Sep 14 2009
EPA’s Carbon Dioxide Plan Demands Civil Engineers Speak Out
Did you see the recent press release from the EPA? Administrator Lisa Jackson announced that the EPA is beginning the process of declaring carbon dioxide to be a pollutant. Do not miss the significance of this process. Making carbon dioxide a regulated substance will have a huge impact on civil engineers. [Here's a story on the proposed action from the San Francisco Chronicle.]
Over time, everything that we design, construct, and operate will be placed under yet another set of rules and regulations. Everything that uses energy will be subject to new standards. None of us can predict how rapidly regulations would promulgate or how significant they would initially be to our daily practices. What we do know is that we have a large supply of attorneys, scientists, and politicians who have agendas that do not include engineering as a criterion.
ASCE and civil engineers have a large stake in making certain that the reality of engineering is injected in the hearings process. Please get as many engineering organizations, both public and private, involved in these important considerations.
As we say about water: Anything that is not 2 atoms of Hydrogen and 1 of Oxygen is a contaminant. After that, analysis is required to determine if the contaminant, at certain concentrations, will be a pollutant, by adversely affecting its surrounding environment.
As we scientists are aware, CO2 is a natural part of Earth’s atmosphere. Not only is it not a pollutant; it’s not even a contaminant!
Pres. Klotz states: “Please get as many engineering organizations, both public and private, involved in these important considerations.” I agree. Here is a good place for ASCE members to start: http://www.petitionproject.org.
Anyone read the Associated Press article published on September 15, 2009 reporting that Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, is preparing some of our national assests for the “onslaught of global warming”? Seems he is establishing a Climate Change Response Council to study and respond to issues such as rising sea levels “threating to swamp historical structures”. Being very skeptical, I personally believe this move to be politically motivated to support the advent of cap and trade legislation furthering federal government control and power. However, we as engineers are responsible for ensuring public health and safety with our designs and calculations and cannot just ignore the perhaps political clamor particularly with respect to drainage and flooding. Engineers rely on accepted criteria and methodoligies, as well as our personal judgements, in the civil engineering practice to not only insure public safety but also to produce economical designs. With federal government declared global warming and the subsequent onslaught of perhaps drastic and severe sea level rises, our current flood predition models and methodoligies are obsolete especially in the coastal zone areas. Sea level rises of up to 15 feet have been predicted within the next few decades by some researchers as well as the president. I question if any civil engineers engaged in the rebuilding of New Orleans, Galveston, Buloxi, or anywhere along the Gulf coast have included potential sea level rises in their calculations. If so, what criteria and methodologies were used? Perhaps a great opportunity for a call for papers. Does ASCE have any role or obligation to assist in developing criteria or guidelines for civil engineers engaged in drainage and floodplain studies and designs? As is generally the practice, if we must err due to insufficient information or data we should err on the side of conservative design in the interest protecting human health and safety. This practice will of course lead to perhaps costly overdesign or severe limitation and restrictions to redevelopment in some areas. If the most severe projections are adopted we would have to perhaps vacate the entire Galveston island and scrap redevelopment plans altogather. Also, will we as civil engineers be liable for informing those that now live along the coast lines that their property will soon be under water due to global warming thus preventing them from ever selling the property? Will we be obligated to provide certifications to potential buyers and lenders of such property that it will or will not soon or in the forseeable future be under water due to global warming? These questions may sound ridiculous but they are consistent with the declared threat “to swamp historical structures” issued by our federal government. In any event even small incremental rises in coastal zone locations could be devestating. We must respond, we are obligated to be right, and we must stay above the politics— but we do need consistant criteria and accepted methodologies for everyone’s protection. Any comments? Finally, recognizing that politicians have been spewing the armagedon predictions now for several years, armed with federally funded study results, have any of our members taking this information seriously at this point and actually used it in design or have we just ignored it to this point? I truly remain somewhat confused at this time and would like other members comments.
I agree, the Global Warming Petition Project is a good place to start. Our legislators must be enlightened that the “debate” on Global Warming is not over. Satellite temperature data over the past several years has shown global temperatures to actually be decreasing even as CO2 levels have increased. How anyone can even consider carbon dioxide, which supports life on earth, to be considered a pollutant is unbelieveable. As engineers we should all be doing our own research and get the real facts, not hype from Al Gore.
It will be up to well informed and outspoken engineers to stand up and push back this pile of debris called Cap and Trade and other carbon limiting legislation. The agenda being imposed on us by extreme “enviromentalists” threatens to damage our way of life. It is imperative that the engineering comunity become aware of the ‘chicken-little” claims being used as a basis for making sweeping changes to the way we generate power and construct buildings.
It has not been well established that using carbon-emitting power will cause the catostrophies being claimed. It is clear to many that claims of rising sea levels and world-wide famine are being used to forward an agenda that will seriously damage our civil society.
Civil engineers have made many major improvements to the world we live in. It is expected that Civil engineers and other informed citizens will help decision makers make wise choices. Please stand up and inform the “leaders” that press for wasting valuable recources on unfounded claims.
This must be considered as a part of the whole US energy policy. WE, as engineeers, cannot be blind to what’s going on.
Civil engineers are very close to losing all moral authority and influence over public policy by failing to oppose the waste of public money. There are too many engineers supporting and actually dancing around the maypole at the very idea that wasteful public spending is ending up on their drawing boards. The problem started long before Cap and Trade.
The problem might have started long ago in the field of transportation. Too many engineering firms have become whores for economic development projects that simply take money from viable and self sustaining projects(infrastructure) in order to proliferate underferforming transportation projects elsewhere. That underperformance is not only financial but also in a transportation sense. The reason toll roads are so popular is because the idea of infrastructure paying for itself and being self sustaining is built into the project.
The FHWA is more likely to approve a gratuitous interchange on the Interstate today than ever in its history. The Big Dig was an urban renewal project disguised as a transportation project. The economic data collected by the Bureau of Economic Development shows no important economic development in terms of per capita income or local GDP in the area after Billions were wasted.
Civil engineers have been captured by the childish and emotional arguements that seem all too easily ignored while billions are spent on goofball energy projects. In my own state, $40 million in solar cells will be used to produce $1 million per year in electricity. This is the kind of trade that only a child or someone not aquainted with the concept of the time value of money would embrace.
The proliferation of value subtracted projects that cost more than they generate have been on the rise. In the old days, many of them were convention centers like the Jacob Javits Center or the Moscone Center. They are wonderful examples of engineering and failures in the financial sense.
Now they are associated with green energy projects. No one has shown me yet a rail, highspeed or otherwise, that can compete with an Interstate highway in terms of throughput of passengers per unit of time. As trucks get more numerous, longer heavier and more likely to involve multiple trailers the automobile is getting smaller and smaller yet the engineering community is silent on the danger to the public while the road system shrinks compared to the population. The average distance between vehicles has been declining for decades.
When the Civil Engineering community finds it’s voice in these matters, they will be treated only with the respect of any other lobby group looking out for their own interest. Without a reputation for looking out for other peoples interest and their money, Civil Engineers will be seen only as another vulture tearing at a carcass.
I am heartened to see that ASCE as an organization appears to be ready to take a stand against this insanity of categorizing CO2 as a pollutant. Which also should translate into a more rational and active role in slowing , or better yet, stopping the runaway train that is global warming (oh, sorry, it’s now”climate change”) hysteria.
It appears that there have been too many organizations and individuals, up to now, that have taken the easier path of accepting the “science is decided”, or “the debate is over”. The economic costs alone of cap and trade (better called crap and tax) should give us ALL great pause, and ASCE as an organization should be absolutely opposed to its implementation. Considering that we as engineers must consider cost-benefit as a factor in design, this should be a no-brainer. In cap and trade, there is ALL cost and virtually NO benefit; unless perhaps if you are a trader in carbon credits. I submit that the trend we must fight is regulation for regulation’s sake. The current administration and the liberal Democrat Congressional majority is all about control over every aspect of life in this country. We must recognize that fact, and consider that motivation when assessing any regulatiory proposals. In more than one instance, I have read or observed pronouncements from politicians, and had the strong urge to shout out , “you lie!”. We need to be willing to consider THAT, as well.
Critiera and methodologies are still being established, but civil engineers in California are considering sea level rise in the design of major infrastructure projects such as the improvements to the levees protecting the City of Sacramento and the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta. ASCE has been active, with the San Francisco Section sponsoring a “Climate Change and Coastal Systems Symposium” in September 2007.
On June 2, 2009 the Coasts, Oceans, Ports and Rivers Institute of ASCE adopted a Civil Engineering and Climate Change Protocol at the Coastal Engineering: Future Challenges, Future Risks, triennial conference of ASCE, the Institute of Civil Engineers, and the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, held in St. Johns, New Foundland, Canada. Refer to http://email.asce.org/copri/ClimateProtocol
The question is not whether a higher a level of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing climate change that will result in sea level rise. The question posed to us as civil engineers and stewards of infrastucture is what actions do we take (1) to influence the policy makers to establish the most effective standards, (2) to modify our designs to reduce carbon impacts and (3) to develop critiera and protocols to mitigate risks to life and property.
First and foremost, Happy Birthday President Klotz! The grand event occurs this Sunday, if I am not mistaken. You are not just becoming older. Clearly, you are also becoming wiser.
I very much appreciate your statement of concern with respect to EPA’s most recent decision to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. There are only two gases that are absolutely essential to life on this planet, oxygen and carbon dioxide. Will oxygen be EPA’s next target?
I would encourage ASCE to take a strong stand in opposition to this EPA decision. The starting point must be rescinding ASCE Public Policy Statement 488. As you know, the ASCE Board of Direction voted 11 to 9 to rescind that policy statement last November, but this was 2 votes shy of the required number.
Thank you for recognizing that political agendas are not driven by engineering criteria. As engineers and as ASCE members, we need to keep politics out of our agendas.
The end of all of this is depopulation of the earth. It all makes total sense when one views their goals in light of their true agenda. Getting better science is really a waste of time (from their point of view) because facts don’t really matter. If facts aren’t available, they will just make something up–like the evolution of man from ape…pretty much just someone’s imagination–not much, if any, real science behind it, just computer renderings of what they “think” happened during our evolution. The truth behind this statement is revealed in the fact that they have never found any evidence of man in the intermediate stages..and when they claim to have found a piece, they sheepishly admit a few weeks later that it was actually a pig bone or something else very quietly and hope no one notices. In addition, most people have been duped into believing that over population is a concern and having large families will kill the earth. Again, they have no facts or evidence to support their cause, so they will just make the claim that polar ice caps are melting and the polar bears are going to die. And all the school children go awh, that’s awful, we have to do something….then Al Gore hears cha-ching. Nevermind he stands to make ga-gillions if cap and trade passes. “They” all hope you don’t do your homework and learn that the polar ice caps melt and freeze every year and that polar bears can swim for miles–some of the best swimmers in the animal world. And why do I say depopulation? Look at the health care legislation. It is basically designed to let anyone actually using it, like the elderly, to just go home and die. They are a burden on the system of making politicians and insurance companies rich, so lets X those users. Tom Daschle is actually being quoted in his book that older folks should just realize that getting sick and dying is just a part of getting older. As shocking as that is, just google it. These same people don’t want you to thrive, they want you to die. They know that when a country goes below 2 children per couple on average, that country, by default, starts to die off. It is very difficult to reverse that trend because it is a mindset. Just think how you and I both have been “programmed” to see those families in the grocery store with 4, 5 or 6 children as “too many” or “bad” even? I used to think that until I learned the truth behind “their” agenda. Back in the early 1900s they had a group of people called Eugenicists and Eugenics was a big thing. It was very popular until Hitler (who got his ideas from the Eugenics movement in this country and in England). Then Eugenics movement seemingly just “died out”. But it did not, it just went underground. The same people who believed in and pushed eugenics back then are the same people today who push the idea that having large families or any families is bad for the earth and for humanity. They are very subtle and have been very successful in getting the majority of people to believe it is a bad thing to have more than 2 kids…many people now even think that having just one child is bad for their carbon footprint and that is just too costly for the earth to have children. Has anyone ever wondered why CPS agencies around the country have been allowed to become so corrupt with even having like in Florida/Texas, etch convicted pedophiles run it? Because they want to destroy society as we traditionally know it. And this is what global warming is about. It is about mankind dying for sake of Mother Earth. It is a very sick, degenerate and evil scheme that is based in half-truths and lies designed by rich elitists at the top carried out by their followers at the midlevel and sheepishly believed by the masses. That puts us level headed folks who design our infrastructure in a very difficult position, because we have walk a very fine line. As civil engineers we are committed to the protection of our society and to do that we have to dance with the politicians who are very openly and proudly doing the opposite. It may be a bigger, more difficult job than any of us realize.
I agree with the comment of Robert E. O’Neill made back in September 2009. The energy crisis is a good start. I would first say that enacting such legislation is a temporary fix. The European Union energy committee used the agreement to enact a cap and trade measure within the western nations and middle east. All they need to activate the system is raise the prices. They have held off doing that because of the worldwide recession and its potential effects.
On our own energy crisis, I feel that I am blessed to live in the Tennessee Valley. TVA is in the late stages of design of a new nuclear unit, itself a temporary stall until we can go all solar. In looking at alternatives, our biggest trap is unintended consequences. CO2 doesn’t leave much wiggle room. The State and Federal Government have just created an “Energy Coalition” to develop and implement new alternatives. The group is an non-profit entity consisting of the University of Tennessee, Bechtel, Jacobs, the Bechtel-Jacobs operating group, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Its start up capital is over $100 million. One first action is to provide a 10% incentive for individual and business to get something that pays for itself within five years, in place and operating by 2010. I may live to see such progress yet. Watch for Shell’s operations in oil shale; now growing 14% in the last two years.
Scientists are in agreement that carbon dioxide increases global temperatures and that can have significant negative effects on our way of life. Civil engineers have a role to plan in lobbying regulators to make sure that new rules are phased in and do not cripple construction and infrastructure development.
It’s unbelievable to hear comments on the ASCE website claiming global warming is not real and the carbon dioxide is somehow not a pollutant. At elevated concentrations in the atmosphere CO2 raises temperatures, which can have devasting impacts on climate and the way we live. That defines a pollutant; something that can damage the enviroment at elevated concentrations.
It’s understandable to fear an over-reach by the goverment that hurts business. However, the way to deal with that isn’t to deny reality and claim global warming isn’t associated with carbon dioxide pollution. The role of the civil engineer is to make the government aware of the imapcts of their regulations and to seize the business opportunities that will come with being current on regulations.
From the comments received to date it appears that no one has claimed to incorporate sea level rises due to climate change in hydraulic structure design at this time. Although the resonses are limited I am lead to believe that civil engineers are largely ignoring this administrations warnings at this time. The response from Gregory Reichart on September 18 indicated that the local chapter of ASCE in San Francisco ( home of Nancy Polosi) sponsored a Climate Change and Coastal Systems Symposium this month. I appreciate Mr. Reichart’s information as it is right on target to my request to determine the state of ASCE’s position on this charged issue. To validate any real civil engineer’s support I would suspect more wide spread symposiums hopefully in less politically active geographical areas of the country. Mr. Reichart also references a wed site identifying an ASCE endorsed Climate Change Protcol that I recommend that all those interested visit. I am surprised that “… ASCE … believes substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are required to reduce the risk of climate change.” This Protocal states that we need to adapt infrastructure to accomodate the increased incidence and severity of storms, floods, droughts, sea level rise and storm surge resulting from climate change. Is anyone currently taking this Protocal seriously and, if not, why not? Please share your experience in the interest of our profession and responsibilities.