Guest essay by Gregory Wrightstone
As the love affair with so-called green energy cools and “net zero” commitments to eliminate “carbon emissions” wane, we see glimmers of acknowledgment for the benefits of carbon dioxide. That’s right: More people are beginning to understand that the gas – widely demonized as a pollutant endangering Earth with excessive heat – is a life-giving substance needed in greater amounts.
U.S. voters know that President-elect Donald Trump has declared the Green New Deal a “scam” and promises to return common sense to environmental regulations and energy development. His return to office rests partly on that pledge.
In Europe, German politicians whose green fetish has produced economic decline face serious electoral challenges. And developing countries like India ignore “decarbonization” promises to aggressively develop coal mines and import more of the fuel to spur growth and eradicate poverty.
Less frequently reported is the story of carbon dioxide emissions greening the Earth and boosting crop production. Educating the public on the benefits of carbon dioxide is the mission of the CO2 Coalition, which I lead. We sponsor speakers and publish scientifically based materials for adults and children. Much of the information is about the role of CO2 as a beneficial greenhouse gas in moderating the extremes between daytime and nighttime temperatures and as a photosynthetic plant food.
“Fossil Fuels Are the Greenest Energy Sources” by Dr. Indur Goklany is an example of our work. Did you know that up to 50% of the globe has experienced an increase in vegetation and that 70% of the greening is attributed to plant fertilization by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels? Or that nearly 200,000 square kilometers of the southern Sahara have been converted to a lush grassland from desert?
Few have heard that doubling atmospheric CO2 from its current concentration of 420 ppm would significantly increase agricultural productivity and have little effect on the climate.
It appears that some of this knowledge has reached Canada because Alberta’s ruling Unified Conservative Party (UCP) recently approved a resolution that promotes the salutary effects of CO2 and endorses an outright rejection of the national government’s net zero policy.
“It is estimated that (atmospheric) CO2 levels need to be above 150 ppm (parts per million) to ensure the survival of plant life,” says the proposal for a resolution eventually adopted by the party. “The Earth needs more CO2 to support life and to increase plant yields, both of which will contribute to the health and prosperity of all Albertans.”
The UCP calls for abandoning CO2’sdesignation as a pollutant and for recognizing the gas as “a foundational nutrient for all life on Earth.”
The UCP’s action was not well received by the likes of DeSmog, an online platform of climate alarmists, which called the party’s resolution “a brazen display of climate science denial that harkens back to the 1990s fossil fuel industry playbook.”
DeSmog reported that the UCP had credited the “notorious” CO2 Coalition as its source of information – much to our gratification,
Except for the politically connected in the climate industrial complex, the carbon footprint phobia of recent years is a threat to everybody’s economic wellbeing. But it is a direct assault on a place like Alberta.
Perhaps second only to the Canadian Rockies, the most distinguishing natural resource of the western province is its huge deposit of oil sands – the world’s fourth largest proven reserve of “black gold.” Employing nearly 140,000 people and generating $17 billion in royalties, the oil industry is valued by Albertans.
“The problem is net zero has become a shorthand for ‘leave it in the ground,’” says Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. She plans to fight “the federal government and a coalition of extreme environmentalists who want to stop the production of oil and gas altogether.”
It is a good day when we find ourselves on the side of people fighting for the freedom to prosper as they contribute to the atmospheric store of carbon dioxide that enriches ecosystems and engenders life.
To paraphrase Donald Trump: Let’s make CO2 great again.
Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist; executive director of the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Va.; author of “Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know” and “A Very Convenient Warming: How modest warming and more CO2 are benefiting humanity.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sequestering Carbon Dioxide in order to save the
planet is a concept that is entirely without merit.
If engineers could design a factory whereby its waste could be used as a feedstock for a supplier’s factory, they would.
True.
Perfection is unobtainium.
There is no way a site can be engineered that does not leak.
There is no way a site can be engineered that can withstand the forces earth applies, plate tectonics, earth quakes, etc.
“forces earth applies, plate tectonics, earth quakes” I thought it was a general air-tightness problem where co2 would find its way out of a cavern’s walls through tiny cracks and pores.
That falls under leaks.
There is no way a site can be engineered that does not leak.
_________________________________________________
I’ve worked in Quality Control for several different industries,
a common problem for all of them was “Leaks and Leakers”
Identical problem in governments.
Trees do an excellent job of sequestering CO2, breaking the molecule, converting the C part into energy and releasing the O2 back into the environment. More CO2 = more plant life, more plant life = more CO2 converted into O2 for us air breathers.
“Trees do an excellent job . . . “
________________________
Trees are fine, everyone likes trees.
Wikipedia tells us about ocean fertilization, artificial upwelling, basalt storage, mineralization, deep-sea sediments, and adding bases to neutralize acids. However, none have achieved large scale application so far.
“So Far” means the insane policy to remove CO2 from the air is going to continue
Actually, the oxygen doesn’t come from splitting the CO2 molecule. The oxygen comes from spitting the H2O molecule. The CO2 is incorporated into making sugars and other necessary compounds.
Hmmm… Looking at the Glucose Molecule there doesn’t appear to be any undigested CO2 or H2O to create the C6H12O6 (now that I take another look at this molecule, there does appear to be a lot of H2O conceded to the “Cs”
It doesn’t matter what the source is. Increased plant growth will mean more oxygen is released.
The biomass of the carboniferous period had no awareness that it was consuming itself into sustenance living. Humans are just restoring some of the balance of that era with those in China and India really doing the heavy lifting for the rest of us.
The recent changes in biomass is quite evident and the increasing forest productivity has upsides and downsides. One downside is exacerbated by the silly notion that forests should not be managed in any way so they maximise CO2 sequestering. Inevitably this leads to more intense wild fires.
Managing forests correctly can actually increase CO2 sequestration. Here’s some reasons.
Surely we do not want to deprive the atmosphere of carbon by locking it up in furniture and housing.
It is, but if some West Cost VC billionaires can get even richer by doing so, they’ll do it. Whether it has any merit is far less important than whether it will make some rich folks some money….
We are in a CO2 famine and more is better.
Life on Earth is dependent on two
chemical compounds, H20 and CO2,
and one of them is in short supply
From article:”…carbon footprint phobia…”.
Now if we could get energy companies to stop using “carbon footprint” in their commercials. The propane commercial now seen on TV is an example. “Use propane it can lower your carbon footprint” is support for the very folks that want to terminate them.
Or they are coopting a word and converting it to uselessness – I await paper bags of low carbon footprint charcoal.
Advertising is keen on virtue signaling.
CO2 – the green, green gas of life.
When we use the vocabulary and phraseology of the alarmist, we only increase THEIR credibility.
Carbon is not CO2, so using “carbon footprint” plays into their propaganda.
Calling hydrocarbons and coal “fossil fuels” is blatantly incorrect and plays into their propaganda.
Even the expressions “greenhouse effect” and “greenhouse gas” are incorrect and plays into their propaganda.
I understand why company advertising uses those phrases. It is virtue signaling. which is fundamental to advertising.
The only way to beat them is by NOT playing their game, their rules.
We must be concise and as accurate as possible. Words do matter.
The climate alarmists use of terms such as “carbon footprint” seems straight
out the the fascists propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels mouth.
“A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times become the truth”
This entire “climate change” movement seems like something straight out of
Germany in the 1930”s.
Notice how, when referring to CO2, they always use “carbon” for shorthand. They always leave off the “O2” part, because it would be impossible to demonize it. Humans exhale the two most famous GHGs, carbon dioxide and water vapor. But I wouldn’t put it past them trying, at some point, to regulate oxygen and water vapor…
Maybe, just maybe, Trump can Make Coal Great Again. He didn’t last time, I know.
They have discovered that there are rare minerals that can be extracted from coal waste, America has millions of tons of it.
Who they?
Yes, I saw that. Possibly as much as 11 million tons of rare earth elements. A study was done and printed up in the International Journal of Coal Science & Technology. They don’t have to mine it either, it’s there in landfills, ponds, and storeage areas. Remains to be seen if it could be economically feasible.
Kudos to the CO2 Coalition!
“Much of the information is about the role of CO2 as a beneficial greenhouse gas in moderating the extremes between daytime and nighttime temperatures and as a photosynthetic plant food.”
“A” photosynthetic plant food? CO2 is the ONLY carbon-based starting material for photosynthesis!
But its effectiveness as a day/night temperature moderator is not in evidence. Theoretically, in a static atmosphere, yes. But there is no way to confirm it in the dynamic circulation of the real thing.
“CO2 as a beneficial greenhouse gas in moderating the extremes between daytime and night-time temperatures”
I agree DD! There is no evidence of that…
H2O, yes.
Trump’s EPA should immiately re-classify CO2 as a NON-pollutent and trigger the imminent court battle that will surely ensue.
In short, put CO2 on trial and win with science.
I think Trump should ignore climate for now. Place some good people into leading NOAA and NASA and start house cleaning. He needs to focus on the border, the economy and DOGE. Don’t give Democrats something to deflect on.
It would also be nice if Trump had some ammunition before attacking climate alarmism. If the winter got bad that could be used. Better yet would be some strong global cooling.
You forgot to mention the most Evil of all… the 3-letter agencies.
“win with science”… like with Mann?
Most co2 comes from the oceans. All part of the wonderful natural mechanism.
This is a great post. Can I put this up on my site as well?
This post reminds me that my wood stove is in need of a few chunks of dead tree. What I find interesting is that such fuel is not considered “fossil” but is considered neutral with respect to the cycling of Carbon Dioxide. See: Drax Power Station.
Further, some parts of trees and riparian brush that I cut but do not burn gets stacked in piles — and remains so for years in the dry climate here. Thus, I have my own small scale “Carbon Capture and Storage” {CCS} program. These become home and security for numerous wild critters — always quail and, in the last 20 years, Yellow- Bellied Marmots. Win-win! 🤠
Is there sense in attributing specific sources to fungible resources? Rather than storing volumes of gas in sequestration caverns I’d prefer to store solid chunks of wood. One reason my vision can’t be implemented: solid chunks of wood can be sold for firewood and Ikea.
Plus that way a leak from the cavern won’t kill a bunch of people.
Regarding atmospheric CO2, human plus natural, it is near the lowest level in 600 million years.
Highly subsidized CO2 sequestering schemes and Net Zero schemes are super-expensive, ineffective suicide programs.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
.
Plants require at least 1000 to 1200 ppm of CO2, as proven in greenhouses
Many plants have become extinct, along with the fauna they supported, due to a lack of CO2. As a result, many areas of the world became arid and deserts. Current CO2 needs to at least double or triple. Earth temperature increased about 1.2 C since 1900, due to many causes, such as long-term cycles, fossil CO2, and permafrost methane which converts to CO2.
.
CO2 ppm increased from 1979 to 2023 was 421 – 336 = 85, greening increase about 15%, per NASA.
CO2 ppm increased from 1900 to 2023 was 421 – 296 = 125, greening increase about 22%
.
Increased greening: 1) Produces oxygen by photosynthesis; 2) Increases world flora and fauna; 3) Increases crop yields per acre; 4) Reduces world desert areas
The ozone layer absorbs 200 to 315 nm UV wavelengths, which would genetically damage exposed lifeforms.
.
Energy-related CO2 was 37.55 Gt, or 4.8 ppm in 2023, about 75% of total human CO2.
One CO2 ppm in atmosphere = 7.821 Gt.
Total human CO2 was 4.8/0.75 = 6.4 ppm in 2023. See URLs
CO2, human plus natural, to atmosphere was 421.08 ppm, end 2023 – 418.53, end 2022 = 2.55 ppm; to oceans 2.3 ppm (assumed); to forests and other sinks 1.55 ppm; natural CO2 increase is assumed at zero.
Forests net CO2 absorption = absorption 15.6 Gt – emission 8.1 Gt = 7.6 Gt = 1 ppm
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-satellites-help-quantify-forests-impacts-on-the-global-carbon-budget/
Mauna Loa curve shows a variation of about 9 ppm during a year, due to seasons
Inside buildings, CO2 is about 1000 ppm, greenhouses about 1200 ppm, submarines up to 5000 ppm
.
Respiration: glucose + O2 → CO2 + H20 (+ energy)
Photosynthesis: 6 CO2 + 12 H2O (+ sunlight+ chlorophyll) → 1 glucose + 6 O2 + 6 H20
Plants respire 24/7. Plants photosynthesize with brighter light
In low light, respiration and photosynthesis are in balance
In bright light, photosynthesis is much greater than respiration
.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-study-2001-2020-global-greening-is-an-indisputable-fact-andhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/05/anthropogenic-global-warming-and-its-causes/
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/summary-of-world-co2eq-emissions-all-sources-and-energy-related
https://issuu.com/johna.shanahan/docs/co2_pitch_4-3-24_baeuerle_english
.
Oceans Absorb CO2
Sea water has 3.5% salt, NaCl, by weight.
CO2 molecules continuously move from the air into sea water, per Henry’s Law
CO2 and NaCl form many compounds that contain C, O, H, Cl, Ca
They sustain flora (plankton, kelp, coral) and fauna in the oceans.
.
At the surface, seawater pH 8.1, and CO2 421 ppm, the % presence of [CO2], [HCO3−], and [CO3 2−] ions is 0.5, 89, and 10.5; “Free” CO2 is only 0.5%; CO2 out-migration is minimal, given the conditions.
The oceans are a major sink of CO2 (human + natural)
https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/14-4_feely.pdf
Nobody has shown with any empirical evidence that any of the 1.2 degree Celsius temperature rise has anything to do with any increase in atmospheric CO2, regardless of source.
They simply ASSUME that.
The tropics are the engine of weather.
Clearcutting rain forests for ranching and crops deceases the evaporation of rain forest water, and cause more sunlight on clearcut areas, both of which have contributed to increased world temperatures
Humans, alas require less than 1000pm so that for our brains to function correctly.
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104789
Doubling the CO2 would start to seriously effect indoor air quality as it will become impossible to dilute our exhalations (40,000ppm) below the threshold where our cognitive function is impared.
Sorry.
For several years I worked with a large engineering firm in NYC, which designed office buildings, and hospitals, university campuses, airports, drug company research centers, large correctional centers, etc
In office buildings and school classrooms, the CO2 is about 1000 ppm, with absolutely no adverse impact on our ability to design complex projects.
The newest submarines have CO2 at about 2000 ppm, older subs up to 5000 ppm
“It is estimated that (atmospheric) CO2 levels need to be above 150 ppm (parts per million) to ensure the survival of plant life,”
I’ve heard it before and do not doubt the concept is true – “the survival of plant life” leaves a lot of room for interpretation. All plant life? Some plant life? Which specifically? Determining growth rate vs co2 concentration seems like an easy/inexpensive experiment that should have been documented in the 1960s. I’m guessing it’ll be Google-able.
So, Kevin, tell me
what is the best CO2 concentration for the atmosphere?
Dear Member of Parliament | Bread on the water
I don’t know at all. If you give me a thermostat, I’m turning it up a few degrees, my toes are cold.
Experiments have shown that the stomata are “jam-jacked” at about 250ppm.
So any level less than 250ppm is detrimental to plant survival.
Are these ‘experiments’ conducted in Nature’s environment? Asking for a friend.
Survival conditions are miserable conditions
Plants need THRIVING conditions, which are at least 1000 ppm
That is the reason hugely expensive, unaffordable Net Zero is a suicide pact
In doing some research yesterday, I came across this statement
Two things are immediately apparent. First, that six degrees of warming per doubling CO2, even if true, does not mean to apply everywhere. Yet, alarmists make it seem that Phoenix, which is already a hot place, on a day which is 122F, will in the two-times CO2 future be 132F on an equivalent day. No. The cold places on the globe will be those places that warm preferentially.
Second, please tell us exactly where the 2 degrees panic level goal came from. Sometimes it is a 1.5 degree goal, instead, but nevertheless it is unclear what is supposed to happen. These appear to be numbers pulled from someone’s hat. Who are included in this group of “some scientists”? What evidence do they have?
“First, that six degrees of warming per doubling CO2…”
Is total hogwash and balderdash. !!
“3.6 to 6 C degrees”
I would be sad if I’d worked for decades to generate a result that inexact.
And that clearly out of touch with reality.
The 2 came from doubling.
Not from any where else.
They were too lazy to justify it, or anything else. And they didn’t need to … nobody called them on it.
“Did you know … 70% of the greening is attributed to plant fertilization by carbon dioxide” AUTHOR
And warmer winters too.
That’s some climate crisis!
I live in central Ohio.
I know what snow is.
I also know what a snow shovel is.
How bad would it be my grandkids never find out? 😎
Ohio without snow is…. Northern Alabama?
There are other cultural differences than climate, but elderly New Yorkers are not emigrating to Florida for other cultural differences.
A friend moved from Socialist, high tax, high regulation, high cost woke Connecticut to mid Florida, well away from any coast, at 20 m elevation, so no flooding.
He said, I should have done this 20 years ago. I feel at home, because I am surrounded by Republicans everywhere I go.
Know what you mean, but Repubs are not exactly a safe bet. Conservatives, Yes.
No one talks about the obvious benefits to Earth’s plants from more CO2 because who wants to hear good news? And how about preventing the next glacial period from happening? We know for a fact that over the last million years Earth has experienced multiple glacial periods lasting 75k to 100k years each, where huge swaths of the northern hemisphere were covered with glaciers and arable land was vastly reduced.
If human carbon dioxide and methane emissions can raise global temperatures a couple degrees C or so (a questionable premise, but let’s go with it), could that potentially prevent the next glacial period? Warm periods are far more beneficial for humans and other animals than glacial periods.
We who?
Maybe this will help
CO2, 0.042% presence, a weak IR photon absorber, plays almost no role absorbing photons compared to water vapor, 1.7% presence near the surface (dew, fog), a strong IR photon absorber, which absorbs almost all IR surface photons.
Any photons not absorbed, the vast majority, loose their energy by collision with hugely abundant air molecules.
Almost all IR surface photons are gone, exterminated, about 10 meter from the surface.
Water vapor, being light, 18, compared to air, 29, rises until about 2000 m, where it condenses into clouds. Water vapor ppm is greatly reduced
CO2 does not play any meaningful role regarding IR photon absorption, until WV ppm is greatly reduced, which is above the clouds
Those higher altitude IR photons are mostly colder, have less energy, have longer wavelengths beyond the CO2 15 micrometer absorption window.
Very nice Gregory, well said.
Wanting and working to limit the extraction and use of fossil fuels because of CO2 emissions is essentially wanting and working to limit life on Earth. Believing that in doing so we will control the weather is the surest evidence we need that the proponents of Net zero should be institutionalized for dementia or incarcerated for deliberate fraud and violence against life on Earth.
New ag secretary looks like she’ll move department away from climate activism. Brooke Rollins:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/23/trump-loyalist-brooke-rollins-usda-secretary-surprise-nomination-00191391
Linda McMahon will be an interesting Secretary of Ed.
Isn’t there too much water? The excessive water causes all sorts of death.
Doesn’t that classify it as a pollutant? Shouldn’t we work to reducing the volume of water.
Imagine how futile that attempt would be. Hmm? Just as futile as the fight to reduce CO2.
“And developing countries like India ignore “decarbonization” promises to aggressively develop coal mines and import more of the fuel to spur growth and eradicate poverty.”
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/india-increase-coal-fired-capacity-2024-by-most-least-6-years-2024-02-01/
“India to increase coal-fired capacity in 2024 by the most in at least 6 years”
*************
At COP[OUT] 29, an agreement was reached that involved the wealthy Global North paying the Global South $300 billion for climate mitigation.
Not good enough says India….
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/25/india-fires-warning-shot-with-rejection-of-finance-deal-at-cop29/
“As COP29 wound up in the early hours of Sunday, India’s fierce objection to the climate finance deal that was the summit’s main outcome showed its resolve to act as a voice for the Global South in wanting more international support to step up climate action, diplomats and policy analysts said.
In a statement described as “bold” and “historic”, India rejected the rushed approval of the new finance goal for 2026-2035, arguing that due process had not been followed, and sought “much higher ambition” from rich nations.
“The Global South is being pushed to transit to no-carbon pathways even at the cost of our growth… other measures are being imposed by developed country parties to make this transition really not easy,” Chandni Raina, an advisor with India’s Department of Economic Affairs, said in an impassioned speech. “This amount is a paltry sum and not something that will enable conducive climate action,” she said of the hard-fought deal on climate finance after it was gavelled through.”
****************
So, India is complaining that the wealthy North is pushing climate mitigation on them while not giving them enough for implement it. Maybe the wealthy North should just stop pushing the climate alarmist narrative altogether. Sounds like a good idea to me.
The weird thing about this ‘Carbon’ crisis is that all the carbon that is vilified is from life forms past and present including our very selves. Carbon is the Lego block of life with hydrogen and oxygen a couple of very useful add on companions. The trio, together with nitrogen, dominate the atmosphere, oceans which in turn are the soups from which life evolved, evolves and sustains itself.
The other weird thing is that while atmospheric CO2 may well ave doubled or so over the past century the human population has quadrupled or more, its standard of living , i.e. energy and materials consumption increased even more and the bulk of those extra people live in or close by rivers, flood plains and coastlines for obvious reasons, i.e. not in treeless deserts or rocky, ice covered mountains.
The other big change and probably the real turbocharger of carbon phobia is that amount of media now available globally and instantaneously in so many forms. We get every murder, freeway closure, bush or factory fire, rape, terrorist act, protest performance etc etc shoved in our faces and ears all day every day and pumping up fear levels usually to the commercial or other benefit of certain vested interests.
It is the media (including ‘scientific’ publishing) that is the real driver of the carbon phobia and the various self interests are hardly invisible, just denied in a huffy, self important tone. It reminds me a lot of the defences of paedophiles and other sexual predators. That’s what Mann and co are, in my opinion, intellectual predators aka wannabe intellectuals.
So it seems that it’s acceptable to discuss what the minimum levels of carbon dioxide are to maintain photosynthetic capacity.
Why not extend the discussion to ask at what concentration of carbon dioxide that mammals start to suffer due to inadequate exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the lungs?
If we have those two boundary conditions, we can start to discuss where in between them might be most beneficial for life on earth.
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104789
Defines a boundary condition (1000pm), but not for suffocation, but rather human cognition.
There are real, non-model, blinded studies that show doubling the CO2 to 800ppm would be detrimental to human cognition:
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104789
That is why the threshold for indoor air quality, established by quality studies such as the one cited above, is in the 800ppm-1200ppm range. (it’s also why masks are a terrible idea esp. for schools).
You can’t make indoor air CO2 concentrations that low if outdoor is at 800ppm.
There’s going to have to be a middle ground between what is good for plants and what is good for our brains. That middle ground is short of 600ppm most likely.