CO2: Only One Flavor / Science News

In the November 21 Issue:

CO2: Only One Flavor

By Janet Raloff

Web edition : Sunday, July 13th, 2008

Text Size

Are carbon-dioxide molecules emitted from the tailpipes of cars different from those spewed by fossil-fueled power plants? Uh, no. But that apparently was a question asked by a senior White House official who has been influencing U.S. climate-mitigation policy, according to a nice piece of investigative journalism in last Friday’s Washington Post.

I don’t know about you, but I find such putative ignorance about the science of greenhouse-gas emissions to be fairly troubling.

The gist of the Post story was that the Bush Administration has been putting political pressure on federal researchers for a long while to tone down any claims to data or assessments that global warming might have significant health and economic consequences. The ostensible reason: Such a conclusion would hamstring the President’s policy agenda — or at least that of the Vice President and the Office of Management and Budget — to hold off any regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions during George Bush’s term in office.

One unidentified source in the Post story charged that in policy deliberations, OMB’s chief lawyer, Jeffrey A. Rosen, asked whether carbon-dioxide emissions from a car’s tailpipe might be considered differently than those from a power plant — you know, because the molecules might be different. The news story says Rosen was informed that the molecules were, in fact, identical.

Leaving aside the story’s descriptions of back-room bargaining and unethical — if not illegal — muzzling of federal officials, you have to ask whether the administrators charged with tackling what many believe to be the issue of the century (how to slow global warming) are up to the task.

Let’s face it: Climatology is complicated. The chemical interactions that affect the rates at which greenhouse gases are building up in the atmosphere can be pretty complicated. The physics of radiative transfer of solar energy can get pretty complicated. So, if someone can ask about whether a three-atom molecule essentially comes in flavors that reflect its source, do we have much hope of his understanding potential drivers of climate change — and the extent to which warming might accelerate over the lifetimes of our children?

Let’s just say that the political wrangling described in the Post’s story doesn’t inspire confidence.

Found in: Chemistry, Climate Change, Earth Science, Environment, Molecules and Science & Society

Share & Save

Comments 10

AMEN !

Maryann Ivons

Jul. 14, 2008 at 6:15am
I would actually argue that the basics of greenhouse warming are quite simple. Whenever I get into a discussion about climate change, be in on the internet, at the university, or in a shopping line, I find what is most frustrating is that many people don't even have that basic Climate 101 understanding about CO2 and longwave vs. shortwave radiation etc. And yet many people will quickly adopt a far-fetched theory about how humans simply can't have anything to do with climate change (based upon something they read or heard or based upon politics). Until we have an educated public which has even a basic understanding/appreciation of things like how the earth would be uninhabitable without gases like CO2, we are in trouble.

Leigh

Jul. 14, 2008 at 6:47am
Is it any wonder that any political administration, not just the Bush Administration, as does our congressional and senitorial members lack the knowledge needed to make scientific decisions in the best interest of the county and, in many cases, the world? These people are either elected or received their position (appointment) with little to no thought as to their education and knowledge concerning the subject matter. As an example our senitors and congressmen are mostly lawyers that have zero knowledge about anything beyond law and probably failed to make a living in that profession.

John in South Carolina

John Knight

Jul. 14, 2008 at 7:05am
While I agree with the rest of the article,is the CO2 question really so dumb? The H20 in plain water is different from that in heavy water.

BillU

Jul. 14, 2008 at 11:03am
Jaine...

I understand your comment, which would be an interesting point in a chem class. Except these are CO2 molecules that are all released from feedstocks of fossil fuels. I really don't think the OMB General Counsel was questioning whether a different isotope of oxygen is found in coal as opposed to crude oil, much less the crude oil converted into gasoloine vs the crude oil burned in some electricity (peaking unit) generating plant.

--Janet

jar

Jul. 14, 2008 at 2:52pm
We need to do something about this! I propose we require middle and high school level students to recieve lessons in greenhouse-gasses and their relationship to global warming. Now, how do we get such a mandate passed? Oh Drat! We have to rely on policy-makers!

jim.brookhyser

Jul. 14, 2008 at 10:06pm
Something else that doesn't inspire confidence are previous statements by influential scientists and politicians that demonstrate that this is not a scientific issue as much as it is about politics and philosophy.

For example, "What we've got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue," said Sen. Timothy E. Wirth, D-Colo., the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's point man on that issue and chairman of the Alliance to Save Energy. "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

As reported in REPORTS - Less Burning, No Tears
By ROCHELLE L. STANFIELD, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc. Saturday, Aug. 13, 1988

Fred Houlihan

Jul. 18, 2008 at 1:59pm
And another example that illustrates how some scientists use the issue of global warming as a ploy to achieve other objectives: "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts.

"On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.

"To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Stanford Climatologist Dr. Steven Schneider, Discover magazine, October 1989.

Fred Houlihan

Jul. 18, 2008 at 2:08pm
Rather than denigrate the person who asked the question why not recast it to give him the answer to the question he most likely meant to ask: is the mix of emissions from tailpipes different from the mix of emissions from power plants and if so, what are the pollution implications for health and for the global environment? Does it make any difference if policy focuses first and foremost on automobile emissions or on power plant emissions? In an economic climate in which rising energy costs are constraining automobile use more effectively than any policy initiatives, where, if at all, ought public policy to focus?

Karl R. Huber

Jul. 20, 2008 at 8:38am
But things can be so clear. I've bought a few books including the Stern Review and Heat and if you read them, weigh the presented evidence scientifically and take into account the fact that our need for oil does not seem to be cirbed by recent price explosions at the pump, we will go on extracting fossile fules until Ei/Er (Energy Invested/Energy Returned = 1). But try to explain that to a economist and he will respond with the mantra growing price = more profitable resources. Therefore we will continu even beyond that point thus putting 200 million years of stored carbon dioxide into the atmophere within 2 centuries. And there is basicly no altenative. In order to wind up with a reasonable climate change we would have to reduce our emission collectively and globaly to 90% in 2030 (the Stern report mentions 70% by 2050 but that is not nearly enough). That is a non realistic proposal. What we should do is figure out what the consequences will be of the climate change. What area's should we now abandon for new development(I live in Holland and personally I see no change in the patern of ever increasing population in low (below sealevel) and decreasing population in the higher parts of the country (well above sealevel)). Coastel area's will be in danger not only from rising seawater levels but also from catastrofic storm depressions. Since oil and energy shortages could be an issue from 2010 onwards, we should check how we could organise a globalising civilisation without the benefit of next to nothing transport costs. Personally I believe that globalisation does not need to be fought anymore because the system will outlive itself within the next decade. If we are not carefull and our elected politicians do not heath the call we will be presented with a fourfold whammy:

1) Global warming -> severe climate -> food shortages
2) Perpetual Energy Crisis/Oil Crisis -> limbering economy -> inflation -> poverty
3) Overpopulation -> malthus gets his reward -> war
4) Unequality in distribution -> frustration -> war

How do you manage a world in 2030 with 9 billion people of which 7 billion are starving, homeless, frustrated, selfish and hostile towards others. That is the final question facing "the last generation" which is comprised of the children born today. So if anyone thinks matters can be ignored, think again.

Ed Kuipers

Jul. 31, 2008 at 3:28am