How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Carbon Dioxide

From the CO2 Coalition

by Ron Barmby

Political tunnel vision on global warming has resulted in declaring increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide an existential threat. But the United Nations’ resolve to reduce carbon dioxide levels runs counter to its goals to end world hunger, promote world peace and protect global ecosystems. It fails to address the key question relating to those three goals: Which pathway creates the greatest good to the greatest multitude—reducing or increasing CO2?

The numbers since the year 2000 provide convincing evidence that increasing carbon dioxide has positive impacts and reducing carbon emissions entails dire consequences.

World Hunger

The pre-industrial (circa 1850) atmospheric CO2 concentration of 280 ppm (parts per million) compares to today’s 420 ppm, a 50% increase. Meanwhile, the global population has risen 560%, from 1.2 billion to 8 billion.

Those extra 6.8 billion people are mostly being fed, and it’s not all because of human agricultural productivity, pest control and plant genetics.

Observations of Earth’s vegetative cover since the year 2000 by NASA’s Terra satellite show a 10% increase in vegetation in the first 20 years of the century. Clearly, something other than agriculture is helping to improve overall plant growth.

In a recent study supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Dr. Charles Taylor and Dr. Wolfram Schlenker quantified how much of that extra greening resulted in food for human consumption since 2000. Using satellite imagery of U.S. cropland, they estimated that a 1 ppm increase in CO2 led to an increase of 0.4%, 0.6% and 1% in yield for corn, soybeans and wheat, respectively. They also extrapolated back to 1940 and suggested that the 500% increased yield of corn and 200% increased yield of soybeans and winter wheat are largely attributable to the 100 ppm increase in CO2 since then.

CO2 fertilization is not only greening the Earth, it’s feeding the very fertile human race.

World Peace

Though adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not promote world peace, attempts to stop CO2 emissions in the western democracies have increased the CO2 emissions, wealth and influence of totalitarian Russia and China.

Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union (EU), reports that the EU’s reliance on imported natural gas increased from 15.5% of its energy needs in 2000 to 22.5% by 2020. Russia was the main supplier of Europe’s natural gas. Holding Europe’s energy security in its pipelines not only helped finance Russia’s 2021 invasion of Ukraine, but it also limited the economic sanctions Europe could impose in retaliation.

According to the scientific online publication Our World in Data, between 2000 and 2020 the G7 nations lost 13.8% of the world share of GDP and China picked up 12%.

The West (the EU plus the UK, U.S., Canada and Japan) transferred GDP growth to China and energy security to Russia and was able to reduce CO2 emissions from 45% of the global total in 2000 to 25% in 2020. In the same period China’s CO2 emissions grew from 14% of the total to 31%, leading to an increase of 39% in total CO2 global emissions.

The unintended consequence of the West’s attempts to reduce CO2 emissions has been to shore up Chinese and Russian dictatorships—and in Russia’s case, to partly fund the invasion of a sovereign and democratic neighbor, Ukraine.

World Ecology

Much of the human footprint on Earth is where the products we consume originate: We either grow them on the planet’s surface or extract them from within its crust.

In testimony to the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce in 2021, Mark Mills, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, estimated that replacing each unit of hydrocarbon energy by “clean tech” energy would on average result in the extraction of five to 10 times more materials from the Earth than does hydrocarbon production.

Mills also pointed out that Chinese firms dominate the production and processing of many critical rare earth elements and that nearly all the growth in mining is expected to be abroad, increasingly in fragile, biodiverse wilderness areas.

Decarbonization will impose the heavy environmental cost of an unprecedented increase in mining.

One Last Number

Since El Nino induced a modern peak global average temperature in 1998, global warming has been essentially zero.

The numbers don’t lie. Allowing more CO2 emissions is better for ending world hunger, promoting world peace, and protecting global ecosystems.

This commentary was first published at Real Clear Energy, July 6, 2023, and can be accessed here.

Ron Barmby, a Professional Engineer with a master’s degree in geosciences, had a 40-year career in the energy industry that covered 40 countries and five continents. He is author of “Sunlight on Climate Change: A Heretic’s Guide to Global Climate Hysteria” and is a proud member of the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia.

4.9 29 votes
Article Rating
28 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 8, 2023 6:25 pm

estimated that replacing each unit of hydrocarbon energy by “clean tech” energy would on average result in the extraction of five to 10 times more materials from the Earth than does hydrocarbon production.

This estimate neglects the fundamental problem – what would be used to extract the 10X more materials. Weather dependent sources of energy require energy extractors that consume more fossil fuels in their production than they can save. Extracting the materials to make them is energy intensive.

Any saving in fossils fuel in the developed countries through the use of wind and solar energy collectors require China to burn more fossil fuel than the developed countries save. This is quite obvious from the trend we see in fossil energy consumption but it seems not a lot of people are noticing.

Reply to  RickWill
July 8, 2023 9:54 pm

And how many of those additional materials being extracted are fossil fuel based products like plastic?

Reply to  RickWill
July 9, 2023 4:10 am

In other words, wind and solar don’t generate enough energy to power the machinery used in their production -they are 100% dependent on fossil fuels from cradle to grave.

William Howard
Reply to  RickWill
July 9, 2023 5:31 am

not to mention using child & slave labor to extract those minerals

AWG
Reply to  RickWill
July 9, 2023 3:25 pm

Weather dependent sources of energy require energy extractors that consume more fossil fuels in their production than they can save. 

Lets stipulate that this is true.
Also, lets pretend that the End of Life, these weather dependent devices magically disappear and take the scars of their existence with the,

The “fossil fuels” for their production are gone and we have nothing to show for it.

One may even argue, assuming abiotic oil is not real, that by pursuing weather dependent energy sources, that humanity is burning through the finite oil sources at even greater speed since society doesn’t trade daily demand for the energy needed to full cycle deploy windmills.

That is, making weather dependent energy sources has the curious side-effect of making more pollution and destroying resources at a much faster clip than if these projects were never started in the first place.

cuddywhiffer
July 8, 2023 6:29 pm

Thank you. Another needed voice of rational sanity in this world of stupidity.

rhs
July 8, 2023 7:20 pm

If CO2 growth was an investment, 50% growth in 120’ish years is roughly a 0.40% rate. What a terrible focus! To think of the lost buying power that would represent. Even 1% growth would have nearly tripled by now.
Think of all the possible mega-fauna we could have by now with all the free fertilizer if there was a useful growth rate of CO2!

Scissor
Reply to  rhs
July 8, 2023 7:37 pm

Good way to think about it.

Reply to  rhs
July 9, 2023 12:26 am

Yes, but brontosauri are notoriously difficult to herd.

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
July 9, 2023 11:49 am

But the ribs are delish!

July 8, 2023 7:24 pm

According to CNN
“The world saw its hottest days on record this weekAverage worldwide temperature on Tuesday reached 17.18°C (62.9°F), breaking the record of 17.01°C (62.6°F) set just a day earlier. Previous highest global temperature was in mid-August 2016.”
However real readings from 50,000 weather stations from all over the world averaged as averaged on
https://temperature.global/ was 14.2 C, a rather large difference from 17.01 C
These are “non-adjusted” station readings. On would have to question what “adjustments” would make such a huge difference.

Scissor
Reply to  DMacKenzie
July 8, 2023 7:43 pm
Reply to  DMacKenzie
July 9, 2023 4:26 am

And then there is the hyperventilating over a global average temperature increase of 0.17C. It is staggering how much focus there is on the minutia of modelled or averaged data across many so called scientific disciplines.

Frederick Michael
July 8, 2023 7:35 pm

(Story tip.) As long as we’re on the BENEFITS of global warming, someone should do a thorough write-up on the dramatic decease in the strongest tornadoes. For example, the US hasn’t had a SINGLE EF5 in over a decade. We used to average 1 a year.

https://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/f5torns.html

EF4’s are down more than 50% too.

Scissor
Reply to  Frederick Michael
July 8, 2023 7:48 pm

Do they actually make predictions about this at the Prediction Center?

It’s good that we haven’t had an EF5 in over a decade. I hope this string continues.

July 8, 2023 7:42 pm

Record 30 C Heat wave hits Calgary, Alberta
Citizens take to the streets to protest Climate…
Well no actually they went to the Stampede grounds to listen to the band….

IMG_0510.jpeg
Reply to  DMacKenzie
July 9, 2023 3:31 pm

Excellent and afterwards they staggered to the nearest lap standard to protest climate change – err no, to throw up

Reply to  DMacKenzie
July 9, 2023 11:09 pm

Ranahans tomorrow

July 8, 2023 7:51 pm

So do we see any pictures of this lovely new greenery – or have they all been photobombed by The Emperor and the Toothe Faerie

Otherwise we are hearing stories about what sputniks and computers ‘see’ and ‘think’ while I wouldn’t trust the folks operating those things to babysit either a hamster or or a cactus
Correlation is not causation, increased phosphofloroseffervefferessence of wavelengths at 551.9755 nanometres does not imply the presence of A Forest – except in Kindergarten and The Lande of Ye Toothe Faeries.

CO₂ is NOT the limiting nutrient for any plant anywhere in The Natural World on This Planet
Except in the Unnatural World of commercial glasshouses, where yes it is, but those places need all that glass to stop The Real World intruding on their false/fake idyll.

That some folks cannot differentiate the two and are gullible to the point of ‘Santa Claus’ is the problem this world has right now.
That is NOT an AdHom – no human can be intrinsically that stupid – “something” caused it.
And that 2something” is in the eesay itself. Wheat, Maize and Soya DO NOT alleviate World Hunger – they are = World Hunger and are the cause of it.

Let’s kick off the photogallery with a nice Google Earth shot of Zaragoza, Spain.
Seemingly Global Warming and CO₂ have been causing mischief there in the form of Flash Flooding

I don’t see any much greenery there except on the flood plain of the river (Ebro) down there.
I see desert and soil erosion.
Soil erosion exactly because the flood plain is the only place where the ground has any natural fertility – massively enhanced by farmers using irrigation and fake fertilisers.
The fertility there came off the surrounding hillsides.

What soil there was there on the hills is now in the valley and well on its way out to the ocean from where it will do no good and never come back

Again and also, Kindergarten Grade Science intrudes in that *everyone* knows that ‘plants need water’
No, they don’t **need** water – they use water and any water they use they can get from the air – ***when*** they are growing in fertile, new, fresh non-eroded soil.
They drink the dew and recycle mercilesly – if there is any/sufficient stored in the ground beneath them.

Go to Zaragoza, zoom in on the fields and you’ll see the circles made by irrigation machines and rain-guns
Those are absolute admissions that there is “poor to shit to useless soil” down there.
As they are everywhere where they’re used, in fact everywhere where ‘irrigation’ is used.
And Irrigation speeds up erosion also poisons the soils with salt – we really are on the fast track to somewhere hellish – and very very cold.
It will have High Temperatures – youur GlobalWarming WetDream will come true but will be a cold (low energy) place.
Just. Like. Zaragoza.

(Are those (rain guns) what the Sputnik is interpreting as Global Greening – could this get any crazier or more stupid & wrong)

CO₂ does not cause rainguns, glasshouses, ammonium nitrate nor winter-wheat where previously there grew spring-wheat. That alone might account for what Sputnik **thinks** it sees.
The CO₂ that’s now in the atmosphere came out of the soils that once existed on those hillsides and it is that fact that caused the flash floods

The Romans initially removed it (flushed it down onto the flood plain) – and created their own unique Warm Period. In short measure it signalled the end of their empire
Bone-dry deserts are warmer/hotter than forests – even children know that
Nobody can survive in a desert. No matter how warm or how much CO₂ is there.

So why don’t Climate Scientists know what is intrinsic to children….

Zaragoza.jpg
Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 9, 2023 3:36 pm

“The CO₂ that’s now in the atmosphere came out of the soils that once existed on those hillsides and it is that fact that caused the flash floods”. Ah no – the CO2 apparently is coming from the burning of fossil fuels. The CO2 didn’t come out of the soils – unless you are referring to the extraction of oil. Oh wait – the cutting of trees to make into pellets to be burned instead of using coal or natural gas.

July 8, 2023 9:05 pm

The thing I don’t like about warmth and CO2…

.. is the mowing !!

July 8, 2023 9:13 pm

>>Story Tip>>

I see the “official” face of the Australia’s world beating green energy revolution is at it again.

Old mate Finkel has written a book. “Powering Up” released June 2023.

From the brief review here — Cunning Green Plan

“Think of forests of wind farms carpeting hills and cliffs from sea to sky. Think of endless arrays of solar panels disappearing like a mirage into the desert,” he writes. Not a spoof, as I first thought, when he was reported as saying it.

Also think of overbuilding of solar and wind, bringing plated capacity to “about four times higher than peak demand.” Hence, panels and turbines devasting landscapes so far as the eye can see.

What else? Ships running on ammonia produced from green hydrogen; planes flying on jet fuel from biomass; trucks running on (green) hydrogen fuel cells, hydrogen replacing natural gas for firming as required, demand management (a euphemism for power rationing), and cars all electric in the Australian “electrostate of the future.” In which too, Australia will be exporting ammonia made from green hydrogen. “Shipping sunshine,” Finkle calls it. You couldn’t make it up.

corev
Reply to  SteveG
July 9, 2023 4:28 am

ERCOT numbers for Texas’s grid impact of Winter Storm Uri show needed overbuild is actually 35 times demand of the weather spike. (70MW demand /~2MW renewables output). These costs are ignored except during the spikes where ERCOT prices peaked at “the average electricity price in ERCOT was $1,800 per megawatthour (MWh)”. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2023.01.10/main.svg and the text: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55139

You can use the ~$1,800 spike electricity price for comparison of a 100% over built ERCOT priced grid (~$1,800 spike cost / ~$50 2022 Feb avg = 36)

Renewables will nevef happen.

Graham
July 8, 2023 10:28 pm

I have never worried about rising CO2 levels.
But what I do worry about is the incessant propaganda starting at the UN and being spread like manure all around the world.
Far more harm is done and will be caused by politicians endorsing carbon zero ,trying to lower emissions and destroying their countries heavy manufacturing because o lack of affordable electricity .
The war on fossil fuel in the western countries is a farce as China and India are now using far more coal than the whole world used just 12 years ago.
A mild warming is good for the world and at the moment in New Zealand it is very cold and bleak. .
While I generally agree with Ron Barnaby,s sentiments I take issue that the massive increase in corn yields ,actually 450% is not all because of higher CO2 levels .
I have been growing corn which we call maize here in New Zealand since 1965 nearly 50 years and many other factors have pushed up yields.
For a start we have warmer weather from planting to tasseling, far better weed control ,and vastly improved varieties ,using precision planting but by far the biggest increase that has come about with continuous maize growing is the use of nitrogen fertilizer .
Without nitrogen.fertilizer second and subsequent crops will struggle to grow very tall and produce only small cobs .
The only way to manufacture nitrogen fertilizer in large quantities and at a price that is affordable is by using natural gas .
The greens want to ban nitrogen fertilizer because they believe that Nitrous oxide is a green house gas and will warm the world .
Even if it did cause some warming there is NO WAY that the world could be fed if nitrogen fertilizer was universally banned .
4 Billion people around the world are fed with the EXTRA FOOD grown with artificial nitrogen .
Banning nitrogen fertilizer would halve the worlds food production virtually within a year .

atticman
July 9, 2023 1:06 am

“The pre-industrial (circa 1850) atmospheric CO2 concentration of 280 ppm (parts per million) compares to today’s 420 ppm, a 50% increase. Meanwhile, the global population has risen 560%, from 1.2 billion to 8 billion.”

Hmmm… no wonder there’s more anthropogenic CO2 about…

July 9, 2023 4:23 am

I love all things Carbon – it is the very essence of life itself

atticman
Reply to  Energywise
July 9, 2023 1:53 pm

We are carbon-based life-forms, after all…

Eric Harpham
July 9, 2023 11:04 am

I have a carbon dioxide monitor in the summer house which has been there for 4 years. Normal readings are 359ppm up to 451ppm unless we are sat in the summer house in which case it can go up to 2500ppm.

Last Friday, 7th July, the alarm sounded at 4.30 in the afternoon. 1451ppm slowly drifting down to 1200 when I switched it off at 9pm so that we could all sleep without the continuous peep, peep. Next morning’s reading when I switched it back on 421ppm,

What caused it I don’t know but we have a steelworks 3 miles down wind so maybe that was it. Never happened before. Did anybody else notice it? NO not to my knowledge.