WE NEED MORE CO2

This summer is only half over and already we have been treated to the film "Too Hot Not To Handle," Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," as well as the news that the Supreme Court will get involved in the question of whether carbon dioxide (CO2) should be considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In an attempt to reinforce the idea that CO2 is a pollutant, Gore and others often speak of "CO2 pollution" in the global atmosphere. Before you train yourself to add the "p" word to your CO2 vocabulary, consider the following very convenient facts about this rather important constituent of atmospheric chemistry:

1. CO2 comes from the Earth itself. The gas is produced naturally by hot spots in the crust that we see as volcanoes or fissures under the sea. The outgassing from the crust has occurred throughout the Earth's five billion year history and continues to this day. Had you visited the Earth 3.5 billion years ago, you would have found atmospheric concentrations of CO2 around 70,000 parts per million (ppm) as opposed to the current value near 378 ppm. Over most of the history of the Earth, CO2 levels were very much higher than the level we see today.

2. Obviously, something must have happened to reduce the levels of CO2 from the large values seen billions of years ago. As it turns out, CO2 combines with water in the atmosphere to form carbonic acid, and this naturally-occurring slightly acidic rainfall reacts chemically with silicates that make up the Earth's crust. At the timescale of billions of years, CO2 fluctuated enormously with changes in the temperature of the Earth (and the oceans), the amount of land surface exposed to weathering, and geological activity.

3. The CO2 story became even more complex as life evolved in the oceans. Creatures in the seas cleverly produced calcium carbonate shells from ions that were once floating around the atmosphere as CO2. As the shells rained to the seafloor bottom, the CO2 basically had been taken from the atmosphere and deposited as rock layers beneath the sea. Earth's ecosystem drew down the CO2 levels to a few thousand parts per million.

4. Around one half billion years ago, a new player emerged in the CO2 budget of the atmosphere. By that time, the ozone layer was sufficiently developed to block out much of the ultraviolet radiation from the Sun, and at long last, the vascular land plants spread throughout the Earth. In case you have forgotten your basic biology, plants survive via photosynthesis -- they are able to take CO2 from the atmosphere, build their mass, and release oxygen. You guessed it -- animals evolved to eat the plants, and gloriously, the animals breathe in oxygen and give out CO2.

5. Atmospheric CO2 continued to fluctuate, largely due to the changes in the temperature of the Earth. During glacial times, often forced by changes in the Earth's orbit, the oceans would hold more CO2, and the atmospheric levels of the gas would fall. During the most recent glaciation (the one that ended around 12,500 years ago), atmospheric CO2 levels dropped to under 200 ppm which is perilously close to the 100 ppm level below which plants would no longer be capable of photosynthesis and the global ecosystem would suffocate. If someone is concerned about dangerous levels of atmospheric CO2, going low is far more dangerous than going high! As the Earth warmed following the end of the most recent glaciation, atmospheric CO2 levels moved up to around 250 ppm.

6. In just the right circumstances (e.g., swamps with little oxygen in the water), plants can die but not decay. They can be buried by geological processes and ultimately form coal, oil, and natural gas. As fate would have it, there were many such swamps in the past, and many plants were converted into fossil fuels. Humans evolved, discovered the various fossil fuels, and burned them to produce energy. Industrialization hit the streets, humans enormously increased their burning of fossil fuels, and CO2 levels are up to around 387 ppm, and the concentrations are on the rise.

7. Plants all over the planet evolved when atmospheric CO2 levels were very much higher than what we have today. Literally thousands of biological experiments show that when atmospheric CO2 levels increase, plants grow faster, bigger, more resistant to any number of stresses, and far more water-use efficient. In many ways, plants must feel like they are going home to a world in which they evolved with CO2 levels up to ten times what we have today. In order to make CO2 more sinister, claims are made that ragweed and poison ivy will grow more vigorously in the future, and indeed they will. But so will every tree in the forest, grasses in our rangelands, and every agricultural crop.

There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and holding everything else constant, elevated CO2 will act to warm the Earth. But as we see in the CO2 story, the levels of this gas have fluctuated enormously over the history of the Earth, and the ecosystems of the planet have evolved to cope with these variations. To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. The Supreme Court ruling will be interesting, but Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant.

Source





GM CROPS USED TO MAKE CLOTHING

In a sneak peek of what could be fashion's future, leggy models draped in dresses by designers like Oscar de la Renta and Versace strut their stuff on the runway. But this is no Paris or New York fashion show. Rather, the scene is a Toronto biotechnology conference and the dresses are made from a new fiber called Ingeo, made largely from genetically engineered corn. The Biotechnology Industry Organization used the fashion statement last week to burnish its battered image as an environmental scourge.

Biotechnology is quietly playing a growing role in an apparel industry waking up to its customers' concerns about the environment and the country's reliance on the foreign oil used to make synthetic fabrics like polyester and nylon. But the trend is raising concerns among some environmental purists who oppose genetically engineered crops of any kind. "Ingeo still supports genetically engineered crops and we really view it as a slippery slope," said Jill Dumain of Ventura, Calif.-based Patagonia Inc., which pays a premium to use only organic cotton in its clothes. But other clothiers are developing biodegradable fabrics from natural fibers that have their start as genetically engineered crops.

Of course, cotton is still by far the most popular natural fiber. But chances are even the T-shirt you're wearing is made at least partly from genetically engineered crops. That's because 52 percent of cotton grown last year was genetically engineered with a bacteria gene to resist bugs without the need for pesticides, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Now, with more apparel manufacturers turning to Ingeo, more clothes on the rack will have gotten their start in a gene lab. Nearly half the nation's corn crops are genetically engineered to withstand sprayings of a popular weed killer.

NatureWorks LLC, the Nebraska company that turns corn into Ingeo, said it doesn't separate the genetically engineered crop from the conventionally grown crop that comes into its factory. So there's a good chance that just about every Ingeo product is derived, at least in part, from genetically engineered corn. "We think there is a tremendous future for it, particularly because the consumer world is starting to wake up and recognize that it makes sense to employ some of these different materials as an alternative to both energy and fabric," said Martin Dudziak, research director for Linda Loudermilk Inc., a designer making Ingeo clothes. Depending on how it's finally used, the fiber can feel like cotton or polyester. "It has all of the attributes of polyester," said Steve Davies of NatureWorks, "and is much more environmentally friendly."

Early next year, Linda Loudermilk will begin selling five different items, including jeans, made from Ingeo. Many other clothing companies, such as the sock maker Fox River Mills Inc. of Osage, Iowa, plan to follow suit.

Biotech's largely unseen hand in creating natural fibers has set off a debate among apparel makers who consider themselves environmentally sensitive. Many critics of agricultural biotechnology - from organic farmers to the Sierra Club - fear the engineered crops will co-mingle with conventionally grown plants. Others draw a distinction between genetic engineering in food crops and those used in fashion. "Would I prefer that the world was nothing but organic agriculture? Yes," said Leslie Hoffmann, director of the nonprofit environmental group Earth Pledge, which hosted the Toronto fashion show and staged a similar event in April at the biotechnology industry's annual convention in Chicago. "But on the other hand, (genetically engineered crops) have a much higher yield per acre and use less pesticides," she said.

There are even plans to develop for the U.S. market corn-based, disposable diapers that biodegrade quickly rather than filling landfills for decades. An Ingeo diaper is already being sold in Italy and Spain, but making an inexpensive diaper to compete with disposable products in the United States remains a hurdle.

NatureWorks makes the raw materials for Ingeo, fermenting sugar extracted from corn and turning it into plastic-like pellets that are made into the fabric sold to apparel makers like Linda Loudermilk. Other uses for NatureWorks' pellets include the produce packaging found in Wal-Mart stores. But the small subsidiary of food and agricultural products company Cargill Inc. sees a big future cracking into the $181 billion apparel industry with its pellets. NatureWorks declined to discuss Ingeo sales figures.

Because NatureWorks doesn't separate the genetically engineered corn from the conventionally grown corn, it can't serve companies who demand biotech-free Ingeo. For its European customers, who are notoriously averse to genetically engineered crops, the company promises to buy an amount of organic corn equal to the amount of corn it took to produce their Ingeo orders. That still isn't enough for some environmental purists. "They can't separate it," said Patagonia's Dumain, "and that's our problem."

Source







Australia: Red tape cut for greenhouse reports

Proposals for a single mandatory reporting system of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions will be developed by the end of the year. The Council of Australian Governments yesterday agreed its preferred option was to devise a "single streamlined system that imposes the least cost and red tape burden". Senior federal and state officials will report to the next COAG meeting in December with proposals for streamlining emissions and energy reporting.

"The report should be based on the preparation of national purpose-built legislation to provide for cost-effective mandatory reporting and disclosure at the company level at the earliest practicable date," the COAG communique says. "The report will also need to include advice on timing, thresholds and governance arrangements."

Yesterday's meeting agreed that the National Pollutant Inventory would no longer be used as a vehicle for reporting greenhouse gas emissions. No further work will be undertaken by the Environment Protection and Heritage Council on incorporating greenhouse gas emission reporting in the index. However, the states and territories reserved the right to use the index if there was no agreement by December.

The meeting also agreed that the commonwealth, states and territories would work together to maximise opportunities for Australia to reduce emissions through clean coal and other technologies. The meeting also moved to streamline environmental approvals across the country. The federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act allows for agreements with the states and territories to accredit their environmental assessment and approvals process. Agreements are in place with Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory but are yet to be completed with the remaining states and the ACT.

Officials said finalising the outstanding agreements would provide certainty for business by ensuring that proposed developments were assessed by the relevant jurisdiction, without duplication by the commonwealth. Senior officials will report by December on a strategy to further streamline the approval process.

Source







The Greenies won't like this one: "A contaminated lake designated hazardous is turning out to be a source of novel chemicals that could help fight migraines and cancer. "It's exciting to know that something toxic and dangerous might contain something of value," says Andrea Stierle, a chemist at the University of Montana in Butte. Berkeley Pit Lake, also in Butte, filled with groundwater after the copper mine closed in 1982. Dissolved metal compounds such as iron pyrites give the lake a pH of 2.5 that makes it impossible for most aquatic life to survive. In 1995 Stierle discovered novel forms of fungi and bacteria in the lake. More recently her team has found a strain of the pithomyces fungi producing a compound that binds to a receptor that causes migraines and could block headaches, while a strain of penicillium fungi makes a different compound that inhibits the growth of lung cancer cells. This week they reveal that a novel compound called berkelic acid from another new strain of penicillium fungus reduces the rate of ovarian cancer cell growth by 50 per cent (Journal of Organic Chemistry, vol 71, p 5357). Stierle is rushing to identify more of these extremophile creatures before the toxic site is cleaned up.

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************