APP - EPA tells states to consider rising ocean acidity

[Schadenfreude]

water + CO2 = carbonic acid

people still think that man does not have much of an effect on the oceans, but they are wrong

Associated Press/AP Online

By PHUONG LE SEATTLE - States with coastal water that is becoming more acidic because of carbon dioxide should list them as impaired under the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Agency said.
The federal agency's memo Monday to states recognizes carbon dioxide as not only an air pollutant but a water pollutant, and notes the serious impacts that ocean acidification can have on aquatic life.
Ocean acidification refers to the decrease in the alkalinity of oceans, which is caused by the absorption of excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. As water becomes more acidic, scientists have raised concern about dissolving coral reefs and potential effects on fish and other sea life.
"Ocean acidification is one of the biggest threats to our marine environment," said Miyoko Sakashita, a senior attorney at Center for Biological Diversity. This EPA action "really gave the green light to using the Clean Water Act to address ocean acidification," she said.
The EPA's memo stems from a legal settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity, which sued the EPA last year for not requiring Washington state to list its coastal waters as impaired by rising acidity.
The memo said in 2012, states should begin to list bodies of water that suffer from ocean acidification as impaired, but it also acknowledged there's currently not enough information in many states to support listings for that reason.
Currently, about 40,000 bodies of water are listed nationwide as impaired.
Sandy Howard, a spokeswoman with the Washington Department of Ecology, said Tuesday the state is working with federal agencies to find more accurate and reliable methods of measuring pH, which shows how alkaline or acidic something is.
She said the listing program, however, is not the correct tool to fix the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.
The program focuses on local water quality fixes, she said, while the issue of greenhouse gas emissions is a global one.
A service of YellowBrix, Inc. .

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

water + CO2 = carbonic acid

people still think that man does not have much of an effect on the oceans, but they are wrong

Associated Press/AP Online

By PHUONG LE SEATTLE - States with coastal water that is becoming more acidic because of carbon dioxide should list them as impaired under the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Agency said.
The federal agency's memo Monday to states recognizes carbon dioxide as not only an air pollutant but a water pollutant, and notes the serious impacts that ocean acidification can have on aquatic life.
Ocean acidification refers to the decrease in the alkalinity of oceans, which is caused by the absorption of excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. As water becomes more acidic, scientists have raised concern about dissolving coral reefs and potential effects on fish and other sea life.
"Ocean acidification is one of the biggest threats to our marine environment," said Miyoko Sakashita, a senior attorney at Center for Biological Diversity. This EPA action "really gave the green light to using the Clean Water Act to address ocean acidification," she said.
The EPA's memo stems from a legal settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity, which sued the EPA last year for not requiring Washington state to list its coastal waters as impaired by rising acidity.
The memo said in 2012, states should begin to list bodies of water that suffer from ocean acidification as impaired, but it also acknowledged there's currently not enough information in many states to support listings for that reason.
Currently, about 40,000 bodies of water are listed nationwide as impaired.
Sandy Howard, a spokeswoman with the Washington Department of Ecology, said Tuesday the state is working with federal agencies to find more accurate and reliable methods of measuring pH, which shows how alkaline or acidic something is.
She said the listing program, however, is not the correct tool to fix the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.
The program focuses on local water quality fixes, she said, while the issue of greenhouse gas emissions is a global one.
A service of YellowBrix, Inc. .

OMG! We're turning our oceans into bubbling pits of acid! The only solution is to tax and fine corporations billions and trillions of dollars and give that money to Al Gore and a plethora of scientists, so that we can save the planet from certain impending doom! It's the only way!

Look, use some common sense, man! I know you are capable of it! Just think about this for a moment... All life on the planet (theoretically) evolved from the oceans. We know for a fact, the early Earth had a much higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Not just by a little bit, but tremendously MORE CO2 was present. So this means several things are possible here... Perhaps the theory of evolution is completely wrong? Perhaps all life didn't evolve from the oceans? Or maybe, the increased levels of CO2 didn't cause the oceans to be uninhabitable, or turn them into acid baths? Possibly, life somehow adapted to carbonic acid and it didn't hinder the progress of evolution? Obviously, something has to explain this, because we are all here, life exists on the planet, and we know for a fact the CO2 levels are nowhere near what they once were. Physics tells us that CO2 doesn't change, so if it causes the ocean to be uninhabitable now, it would certainly have caused it to be uninhabitable when CO2 levels were much higher, but that doesn't appear to be the case, unless all the theories of how life evolved, are totally wrong.

You can take your pick on which one is the case, I can't argue any one of these is more true than the other, I wasn't here. But I do know, the CO2 increases in our atmosphere, is not the primary cause of catastrophic global warming, nor will it cause our oceans to become uninhabitable. Given the sheer multitude of life which evolved during the Cambrian Period, it's possible the increased CO2 was actually CONDUCIVE to new life, as opposed to being detrimental.

You are hearing this mess from charlatans who want to punish corporations, who want to steal their wealth and redistribute it to those without wealth, and this is a convenient way to do that. By fostering an emotive response from the ignorant public, who doesn't comprehend how the planet was formed and how life emerged on it. All you really have to do, is stop for a moment and think about it, to see how utterly absurd and phony the whole scheme really is. Now, maybe you don't care, maybe you're all about punishing the "evil corporation" and it just doesn't matter about all the rest of this made up bullshit? Or maybe you're just profoundly ignorant and devoid of common sense? I'll leave that up to you!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

water + CO2 = carbonic acid

people still think that man does not have much of an effect on the oceans, but they are wrong

Associated Press/AP Online

By PHUONG LE SEATTLE - States with coastal water that is becoming more acidic because of carbon dioxide should list them as impaired under the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Agency said.
The federal agency's memo Monday to states recognizes carbon dioxide as not only an air pollutant but a water pollutant, and notes the serious impacts that ocean acidification can have on aquatic life.
Ocean acidification refers to the decrease in the alkalinity of oceans, which is caused by the absorption of excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. As water becomes more acidic, scientists have raised concern about dissolving coral reefs and potential effects on fish and other sea life.
"Ocean acidification is one of the biggest threats to our marine environment," said Miyoko Sakashita, a senior attorney at Center for Biological Diversity. This EPA action "really gave the green light to using the Clean Water Act to address ocean acidification," she said.
The EPA's memo stems from a legal settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity, which sued the EPA last year for not requiring Washington state to list its coastal waters as impaired by rising acidity.
The memo said in 2012, states should begin to list bodies of water that suffer from ocean acidification as impaired, but it also acknowledged there's currently not enough information in many states to support listings for that reason.
Currently, about 40,000 bodies of water are listed nationwide as impaired.
Sandy Howard, a spokeswoman with the Washington Department of Ecology, said Tuesday the state is working with federal agencies to find more accurate and reliable methods of measuring pH, which shows how alkaline or acidic something is.
She said the listing program, however, is not the correct tool to fix the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.
The program focuses on local water quality fixes, she said, while the issue of greenhouse gas emissions is a global one.
A service of YellowBrix, Inc. .

On has to also consider the vast amount of CO2 it takes to impact ocean pH by even 0.1. When one also considers what a narrow pH band in which most life in the ocean exist, then I'd call that a very serious red flag for concern.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

OMG! We're turning our oceans into bubbling pits of acid! The only solution is to tax and fine corporations billions and trillions of dollars and give that money to Al Gore and a plethora of scientists, so that we can save the planet from certain impending doom! It's the only way!

Look, use some common sense, man! I know you are capable of it! Just think about this for a moment... All life on the planet (theoretically) evolved from the oceans. We know for a fact, the early Earth had a much higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Not just by a little bit, but tremendously MORE CO2 was present. So this means several things are possible here... Perhaps the theory of evolution is completely wrong? Perhaps all life didn't evolve from the oceans? Or maybe, the increased levels of CO2 didn't cause the oceans to be uninhabitable, or turn them into acid baths? Possibly, life somehow adapted to carbonic acid and it didn't hinder the progress of evolution? Obviously, something has to explain this, because we are all here, life exists on the planet, and we know for a fact the CO2 levels are nowhere near what they once were. Physics tells us that CO2 doesn't change, so if it causes the ocean to be uninhabitable now, it would certainly have caused it to be uninhabitable when CO2 levels were much higher, but that doesn't appear to be the case, unless all the theories of how life evolved, are totally wrong.

You can take your pick on which one is the case, I can't argue any one of these is more true than the other, I wasn't here. But I do know, the CO2 increases in our atmosphere, is not the primary cause of catastrophic global warming, nor will it cause our oceans to become uninhabitable. Given the sheer multitude of life which evolved during the Cambrian Period, it's possible the increased CO2 was actually CONDUCIVE to new life, as opposed to being detrimental.

You are hearing this mess from charlatans who want to punish corporations, who want to steal their wealth and redistribute it to those without wealth, and this is a convenient way to do that. By fostering an emotive response from the ignorant public, who doesn't comprehend how the planet was formed and how life emerged on it. All you really have to do, is stop for a moment and think about it, to see how utterly absurd and phony the whole scheme really is. Now, maybe you don't care, maybe you're all about punishing the "evil corporation" and it just doesn't matter about all the rest of this made up bullshit? Or maybe you're just profoundly ignorant and devoid of common sense? I'll leave that up to you!

You do realize that carbon credit swaps is a conservative Republican idea don't you? They suggested it as a mechanism for the market to manage greenhouse gas emmisions. Objectively it's an approach that has much merit. The alternative Dixie is really command and control regulation of the problem. So which do you prefer? A market based mechanism or a government imposed command and control regulations to manage the problem? Or are you just being a partisan hack again?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You do realize that carbon credit swaps is a conservative Republican idea don't you? They suggested it as a mechanism for the market to manage greenhouse gas emmisions. Objectively it's an approach that has much merit. The alternative Dixie is really command and control regulation of the problem. So which do you prefer? A market based mechanism or a government imposed command and control regulations to manage the problem? Or are you just being a partisan hack again?

We actually have a cap and trade system in place in America right now for Sulfuric acid emissions. It's done what it was supposed to do.

The main advantage of cap and trade is that it discourages damaging activity while leaving as much money in the market as possible. A tax also discourages damaging activity, but it takes money out of the markets.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

OMG! We're turning our oceans into bubbling pits of acid! The only solution is to tax and fine corporations billions and trillions of dollars and give that money to Al Gore and a plethora of scientists, so that we can save the planet from certain impending doom! It's the only way!

Look, use some common sense, man! I know you are capable of it! Just think about this for a moment... All life on the planet (theoretically) evolved from the oceans. We know for a fact, the early Earth had a much higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Not just by a little bit, but tremendously MORE CO2 was present. So this means several things are possible here... Perhaps the theory of evolution is completely wrong? Perhaps all life didn't evolve from the oceans? Or maybe, the increased levels of CO2 didn't cause the oceans to be uninhabitable, or turn them into acid baths? Possibly, life somehow adapted to carbonic acid and it didn't hinder the progress of evolution? Obviously, something has to explain this, because we are all here, life exists on the planet, and we know for a fact the CO2 levels are nowhere near what they once were. Physics tells us that CO2 doesn't change, so if it causes the ocean to be uninhabitable now, it would certainly have caused it to be uninhabitable when CO2 levels were much higher, but that doesn't appear to be the case, unless all the theories of how life evolved, are totally wrong.

You can take your pick on which one is the case, I can't argue any one of these is more true than the other, I wasn't here. But I do know, the CO2 increases in our atmosphere, is not the primary cause of catastrophic global warming, nor will it cause our oceans to become uninhabitable. Given the sheer multitude of life which evolved during the Cambrian Period, it's possible the increased CO2 was actually CONDUCIVE to new life, as opposed to being detrimental.

You are hearing this mess from charlatans who want to punish corporations, who want to steal their wealth and redistribute it to those without wealth, and this is a convenient way to do that. By fostering an emotive response from the ignorant public, who doesn't comprehend how the planet was formed and how life emerged on it. All you really have to do, is stop for a moment and think about it, to see how utterly absurd and phony the whole scheme really is. Now, maybe you don't care, maybe you're all about punishing the "evil corporation" and it just doesn't matter about all the rest of this made up bullshit? Or maybe you're just profoundly ignorant and devoid of common sense? I'll leave that up to you!

Rapid change isn't good for life on Earth. We can adapt to slow gradual changes in temperature, but a rapid change on the order of a hundred years or so is going to be disastrous.

Given the sheer multitude of life which evolved during the Cambrian Period, it's possible the increased CO2 was actually CONDUCIVE to new life, as opposed to being detrimental.

Dixie, you're not a biologist. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

We actually have a cap and trade system in place in America right now for Sulfuric acid emissions. It's done what it was supposed to do.

The main advantage of cap and trade is that it discourages damaging activity while leaving as much money in the market as possible. A tax also discourages damaging activity, but it takes money out of the markets.

Yes, you're referring to the regional clean air incentives markets (RECLAIM) which has been used in California as an attempt at reducing both Sulfur Dioxides (SOX) and Nitrous Oxides (NOX), aka acid gas, emissions. These acid gas emissions were managed by Reclaim Trading Credits.

As a market based system it was supposed to be more cost affective and have greater reduction in acid gases then command and control regulations would. Unfortunately it has suffered from the fate of all such market based approaches in that because of to generous caps and a lack of planning, preparation and management of the program it did not achieve the level of reductions of acid gases under command and control regulations and the cost per ton of emissions reduced were also higher. The results were so poor in fact that in 2001 EPA required power facilities in the State to install emission control technology which led to large reduction of emissions.

In other words the RECLAIM cap and trade market system failed. There is a lot of potential to these market based systems but as you can see from the rhetoric of wing nuts like Dixie, they are all for them until actually adopted and then they adamantly oppose them. That tells me that these "Cap and Trade" schemes, which honestly do have potential, are being cynically used by right wing politicians to undermine command and control standards.

And thus the basis of my comment to Dixie. "Either Cap and Trade or Command and Control. You decide."

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Rapid change isn't good for life on Earth. We can adapt to slow gradual changes in temperature, but a rapid change on the order of a hundred years or so is going to be disastrous.



Dixie, you're not a biologist. You're embarrassing yourself.

No shit man. He used the same stupid discredited Cambrian argument to argue against evolutionary theory.

Like I said, I'll paint Dixie and other science deniers into a corner on this one. You choose. Either Cap and Trade or Command and Control. The choice is yours.

 

[Liberty]

Get rid of the EPA!

They suck!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Get rid of the EPA!

They suck!

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Go back to the days where you couldn't go outside and breath or see LA a mile down the road due to smog? No thank you.

Go back to the days where rivers in metro areas caught on fire? No thank you.

Go back to the days of Love Canal and Valley of the Drums? No thank you.

Go back to the days where if you lived in a steel town you never saw the sun? No thank you.

Go back to the days of drinking PCB contaminated milk? No thank you.

Go back to the days where our national emblem almost went extinct from unregulated use of pesticides? No thank you.

Go back to the days when Lake Eirie was brown, not blue and the shore stank from all the dead and rotting fish? No thank you.

Go back to the days where you could have your head up your ass and it would smell better than Gary Indiana? No thank you.

The EPA has been a model agency and the impact it's had on improving the quality of life in our modern industrial nation, particularly in urban areas, has been immeasurable.

 

[Liberty]

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Go back to the days where you couldn't go outside and breath or see LA a mile down the road due to smog? No thank you.

Go back to the days where rivers in metro areas caught on fire? No thank you.

Go back to the days of Love Canal and Valley of the Drums? No thank you.

Go back to the days where if you lived in a steel town you never saw the sun? No thank you.

Go back to the days of drinking PCB contaminated milk? No thank you.

Go back to the days where our national emblem almost went extinct from unregulated use of pesticides? No thank you.

Go back to the days when Lake Eirie was brown, not blue and the shore stank from all the dead and rotting fish? No thank you.

Go back to the days where you could have your head up your ass and it would smell better than Gary Indiana? No thank you.

The EPA has been a model agency and the impact it's had on improving the quality of life in our modern industrial nation, particularly in urban areas, has been immeasurable.

Mott, I don't buy any of that.

We don't need the EPA to get everything listed above.

The EPA has become an unelected gov't able to undermine our basic rights.

They're pissing a lot of people off, and their days are numbered if you ask me.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Mott, I don't buy any of that.

We don't need the EPA to get everything listed above.

The EPA has become an unelected gov't able to undermine our basic rights.

They're pissing a lot of people off, and their days are numbered if you ask me.

I don't care what you buy. Those are the facts. Before EPA those were the conditions we had in this country and if you think that the people of this nation will allow us to return to those conditions, well you're either living way out in the sticks or your in La-La Land.

The existence of EPA is a direct result from public pressure to protect our limited resources and to improve the quality of life, particularly in urban industrial centers that resulted in a Republican president creating the Agency. The EPA has been a spectacular success. If you think other wise, my guess is you live in an isolated rural area and have not been a witness to the positive impact it has made.

 

[tinfoil]

Sea life has been shown to adapt to the increases. I've posted the studies years ago and I'm not going to the trouble of debunking this scare yet again. It's about as proven as the circulation theory that was pushed despite zero evidence to confirm it.

Here's a link to the basics, but I haven't had time to check for studies to confirm. I have to go to work. I'll find them later on

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/acid-oceans-and-acid-rain

 

[Liberty]

I don't care what you buy. Those are the facts. Before EPA those were the conditions we had in this country and if you think that the people of this nation will allow us to return to those conditions, well you're either living way out in the sticks or your in La-La Land.

The existence of EPA is a direct result from public pressure to protect our limited resources and to improve the quality of life, particularly in urban industrial centers that resulted in a Republican president creating the Agency. The EPA has been a spectacular success. If you think other wise, my guess is you live in an isolated rural area and have not been a witness to the positive impact it has made.

The next thing you know they're going to put a filter on everyones ass.

With all respect Mott, they've pissed off (really pissed off) more people then you think, or are aware of.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The next thing you know they're going to put a filter on everyones ass.

With all respect Mott, they've pissed off (really pissed off) more people then you think, or are aware of.

And you're clueless. This isn't a problem that can be managed by some farm boys out in boondocks who are far and removed from the problem with magical libertarian fairy dust. If you think EPA has to be eliminated then you need to come up with an alternative solution to manage the problems of pollution EPA regulates. If you can't do that, your just kidding your self if think the people would allow a small group of ignoramouses to undermine the controls so many have worked for so long to put into place to protect the public.

 

[Liberty]

And you're clueless. This isn't a problem that can be managed by some farm boys out in boondocks who are far and removed from the problem with magical libertarian fairy dust. If you think EPA has to be eliminated then you need to come up with an alternative solution to manage the problems of pollution EPA regulates. If you can't do that, your just kidding your self if think the people would allow a small group of ignoramouses to undermine the controls so many have worked for so long to put into place to protect the public.

I guess you think I'm a farm boy out in boondocks.

Let the people, states, and courts be responsible for the environment.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I guess you think I'm a farm boy out in boondocks.

Let the people, states, and courts be responsible for the environment.

No, I don't think you really understand how EPA works, the regulatory framework under which it regulates pollution nor do you understand what a lousy job State and local Governments did prior to EPA which caused the public outrage and public demand for federal oversight of industrial pollution.

That fact that you don't understand that most States all ready are responsible for managing pollution in their States. The difference being their programs must be at least as stringent as Federal programs now. The fact is most State programs are more stringent then Federal standards and are required to be at least as stringent. So if your under the delusion that States don't control pollution in their States then let me disabuse you of that notion. They do.

The days of dumping untreated hazardous waste into our lakes, rivers, air or some hole in a ground are over my friend and unless you can come up with a better idea on how to manage pollution than what you have stated here then EPA is here to stay.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It's not like we're claiming that global warming will eliminate all life on Earth. Even if it were a complete and utter disaster and average temperatures went up 15 F life would survive. Life has survived a lot worse before. But it's not going to be pretty and not something you'd want to willingly put yourself through. It's much easier to just take the steps towards alternative energy we're going to have to take in the future anyway right now.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I guess you think I'm a farm boy out in boondocks.

Let the people, states, and courts be responsible for the environment.

1. Individuals and corporations will just race to the bottom.

2. Pollution in one state can affect other states. States don't have a right to allow their people to be poisoned anyway.

3. Costly and defectiveness at preventing pollution.

 

[Liberty]

1. Individuals and corporations will just race to the bottom.

2. Pollution in one state can affect other states. States don't have a right to allow their people to be poisoned anyway.

3. Costly and defectiveness at preventing pollution.

Good points, but if they don't find away to lighten the load being put on small business, they're going to get the ax.

I can remember in the 80s when I had a distribution company and ran a few trucks, the EPA came up with some very costly standards that took enough money from me that I had to shut down, and go out of business. 4, or five people lost their job when I had to do this.

The point is that they are making a lot of enemies, and have a lot of bitter enemies. Like me.

Corps should be held criminally liable for polluting the envirnment, but they pay off politicians, because they have the money. They pay off the EPA now, and the little guy like me gets hit hard.