Hey EPA, why not regulate water vapor emissions? – Watt?

Dr. Roy Spencer’s Global Warming Blog

Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.

Some background

I will acknowledge the mystery of the legal profession. Whenever I say anything related to environmental law, one or more lawyers correct me. But I want to “Turnabout Is Fielpe” because I usually correct any lawyer who describes the details of climate change science.

Lawyers are not like us normal people. Their brains work differently. When one of my daughters took LSAT and gave me some examples of questions, I first doubted this and my brain couldn't answer correctly. When she went to law school, I became more convinced of this and told me the issues they dealt with, how attorneys simply impressed the judges novelly in their arguments, and so on.

I know I'll never be a lawyer (even after Holiday Inn Express) and I've never even played on TV. But I did co-authorize a paper Energy Law Magazine (Related to the Daubert Standard) In my opinion, science cannot show causality in any strict way in the theory of human-induced climate change.

Regulating carbon dioxide: Is EPA really trying to help us?

I was also surprised by the regulation of CO2 emissions (and some other chemicals) by EPA. However, many ~185 lawyers at the EPA work on hazard discovery in 2009 and they must know that regulating CO2 emissions from U.S. cars and light trucks will not have an impact on global climate elevation, including sea level rise (which is the rise of sea level) (which is a major argument (which is a major argument) Massachusetts v. EPA).

Nothing.

But it is obvious that actually trying to “solve” climate “problems” is not the EPA's concern.

The reason they exist is to regulate pollutants (the “pollutants” produced by nature are less important than those produced by humans). Once they start adjusting it, they don't stop certain thresholds. They will continue to lower the threshold. This makes everyone work.

I know this is the case. I have attended a meeting with the Carolina Air Pollution Control Association (CAPCA) and the keynote speaker (from the EPA) said, “We can’t stop making things cleaner.” The audience is collectively surprising, mainly industry representatives who try to comply with state and federal environmental regulations. I thought their real-world experiences told them that it is impossible to make everything 100% clean (how much would it cost to keep a house 100% clean?).

And we don't want to be, because (as Ed Calabrese explains in many published papers), it is necessary to expose stressors to stress in biological systems. I almost never get sick, which is attributed to a very dirty childhood, as I played in bacteria-contaminated waters, no washing my hands, etc. I was much sicker at that time. But not in the future. This is the EPA’s dependence on the “linear thresholdless” assumption (simply put, if a gallon can kill you, then a molecule is also dangerous) has nothing to do with our real-world experience and common sense. A bit like the legal world.

So, is EPA really trying to help us? I'm increasingly convinced that they are not. They are working hard to keep their jobs (and grow more jobs; from NASA, I know how it works). Laws (and regulations) are tools to achieve this. Yes, the EPA accomplishes the required pollution control through the Clean Air Act. I was older and remember driving through Gary, Indiana in the 1960s, freeway garbage everywhere, waterways were contaminated and even on fire.

But when did the government say, “Okay, we solved the problem. Good enough. Let's not throw destructive over-regulation with the bath water in the bath room.” No, that won't happen. Due to the improper way of writing environmental regulations.

So, how to regulate water vapor emissions in EPA?

There are some problems with EPA regulating CO2 emissions, which does not seem to prevent legal professions from doing what they do best. As mentioned above, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from cars and light trucks will not have a measurable impact on global temperatures or sea level rises. .You may get rid of them completely. There is no measurable effect, but we are… making adjustments.

Since these are “global” issues, the EPA (even the Supreme Court's Massachusetts v. EPA The decision) may be based on shaky reasons, and perhaps these are the best legislation in the U.S. Congress.

But what about the water vapor emissions of this kind of vehicle? Now, there is a possibility! Burning any fuel (especially if we have hydrogen-powered vehicles) will produce water vapor. Locally (in your town or city), this extra water vapor will add a calorie index during the summer. And, as we all know, “this is not high temperature, but humidity.”

This is a local problem caused by the root causes of local pollution and seems to be more suitable for the US EPA (US agency) to deal with the US pollution problem.

Climate scientists who published papers on the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions ensured water vapor was excluded from their concerns, claiming CO2 is a thermostat that controls the climate. I used to make extensive comments with a smile on that hand. Most climate scientists believe that CO2 controls temperature, and then temperature controls water vapor. Carbon dioxide is forcewater vapor is feedback. However, this argument (as I have said for years) is just a circular reasoning. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (I forgot to mention that this is our main greenhouse gas?) is partially controlled by precipitation processes that we don’t even understand. Climate modelers simply need to adjust their models to remove water vapor in an arbitrary and controlled manner (through the precipitation process), which has no basis in basic physics, but is not yet clear. Typically, these simplified assumptions translate into assuming that the relative humidity remains constant at all times.

But I'm off topic. What I am talking about here is not water vapor emissions targeting global climate issues, it is to reduce their impact on summer heat, especially in cities.

But why stop vehicle emissions? Humans exhale a lot of water vapor (more for joggers!). Maybe we should limit jogging and sell bottled water? Isn't the problem you mentioned big enough? Maybe that's the FDA's business? I don't know…I'm just a simple national climate scientist.

As attorney Jonathan Adler responded to my recent blog post about hazard discovery,

The problem is that the concerns you raise have nothing to do with the hazard findings under the Clean Air Act. Text standards are preventive and do not allow any cost-effective balance or other trade discounts to be considered. All that is needed is EPA administrators who can reasonably anticipate some threats from warming to health or welfare, the latter with a broad definition.

So we return to the regulatory fact that if the “pollutant” (whatever means) causes any threat, discomfort, worry, anxiety, then the EPA is forced to regulate. How convenient. Well, I think water vapor emissions (especially in summer) are more suitable for regulation under the Clean Air Act than CO2 emissions.

So why not regulate water vapor?

Obviously, this is not because water vapor is “necessary” to the function of the Earth's system, because Carbon dioxide is essential for life on Earth. This brings me back to my question, Is EPA really trying to help us Regarding climate-related regulations?

I am increasingly convinced that science has been hijacked to shake the energy industry (among other motivations). This is planned since the 1980s. Human thriving depends on abundant and affordable energy. It doesn't matter how many people are killed in the process of saving the earth. Laws require regulations, which is important.

I have evidence. In the early 1990s, I visited Gore's environmental adviser, Bob Watson, at the White House. Montreal Program on Substances Depleting Ozone Layer. He told me (I remember to get as close as possible),”We successfully regulated ozon-depleting science, followed by carbon dioxide“.

Remember, this was early in the IPCC, the mission was to determine whether humans were changing the climate through greenhouse gas emissions. Their work has just begun, including scientists who will assist the process. But the regulatory targets are (blink, wink, nod, nod) Has been established.

So, I don't think the EPA is actually trying to help Americans in terms of climate regulation. I'm sure many of their plans (waste cleaning, helping Flint, MI water problems, etc.) are commendable and defensible.

But when it comes to regulation related to global climate (even local climates, where the government tries to pack more people into small spaces, like “15 Minutes City”), my experience increasingly tells me that politics, policy, regulations, law, legal or environmental advocacy, is the side of this business, and is actually the side of the global climate. Otherwise, they will acknowledge that their regulations (unlike the precursors of ozone pollution in cities will have no measurable impact. They will not try to pack people into urban environments that we know are 5-10 degrees. F is hotter than rural environments.

It's just an excuse to gain more power and vested interests.

Related