which ecosystems have evolved and adapted to it. Biologists, including the late Rachel Carson, have long understood that virtually all stable elements listed on the Periodic Table, and compounds formed by combinations of these elements, occurs at some concentration in sea water, in soils, in geological formations or in the atmosphere. That doesn't mean that they are pollutants at their typical concentrations.
Free oxygen was first released into the world ocean two billion years ago as a byproduct of photosynthesis. The entire biosphere changed dramatically as a result and the stage was set for the Cambrian explosion over 1.5 billion years later. I don't think of the primordial oxygen release as pollution, however. "Pollution" is a powerful term that loses all of its meaning when it is purposely misused by people with a political agenda, like climate change deniers such as H. Leighton Steward, who I cited in this post.
I think of pollution as the active release of byproducts of human cultural activities beyond their background levels. This excludes the passive release of metabolites, including the carbon dioxide resulting from biological respiration. On the other hand it definitely includes the massive release of CO2 since we began changing the global atmosphere and the world ocean by burning coal and later petroleum to fuel the industrial revolution.
2009-09-25
10:37:27
Yes, Len, this is Louisiana, on the fence with our hands out and open for help on both sides. That's a great strategy as long as it works. Last April, the Louisiana Wildlife Federation and 11 other organizations submitted a draft Executive Order on climate change to Governor Jindal for his consideration. Since it was not hand-delived to his person, we have no way of knowing if the Governor ever saw this very conservative and reasonable directive (posted at http://www.lawildlifefed.org/newsPDFs/Draft%20EO.pdf). We continue to urge the Governor's consideration.
You may have noticed that dozens of bills were filed during the past legislative session to provide incentives for energy efficiency, use of renewable sources, putting CO2 back in the ground, etc., and Garret Graves pitched the carbon sequestration idea for raising $ to the natural resources committees in his presentation of the state's annual CP&R plan. Yet, other than when provoked by an HCR attenpting to establish a climate change commission, there was no public discussion of the topic of climate change among legislators down at the capitol, and even then, there was no acknowledgement of it. We don't have ostriches in Louisiana, or do we?
2009-09-25
09:32:05
Assuming federal climate legislation results in a strong market for CO2 offset credits, the potential to capture some of the value from carbon sequestered through coastal restoration efforts is certainly great. However, the annual sequestration rate provided by Len needs to be tempered somewhat. Any certification program, such as Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS)or Climate Action Reserve (CAR)require a relatively high degree of permanance assurance. Gross sequestration figures must be "buffered" as a means to guard against future loss. How do we buffer coastal restoration projects to provide for a minimum persistence period of 50-100 years that most certification programs require? All one has to do is examine the impact of Katrina on wetlands created by the Caernarvon diversion to get some idea about the scale of the required buffer. That said, there is certainly every reason to pursue this idea...we need all the money we can get.
2009-09-25
10:08:22
Richard-
Your point on sustainability is very well taken and based on the recent work by Blum and Roberts I don't harbor any delusions about the state of our coast 50 years hence, let alone 100. On the other hand, I would question the credibility of any process that would claim to "certify" a 50 year persistence horizon for environmental restoration.
2009-09-25
07:58:09
Great post Len!!!
2009-09-25
10:03:17
Thanks, Casey. Hope you're doing well.