Political correctness and your carbon footprint

The EPA has labeled carbon dioxide emissions as a “pollutant.” The political propaganda press writes of “carbon pollution.” This occurs despite the fact that carbon dioxide is necessary for life. Without it, there would be no plant life and hence no animal life.

The know-nothing environmentalists and politicians are concerned about their “carbon footprint” lest they somehow damage our environment. They demand that we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions to some arbitrary number not realizing that there is no physical evidence showing that such emissions play a significant or even measurable role in global temperatures.

I was amused by a report of the Wednesday night “Tucson Lecture Series” during which University of Arizona Professor Diana Liverman explained that dogs have a smaller “carbon paw print” than cats. Cat lovers watch out; your pet is next for sanctions on the politically correct agenda.

The current atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is approximately 400 ppm (parts per million). That varies seasonally and geographically. That is much too high according to some benighted environmentalists who campaign to return to 350 ppm. They are ignorant of the fact that for most of the history of this planet, atmospheric carbon dioxide was more than 1,000 ppm. It is low now because were are in (an interglacial period of) an ice age.

Let’s look more closely at the “pollution” aspect and its supposed danger. According to physician Charles Battig:

“As a physician practicing the specialty of anesthesiology, my training included the details of human respiratory physiology, and knowledge of the movement of the essential gases in and out of my patients’ lungs. A most basic mechanism of human life is the cycle of oxygen in; carbon dioxide out. What is the exhaled concentration of CO2 in your lungs? Physiology texts give a normal range of 4 to 5 per cent. In the climate change nomenclature arena, that would be expressed as an equivalent 40,000 to 50,000 ppm! Imagine that, your own lungs manufacture the EPA-defined pollutant carbon dioxide at levels one-hundred times that of the air we breathe in. Not only do the innermost parts of your body tolerate chronic exposure to this scary EPA pseudo-pollutant, longevity records confirm our increasing lifespan, in spite of this officially labeled, EPA internal CO2 pollution.” (Source)

Should we all hold our breath?

For some perspective on carbon dioxide emissions and temperature, see my Wryheat article “Your Carbon Footprint Doesn’t Matter” wherein I show that even if we stopped all U.S. emissions it could theoretically prevent a temperature rise of 0.003 C. You can see an independent calculation with similar results from Paul Knappenberger of the CATO Institute here.

The whole concept of a “carbon footprint” and “carbon pollution” has nothing to do with science or reality and everything to do with politics of government control of energy. I also wonder about us paying university professors to spout this nonsense.

See also:

Celebrate Earth Day by tripling your carbon footprint wherein I show that doubling of the air’s carbon dioxide concentration increases the productivity of earth’s herbaceous plants by 30- to 50 percent, and of woody plants by 50- to 80 percent or more. These studies also show that more carbon dioxide increases plants’ efficiency in use of nutrients and water. That will help feed our growing population.

Failure of climate models shows that carbon dioxide does not drive global temperature

Climate change in perspective