OPINION By Craig D. Idso, Ph.D.
In his State of the Union address, President Obama advocated an energy policy aimed at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), which he claims are causing catastrophic changes to the earth’s climate and “harming western communities.” In his policy prescription, the president advocates a combination of increased regulation of the energy and transportation industries and more government spending on research designed to bring low-carbon-emitting sources of energy, i.e., so-called renewables, to market. He considers those actions to be the only viable options “leading to a cleaner, safer planet.”
But the president’s concerns for the planet are based upon flawed and speculative science; and his policy prescription is a recipe for failure.
With respect to the science, Obama conveniently fails to disclose the fact that literally thousands of scientific studies have produced findings that run counter to his view of future climate. As just one example, and a damning one at that, all of the computer models upon which his vision is based failed to predict the current plateau in global temperature that has continued for the past 16 years. That the earth has not warmed significantly during this period, despite an 8 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, is a major indictment of the models’ credibility in predicting future climate, as well as the president’s assertion that debate on this topic is “settled.”
Numerous other problems with Obama’s model-based view of future climate have been filling up the pages of peer-reviewed science journals for many years now, as evidenced by the recent work of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, which published a 1,000-page report in September highlighting a large and well-substantiated alternative viewpoint that contends that rising atmospheric CO2 emissions will have a much smaller, if not negligible, impact on future climate, while generating several biospheric benefits.
Concerning these benefits, atmospheric CO2 is the building block of plant life. It is used by earth’s plants in the process of photosynthesis to construct their tissues and grow. And as has been conclusively demonstrated in numerous scientific studies, the more CO2 we put into the air, the better plants grow. Among other findings, they produce greater amounts of biomass, become more efficient at using water, and are better able to cope with environmental stresses such as pollution and high temperatures.
The implications of these benefits are enormous. One recent study calculated that over the 50-year period ending in 2001, the direct monetary benefits conferred by the atmospheric CO2 enrichment of the Industrial Revolution on global crop production amounted to a staggering $3.2 trillion. And projecting this positive externality forward in time reveals it will likely bestow an additional $9.8 trillion in crop production benefits between now and 2050.
By ignoring these realities, Obama’s policy prescription is found to be erroneous. The taxation or regulation of CO2 emissions is an unnecessary and detrimental policy option that should be shunned. Why would any government advocate to increase regulations and raise energy prices based on flawed computer model projections of climate change that will never come to pass? Why would any government advance policy that seeks to destroy jobs, rather than to promote them? Why, in fact, would they actually “bite the hand that feeds them?”
We live in a time when half the global population experiences some sort of limitation in their access to energy, energy that is needed for the most basic of human needs, including the production of clean water, warmth, and light. One-third of those thus impacted are children. An even greater portion finds its ranks among the poor.
As a society, it is time to recognize and embrace the truth. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Its increasing concentration only minimally affects earth’s climate, while it offers tremendous benefits to the biosphere. Efforts to regulate and reduce CO2 emissions will hurt far more than they will help.
Idso is lead editor and chief scientist for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.
Source: The Hill via Bob Ferguson, SPPI.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If you really want learn about CO2 effects on plant life then just Google “pot-growers dry-ice CO2 augmentation”. Those guys have it figured out how to determine ppm for a room size, best ways to sublime CO2, when-times of the day/night, how to regulate humidity/heat, how much is too much-for the plants & themselves(one guy sublimed a 10lbs. block in a sealed 10×20 room while he was in it. How much yeast, sugar, water, dry-ice to make a bubbler, toxic acidity of bubbler water and when to change it. Turnover rates from CO2 to O2.
My point is this, these guys see it just as beneficial, profitable, and safe to handle as fertilizers or weed-killers. Care and knowledge is needed but nothing alarming or unmanageable. Something may be learned from their experiences.
“President Obama advocated an energy policy aimed at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), which he claims are causing catastrophic changes to the earth’s climate and “harming western communities.”
Presumably this policy will work for everyone on the planet, not just Western Communities.
Knowledge of basic science is clearly lacking!
Somewhere around 150ppm CO2 in our atmosphere, most plant life starts dying out. During the last ice age, which ended 10-12,000 years ago, CO2 levels dropped to around 180ppm,
We are lucky to be here.
Putting even more fuel out of the reach of people:
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/epa-s-wood-burning-stove-ban-has-chilling-consequences-for-many-rural-people.html
It does seem safe to say that fundamental to our nature is the need to believe in something, that something having consistently acted as a foundation to support a hierarchy. History is replete with illustrations of how this arrangement has allowed the powerful to impose their own vision on everyone else, expanding its wealth via effective economic and social structures that certainly in most cases did provide benefits to a widening pool of people until, alas, a rot sets in and the good gets overtaken by the bad. Such is the case here where after a century or so of vitally important economic and social improvement for the masses a disapproving elite wants to impose unnecessary artificial limits. At the head of this stands the current POTUS who through the use of Executive Orders intends to constrain what he cannot achieve by rational argument. What is curious is why he intends to eschew the real solutions inherent in advanced nuclear energy, for as we have ample proof, the pursuit of so called green technologies is simply a pathway to waste valuable public resource, not avenues to provide a decent chance for all the world’s people. Regrettably, the realities are that Mr Obama in not the far sighted leader America and the world so desperately leads, but is instead a man over-burdened by negative visions, this is hugely disappointing given the importance of American leadership to the world.
Good to see someone cheer-leading for CO2.
Myself, I’m hoping for a 500ppm atmosphere. Should be very productive…
Will the benefits of increased plant productivity be realised, when the “Ecoloons” have covered vast swathes of agricultural land with solar panels?
A Lead author of Agenda 21 was the now disgraced Maurice Strong who famously said ” CO2 is the exhaust of Capitalism which must be destroyed ” Obama is just following this aim. CO2 is the elixir of life and certainly not a pollutant. Agenda 21 is here in local government under the guise of ICLEI. Just look up your local Council’s involvement with this UN Body which is Agenda 21 under another name. Wolves in sheep’s clothing which is the Fabian Socialists’ logo….need I say more?
“But the president’s concerns for the planet are based upon flawed and speculative science; and his policy prescription is a recipe for failure.”
The “science” is so flawed and speculative that one hates to hear it called science. The president is most likely not really a believer in “CO2 will kill us all” but rather a true believer in control by government; and there is nothing like “saving the world” to justify ever more governmental controls.
Mother nature is running an experiment on planet earth just now. It is not over, but the preliminary results show that you can raise CO2 concentrations from 360 ppm or so up to 400 ppm or so and the global average temperature remains flat. As for any “tipping point”, we have been told by science that the concentration of CO2 500 million years ago was 20 times the value we have today and yet the earth did not experience “thermogedon” (run-away heat buildup).
Cheap energy leads to the poorest among us living much better in many ways. The president does not care about the poor, especially those in the 3rd world. They need cheap coal and coal fired electricity generation plants (or cheap gas) to join the technologically advanced nations.
There was never any credible scientific evidence (as verses the output of “models”) of any catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. In fact, without “adjustments” by the various data keeping agencies we would be talking about the 20 year span of global cooling and what that means for our future.
Do we not need more atmospheric CO2 in a cooling atmosphere to maintain crop production, otherwise many of the poor may well starve to death! Oh hang on a minute, that is what the elite left want isn’t it, a reduced population of the Earth. How will history record these elites/Greens/Environmentalists? Will they be placed alongside Gengis Khan, Stalin, Hitler, Pol-Pot, in light of the open slaughter of billions by starvation to ease their consciences? Much as Numberwatch provides the definition of Sustainability, an environmental utopia built on millions of African corpses!
bobl says:
January 30, 2014 at 11:14 pm
“I would go further to say that the President’s actions in attempting to reduce Carbon Dioxide endanger the American People and may not be constitutional.”
===============================
You are absolutely correct that Obama’s actions are entirely unconstitutional.
Under the enumerated powers granted to the Federal government in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Federal Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches have absolutely no power or authority on environmental issues.
Therefore, under the rights granted in Amendments 9 and 10, any power not specifically enumerated to the Federal government is retained by the individual States or to the people to adjudicate.
Accordingly, environmental rules and regulations should be controlled and enforced by each individual state as they see fit, and not by Federal government fiat.
If the Constitution was actually protected and defended (as all Presidents, Congressmen and Justices swear an oath to fulfill), each state would be free to implement environmental laws which serve the needs of the citizen’s of that state.
States with very strict environmental laws may have pristine air and water but less manufacturing, while states with more pragmatic environmental laws would have less pristine air and water, but stronger economies. Inter-state competition would drive advances in environmental technology as states compete for manufacturing, while trying to create cleaner environments.
Now, often draconian EPA rules and regulations are forced on all 50 states, regardless of the negative economic consequences, and often with little or no discernible environmental improvement.
Our Founding Fathers established this type of decentralized government as they foresaw the types of problems we’re now facing with CAGW advocacy.
Robin W says: @ur momisugly January 30, 2014 at 7:23 pm
In reality he’s pushing Agenda 21….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Couldn’t agree more (but everyone here already knows that :>) )
Thank you Dr. Idso, and the rest of the brave scientists at the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change for sticking your necks out. People like you give me hope for the future.
The Hill has another article of interest: Tax uncertainty hurting alternative energy (I nearly lost my breakfast)
As a layman, I don’t find it difficult to understand the actual significance the estimate of CO2 being 400ppmv. it’s .04%! it’s a tiny amount. I read in another article that human produced CO2 accounts for around 3% of that 400ppm. Can anyone confirm that this is the case? And if this IS the case, how can anyone think that men can significantly reduce this 400ppm by curtailing our use of fossil fuels? I don’t believe that CO2 is having any significant effect on the temperature of the planet, but even if I did, I can also see that curtailing fossil fuel use would be futile; even if every nation on earth did it!
So if the figures I’m quoting are anything close to what is actually occurring, Why can’t everyone see what is apparent to a layman like me?
Peter Miller says: @ur momisugly January 31, 2014 at 12:26 am
Somewhere around 150ppm CO2 in our atmosphere, most plant life starts dying out. During the last ice age, which ended 10-12,000 years ago, CO2 levels dropped to around 180ppm,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
150ppm CO2 is WAY TO LOW!
Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California. The elevation of the La Brea tar pits is 164′ (50 m)) and the study uses ice core CO2 measurements from Taylor Dome and Vostok. See what the plants had to say about the CO2 levels in the past. CO2: Ice Cores vs. Plant Stomata
There is a reason C4 plants (weeds and grasses) developed, CO2 starvation makes a less optimal photosynthetic pathway competitive with C3 when there is less rain.
Although the climastrologists have re-written science to say plants could live in an atmosphere of only 180 ppm to match their revised ice core data, link earlier work, now gone from the internet, had a lower limit of 200 – 220 ppm
A more realistic lower limit can be deduced from this field study of wheat (C3).
“The CO2 concentration at 2 m above the crop was found to be fairly constant during the daylight hours on single days or from day-to-day throughout the growing season ranging from about 310 to 320 p.p.m. Nocturnal values were more variable and were between 10 and 200 p.p.m. higher than the daytime values.” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0002157173900034
The extreme lower limit of 200 ppm can also be found in green house studies:
In other words our present day CO2 levels are still close to ‘Starvation levels’ for plants and during the next glaciation, whenever it comes, the corresponding reduction in CO2 levels will be very dangerous to plant life.
Social madness does not care about the failure of the underlying premise until far too late. Tulip bulbs sold for as much as a nice house at the peak of the madness. CO2 obsession is no different in how it clouds otherwise intelligent minds.
@Derek Wood
Humans probably produce about 3 percent of the total emission (flux) of CO2 at any given time, thus you can probably say that human CO2 is less than about 3% of that 0.04% or 0.00012% of the atmosphere.
Warmists say that we are however creating the imbalance between emission and sinks of about 1.5 % per annum which allows CO2 to accumulate. Now that’s probably partly true assuming CO2 continues to accelerate, if however we stopped increasing emission every year the biosphere (sinks) would grow to equilibriate in a few years and CO2 rise would stop – there is lots of argument around here on exactly how long that takes to happen, though “thousands of years” which many warmists say, is generally not among the answers you find here. I think based on the fact that the biosphere grows to consume 50 % of mans excess in the first year, that the equiblibrium time is only 5 years, others have different estimates, generally between 10 and 50 years.
SAMURAI says: @ur momisugly January 31, 2014 at 3:17 am
On trampling the Constitution:
The biggest mistake made in the USA was not giving US citizens “Standing” so that we as citizens can not go after our elected officials and bring them to trial. We must lobby our Congressman to do so. (Fat lot of good that does)
“The Congress shall have the Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, …” is the applicable sentence indicating that The Congress is the place where treason is determined and decided. Section 3 of the Constitution defines treason and its punishment.
There is a lot of scuttlebutt about the Patriot Act and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 turning that provision of the Constitution on its head.
(I am not going to try and read those laws. I will leave that as an exercise for the WUWT readers. :>) …Science papers are bad enough. I hate slugging through hundreds of pages of legalize and yes I have done it. It is why I support the READ THE BILL LAW. If Congress votes on a bill they should be made to read the darn thing first.)
….
Then there is the matter of ‘Standing’ You can not go after someone unless you can prove you have been materially harmed (This is why Mikey Mann’s lawsuits should have been tossed on a dung heap.)
Last is the problem that you need the governments permission to sue the government:
Sort of ties our hands doesn’t it? Especially when elections are determined by the MSM propaganda machine and money from corporations and individuals. Some time look at the number of law offices that ‘Donate’ to campaign funds. Can you say Money Laundering? Also just how many companies does Warren Buffet control via Berkshire Hathaway? See (WIKI for a listing) each of those companies can contribute $32,400 to a national party committee per calendar year. Sure adds up doesn’t it? And that is just ONE person.
(Berkshire Hathaway has significant slice of the Coca-Cola Company in case you were wondering about that Polar Bear.)
bobl says: @ur momisugly January 31, 2014 at 4:43 am
…Warmists say that we are however creating the imbalance between emission and sinks of about 1.5 % per annum which allows CO2 to accumulate. Now that’s probably partly true assuming CO2 continues to accelerate, if however we stopped increasing emission every year the biosphere (sinks) would grow to equilibriate in a few years and CO2 rise would stop…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is not necessarily true. The Ice core data shows an 800 year lag. 800 years ago was the Medieval Optimum so we may be seeing the CO2 from that time period. :>)
Why do you think Mikey Mann and The Team™ wanted to get rid of the Medieval Optimum? They could have just flattened it a tad like they did the 1930s instead of scrubbing it completely from history.
(As usual one of my comments link has gotten booted into the deep ocean by WordPress, mods.)
It’s ironic, is it not, that people like Stern and producing reports telling us that the cost of CO2 mitigation, as astronomical as it is, is cheaper than doing nothing. An yet, the reality is that far from bringing net costs, CO2 brings net benefits.
For mitigation to make any sense, the costs would have to fall – past zero, and keep falling, all the way to minus $300bn per year.
@bobl:
That’s a good effort, I’m almost there. Thanks
For any Warmists who disbelieve that co2 is not a plant fertilizer read these paper abstracts here.
http://youtu.be/P2qVNK6zFgE
Dr. Idso:
Thank you for your post and continuing efforts with the NGIPCC. I have one little thing I want to bring up to all of us. “Beliefs” or “viewpoints” are NOT the basis of our position on climate change. We rely on evidence and we make supported conclusions based on our observations. You state that: “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, which published a 1,000-page report in September highlighting a large and well-substantiated alternative viewpoint that contends that rising atmospheric CO2 emissions will have a much smaller, if not negligible, impact on future climate, while generating several biospheric benefits
I respectfully suggest that it is not an alternative viewpoint – it is the considered conclusion of the scientists involved based on the data and observations.
We will all be better off if we move away from any reference to “alternative explanation” “beliefs” “viewpoints” or other terms which imply subjectivity or judgment on our collective part. Our conclusions are empirical, experimentally-based and founded on data. People who “believe” something do so with the same cognitive processes by which they are religious (if they are).
In terms of climate science, we can only “accept” a conclusion if it is consistent with all data and observations. “Belief” has no place in our discussions – nor does “an alternative viewpoint”.
Otherwise, thanks again for your post.
If CO2 is so bad, why is there not a push to nuclear power?. It’s zero emission and with proper siting/management, chances for disaster are small.
2cents worth.
Co2 reduction is not their aim. De-industrialization, de-population and global control is their game. Co2 is just another new tool in their arsenal of horse manure.
http://green-agenda.com/
http://green-agenda.com/turningpoint.html