Weather Channel Co-Founder John Coleman: EPA’s climate regs ‘drive me nuts’ – ‘Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant’

Blog for Monday, June 2nd

By Meteorologist John Coleman

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at the direction of President Barack Obama will propose cutting the carbon dioxide (“greenhouse-gas”) emissions from the nation’s power plants by an average of 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030 today (according to all advance information flowing out of Washington DC). This represents one of the boldest steps the U.S. has taken to fight global warming/climate change.

Saturday the President signaled both the importance of the rule to his legacy on environmental protection and the bruising fight ahead by joining a conference call with congressional Democrats, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and White House counselor John Podesta to rally support.

Obama dismissed complaints that the rule will hurt the economy by driving up electricity prices, and told the Democrats listening: “Please go on offense” to promote the plan’s benefits. The president suggested that rather than having an adverse effect on the economy — as critics say — his rule to limit carbon pollution will boost the economy by $43 billion to $74 billion.

The proposed regulation will permit states to achieve the reductions in climate-warming pollutants by promoting renewable energy, encouraging greater use of natural gas, embracing energy efficiency technologies or joining carbon trading markets.

The 30 percent reduction represents an average. Individual states may be directed to cut carbon emissions at levels that are greater or less than that overall figure.

I am certain you know by now that this action “drives me nuts”. Here’s why:

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. It is naturally occurring trace gas in the atmosphere that is essential to life on Earth. A living creatures emit CO2 when we breath out. All flora (from vegetables to weeds to trees) must have CO2 for photosynthesis. It is invisible, and odorless.

  1. Carbon Dioxide is not a significant greenhouse gas. It does result in slight warming of the atmosphere but because it is only a trace gas the impact is totally insignificant. The theory that CO2 is a super greenhouse gas that triggers radiative forcing through interaction with water vapor to cause highly significant warming has totally failed to verify and has been totally debunked by many well qualified scientists.
  2. Even if the United States reduces its emissions of CO2 it will have little or no impact since developing nations, particularly in Asia, are greatly increasing their emissions of CO2.

The president’s plan will destroy jobs and raise costs for families across America, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said in a statement Sunday. And, he said he will introduce legislation to block the emissions rules.

The proposal may be Obama’s last best chance at strengthening his position with environmentalists who were disappointed in his failure in his first term to create a cap-and-trade system for limiting carbon emissions.

It will also give him evidence of America leading by example as he tries to persuade other nations to cut back on their carbon emissions.

The EPA is counting on coal plants being operated more efficiently and states shifting to natural gas from coal to get modest cuts in the next four or five years.

The President thinks his plan will “boost the economy by $43 billion to $74 billion”. His opponents say he’s living in a fantasy world.

These rules threaten to suppress average annual U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $51 billion and lead to an average of 224,000 fewer U.S. jobs every year through 2030, relative to baseline economic forecasts.

And this action threatens to lead to an average of 224,000 fewer U.S. jobs every year through 2030, relative to baseline economic forecasts.

Fossil fuel-fired power stations comprise almost 75% of the generating capacity and nearly 66% of the electricity generated in the United States.

Here’s the bottom line: This Policy Case will cause U.S. consumers to pay nearly $290 billion more for electricity between 2014 and 2030.

And it appears the entire debate is now political, not about the bad science.



4 Responses

  1. “It does result in slight warming of the atmosphere …”

    John Coleman,
    I take a great deal of issue with this statement. This is patently false. CO2 provides, and/or causes, exactly ZERO additional warming of the atmosphere. This has been empirically demonstrated. As a matter of empirical FACT, CO2 aides in the cooling of our atmosphere. Please John Coleman, learn a little bit of elementary physics and especially pay close attention to the Laws of Thermodynamics.

    Thank you.

  2. Both carbon dioxide and water vapor cool our planet. No scientists on the earth anymore I guess. The IPCC use one-half of the mass and energy balance, the atmosphere reflects more energy back to outer space from the sun than is reflected from the atmosphere back to earth. I guess they don’t know where our energy comes from. Go outside on a sunshiny day and if a cloud goes overhead and shades you, you don’t feel warmer. Where has common sense gone to!

  3. When are the real scientists of the world going to wake up and call a halt to this insanity. Carbon dioxide is not and never will be an environmental threat. It is a fundamentall factor in the life we live . As CO2 increases so there is a biotic response by green plants and algae wherein they increase the absorption of CO2 in the photosynthesis process. This traps the gas converting it to biomass (simple sugars) and releases O2 as a byproduct, something we can’t live without.

    Dean Kelley, MS Environmental Management

Leave a Reply