Jeb Bush Gets A Bit Heated Up By Carbon Dioxide

"Jeb Bush by Gage Skidmore 3" by Gage Skidmore. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jeb_Bush_by_Gage_Skidmore_3.jpg#/media/File:Jeb_Bush_by_Gage_Skidmore_3.jpg“Jeb Bush by Gage Skidmore 3” by Gage Skidmore. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia CommonsIs Jeb Bush trying to alienate the Republican-conservative base even more than he already has? His comments about climate change and carbon dioxide emission cuts sure make it look that way.

Speaking last week at a New Hampshire event, Bush said, “The climate is changing” and expressed his concerns about it.

Though he lamented the “hollowing out of our industrial core” and the “hollowing out of our ability to compete in an increasingly competitive world,” he at the same time said that we should “be cognizant of the fact that we have this climate change issue and we need to work with the rest of the world to negotiate a way to reduce carbon emissions.”

This is not what we need from a Republican presidential candidate. In fact, it’s not what we need from any presidential candidate.

Simply put, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant — though the Supreme Court has ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate it as such — in any definition outside of some lawyerly ploy. To suddenly label it as one, says Robert C. Balling Jr., a former Arizona State University climatologist who is now a geography professor, “is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth.”

“Mother Earth,” says Balling, “has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant.”

Maybe Bush is trying to separate himself from the rest of the GOP pack by conceding that CO2 is a pollutant. In fact, he’s already taken in some praise from billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer’s quarters.

If so, he’s likely making a mistake. Americans have seen the global warming scare fizzle out before them. Gallup’s most recent environmental survey found that “global warming or climate change” ranks dead last among Americans’ environmental concerns, with only 32% worrying about it a “great deal,” down from 34% in 2014.

Despite the never-ending hype from the media, celebrities and politicians (and celebrity politicians), “Americans’ worry about it is no higher now than when Gallup first asked about it in 1989.”

What Americans should worry about is getting a president who will surrender to the pounding from those who believe in man-made climate change and those who have a need for everyone else to buy into it. We need a White House that will stand up to the bullying, not join it.

Source

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (36)

  • Avatar

    Bill OKeefe

    |

    great article about CO2

  • Avatar

    Fearless Skeptic

    |

    Jeb Bush just lost my vote.

  • Avatar

    Just Some Kid

    |

    I would hope that he would have lost your vote for a different reason….

    Arguably, CO2 is a pollutant. It is, after all, a waste product from production, industry etc. and it is released into the environment almost unchecked. That sounds like a classic definition of a pollutant to me.

    • Avatar

      Bob Armstrong

      |

      CO2 is a positive externality .
      You , like the food you eat is more than 90% CO2+H2O combined by photosynthesis . It is the sole source of carbon to carbon based life , and is not surprisingly visibly greening the planet as seen from satellites .

      That is not the definition of a pollutant .

      • Avatar

        Just Some Kid

        |

        Debatable.

        (MORE CHARCTERS)

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          And what is anyone to suppose that you know anything about debate ?

      • Avatar

        Just Some Kid

        |

        Ever heard of eutrophication?

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          Have you ever heard of logic ?

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Ever heard of a red herring?

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Interesting that you’d be obsessed with the color red.

        • Avatar

          Doc Holliday

          |

          Aquatic or terrestrial “eutrophication”? Remember, this is a rhetorical question…

        • Avatar

          amirlach

          |

          Did you actually read it your self?

          It talks about mostly how phosphates deplete O2 in water, which animals need to breath. Co2 is a phosphate free plant fertilizer.

          Plants consume Co2 and exhale O2.

          Why do greenhouse operators pump the C02 levels up to over 1000 ppm? It works in a greenhouse just as well as it does on a planetary scale.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Adam, from what I have seen, he is gone, what he said I have no idea. But phosphates also promote plant groth, which in turn consume CO2 aswell, but the plant groth in waterways ends up chocking off the said water ways and decays and turns septic. So they are spinning yet again, just like they did with the styrofoam beinfg dirty and plastics being dirty because it lingers and looks bad to they create a biodegradable product and it has the same cause as the phosphates. Ya just can’t please them.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            It’s all about oxygen depletion. Funny these same people can’t leave a place they protest at as clean as when they got there, but complain about it after the fact.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Leftist pigs are exactly that : pigs ! And don’t forget, it’s your fault that they’re pigs.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Always, because they can’t see. Just point!

    • Avatar

      John from Michigan

      |

      Anyone who argues that CO2 is a pollutant doesn’t know much about CO2. Every animal on Earth including humans breathe out carbon dioxide every time they exhale, including Just Some Kid. All our green plants digest CO2 and through photosynthesis release oxygen into the air — the oxygen we (and animals) need to stay alive. It’s a positive, beneficial gas and part of the essential life chain on this Earth. If you removed enough CO2 from the atmosphere, our planet would become as lifeless as Mars. CO2 accounts for less than 4% of the atmosphere, and human-produced CO2 accounts for only about 3% of that. It has no effect on the climate and no one has proven otherwise.
      Calling carbon dioxide a pollutant doesn’t make it one. There is absolutely no rational reason to shut down a power plant for releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. It’s helping our plantlife (including food crops) to grow and prosper and human beings to stay alive. CO2 is hardly a definition of pollution. Pollutants are harmful. CO2 is not.

      • Avatar

        Just Some Kid

        |

        To assume one or any number of power plants produce CO2 in helpful levels is… well… Did you forget about how humans lived before the 1800’s? We and the plants breathed just fine.

        CO2 may or may not be a pollutant, but it IS a waste product.

        • Avatar

          Moose

          |

          No, its a cycle.
          It brings life, greens the planet and nature NEEDS it.

          Before 1800, life and economy were crap!

        • Avatar

          Robert

          |

          [quote]CO2 may or may not be a pollutant, but it IS a waste product.[/quote]

          Then stop breathing.

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          [i]The quick answer to your question is that [b]oxygen is just a waste product when [u]plants[/u] do photosynthesis.[/b] [u]Plants[/u] can do two important things: Use energy from the sun to turn CO2 (carbon dioxide) and H2O (water) into sugar (C6H12O6) with oxygen (O2) left over.[/i]

          scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2860

          Bam DHMO!

          Idiots!

        • Avatar

          Radical Rodent

          |

          [quote name=”Just Some Kid”]CO2 may or may not be a pollutant, but it IS a waste product.[/quote]

          By your logic, so is O2. Plants absorb CO2, and emit O2; ergo, O2 is a waste product.

      • Avatar

        Santa Ro Joe

        |

        John From Michigan,
        You are quite correct that CO2 is not a pollutant but your percentage of the atmosphere is overstated. CO2 gas molecules are only 39 per 10,000 molecules of total atmosphere. That makes it about 4 one hundreths of one percent. Not 4%. It is therefore a trace gas, the quantity of which (in %) could double or triple and it will still be a trace gas. Some climatologists who have studied planetary history long term suggest that today’s levels are indeed too low and that we need further increases to “enrich” the biosphere and stimulate plant growth even more.

      • Avatar

        Mike Smith

        |

        That should read “CO2 accounts for only 0.04% of the atmosphere.
        4% – wow – that would give us 40,000 parts per million. That might be a problem.

    • Avatar

      jochlarson

      |

      Water vapor (H2O) must also be a waste product and a pollutant. It is also created when fossil fuels are burned. Don’t drink any of this pollutant!!

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        Th real issue is Dihydrogen Monoxide…

        [b]Dihydrogen Monoxide FAQ[/b]

        [i]Frequently Asked Questions About Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)

        [u]What is Dihydrogen Monoxide?[/u]

        Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.
        For more detailed information, including precautions, disposal procedures and storage requirements, refer to one of the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) available for DHMO:

        Kemp Compliance & Safety MSDS for DHMO
        Chem-Safe, Inc. MSDS for Dihydrogen Monoxide
        Applied Petrochemical Research MSDS for Hydric Acid
        Original DHMO.org Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Dihydrogen Monoxide (html)
        Should I be concerned about Dihydrogen Monoxide?

        Yes, you should be concerned about DHMO! [/i]

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          Every year thousands of people die from exposure to dihydrogen monoxide. The governments of the world have been ignoring this hazardous substance.

          Do not expect the current American administration to do anything about it unless it becomes a hazard on the golf course.

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Yeah, but maybe this will persuade the liberal media to [i]like[/i] Jeb!

    Playing to the media is a great strategy for Republicans – just ask John McCain and Mitt Romney!

    • Avatar

      Just Some Kid

      |

      Ha, not a chance. We are in no particular need of another Bush. I very much doubt he’ll even get the Republican nomination.

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        Is anyone in need of you ?

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          No ………………………………………………

  • Avatar

    Brian Valentine

    |

    Republicans don’t want him. Democrats don’t want him.

    Nobody wants him.

    Jeb Bush’s chances of getting nominated for anything are exactly zero, and his stupid “climate posturing” has placed his chances less than zero if that’s possible.

  • Avatar

    Frederick Colbourne

    |

    I have been an environmentalist for almost 60 years and have studied both geography and Earth science at universities where no professor ever claimed that CO2 was a pollutant, but rather a by-product of combustion.

    We know that burning fossil fuels can release pollutants as well as CO2. (Nature does too.) But in the last 60 years the USA and other developed countries have reduced the pollutants from combustion to levels comparable to ambient pollutant production by natural processes.

    To conflate CO2 and pollutants seems to me to be intellectually dishonest. Calling CO2 a pollutant signifies to me a mind that has not been trained and has no natural tendency to think straight.

    Or a mouth and pen that has little conscience when it comes to peddling untruths in support of some political or commercial goal.

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    I see Jack, aka just some kidjust some zombie can’t stop his BS! looks good on ya what ever it was you did! 😀

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Frederick
    interesting comments…”no professor ever claimed that CO2 was a pollutant ‘. I do not doubt your experience which is widely held . So when, if ever, did the scientific community collectively suddenly change direction and define CO2 as a pollutant ?

    Which scientific bodies ever announced humans exhaling was a pollutant ?

Comments are closed

No Trackbacks.