Skip to main content

The Carbon Emissions of the Long Distance Runner

joe_barton We’ve noticed several times an argument against regulating carbon emissions without actually noticing that it’s the same argument with different examples. For example, Here’s House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio):

The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you've got more carbon dioxide.

And Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.):

It's plant food ... So if we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere? ... So all our good intentions could be for naught. In fact, we could be doing just the opposite of what the people who want to save the world are saying.

At the time, we noted these comments lacked much in the way of logic or responsiveness to the issue. But this quote from Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) cinched it for us:

“So if you put 20,000 marathoners into a confined area, you could consider that a single source of pollution, and you could regulate it,” Barton says. “The key would be whether the EPA said that 20,000 people running the same route was one source or not.”

So that’s it. The argument is that any system intended to rein in carbon emissions (EPA regulation, cap-and-trade) will also cover the natural production of carbon dioxide – like you and I breathing in a crowd. We’re surprised Rep. Barton didn’t mention that any well-attended event puts masses of people together to release carbon dioxide pell-mell. So here comes the end of public attendance at football games and concerts-on-the-green. It’s a slippery slope: pretty soon, we’ll have to telecommute because we won’t be allowed out of our houses anymore.

The problem is that the argument is false, a straw man. Here’s what the EPA says about you and I and our devilish emissions:

Natural sources of CO2 occur within the carbon cycle where billions of tons of atmospheric CO2 are removed from the atmosphere by oceans and growing plants, also known as ‘sinks,’ and are emitted back into the atmosphere annually through natural processes also known as ‘sources.’ When in balance, the total carbon dioxide emissions and removals from the entire carbon cycle are roughly equal.

And then came the industrial revolution. (Now, all right, Boehner has a bit of a point about farm animals, but food supplements will likely put that one to bed.)

You may want to read the whole Newsmax story the above quote came from. You’ll get the fullest possible exposition of why the solution to carbon emissions is to do – nothing – because they’re not a problem. We don’t agree with much of it – and find the story’s good points rather buried in thick ideological honey, as is usual from NewsMax – but there it is.

Let’s see, we’ve used a picture of Rep. Boehner – and Rep. Shimkus – so here’s Rep. Barton. A sort of “twilight-of-the-gods” shot.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Argh, the fool doesn't know the difference between carbon dioxide and methane. Why should anyone even pretend to listen to him?

This is what happens when the government is full of lawyers instead of engineers.

/Starvid
Anonymous said…
And carbon dioxide is a carcinogen now?

And this is the house minority leader. The republican party has certainly fallen on bad times, brain-wise.

/Starvid
Anonymous said…
Well I guess the marathon runners are emitting CO2 at a higher rate during a race, since they are breathing harder.

I guess the argument is, that the congressman's friends in the coal industry have the 'right' to their emissions, just like you & I have the 'right' to breathe?
Anonymous said…
I actually like Rep. Barton's point. Remember, this is the same EPA that has mentioned regulating methane from cows so I wouldn't put it past them to desire to regulate something like that too once someone puts it in their heads. Too bad none of them can get it through their heads that CO2 is not a poison!
OneRunner said…
That our congressional leaders are having difficulty distinguishing between natural emissions, like breathing, and unnatural emissions, like factories and cars, is a little bit scary. We cannot stop breathing. As humans exercise is important and should not be sacrificed. Through human innovation we can circumvent many of the CO2 emissions while still accomplishing whatever the original goal was. We can make our factories and cars in such a way that they still manufacture and move without emitting as much, or at all. This is something that we should constantly strive towards as a society and a race. The industrial revolution was fantastic. It brought us to where we are now... Let's take the next step (pun intended) in moving forward as a species and society. As for the cows... the only reason they are on the CO2 emissions radar is because we have cut down so many carbon absorbing trees to make room for their pastures so that we can turn them into fast food... It's natural to have animals on the planet. It's unnatural to mass produce them to this scale at the expense of our rain forests. Once again, this challenge is something that human ingenuity can overcome. We can have our cake (or burgers) and eat it too with some planning, innovation, and good old fashion human ingenuity! Go Humanity!

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …