CO2 Sustains Greenhouse Farming Revolution

By Vijay Jayaraj

The world would be safer if industrial emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) were stopped, according to the teachings of many schools, the regulatory schemes of some governments and the hyperbolic public relations campaigns of a climate industrial complex. But the truth is happier: CO2 is an irreplaceable plant food that is increasing.

Carbon dioxide – the gas branded as public enemy number one – is not destroying the planet. It’s enhancing life on it. Across the globe, elevated CO2 levels are supercharging plant growth and delivering bountiful crop harvests at unprecedented rates. 

Why does this matter? Because future generations could benefit from rejecting the hysteria and embracing common sense and well-established facts.

Since the start of the 20th century, atmospheric CO2 has risen from around 300 parts per million (ppm) to over 420 ppm. If you believe some headlines, this is tantamount to a death sentence. But if you’re a farmer – or a scientist focused on plant physiology – this increase looks like a gift. 

Studies show that crops such as tomatoes, cucumbers, lettuce and grains grow faster and yield more under higher CO2 concentrations. This phenomena has been verified by observations of plants in the world at large and in controlled environments over many decades. 

People taking advantage of this knowledge have contributed to an agricultural revolution. From Israel’s Negev Desert to Kenya’s Rift Valley, farmers are proving that CO2 is not a villain but an ally in feeding a growing population. 

Greenhouse Boom: Food Where There Was None 

Greenhouse farming employs tent-like structures with controlled environments to grow crops. Unlike open-field agriculture, which is susceptible to the risks of weather and pests, greenhouses provide stable ecosystems that extend growing seasons and manage lighting and temperature. In addition, greenhouses can artificially elevate CO2 to levels two or three time higher than ambient atmospheric concentrations. 

These farmers achieve what nature cannot – predictable, abundant harvests in deserts, tundra and urban sprawl. The benefits include lower water use, reduced reliance on pesticides, year-round production and higher yields.

In a study, researchers assessed the proliferation of greenhouse farming in 119 countries, including 22 in Africa. Greenhouses now cover more than 5,000 square miles of land worldwide, 40 times the agricultural area under cover four decades ago.

China has 60% of the world’s greenhouse farms. Some of the largest are in Weifang, China, (82,155 hectares) and Almeria, Spain (35,117 hectares). 

CO2-enriched greenhouses now supply a significant portion of urban vegetable demand in China, a country once plagued by food shortages and famine. “Rice, cucumbers, eggplants, and tomatoes provide off-season supply to the whole country,” says Chinese researcher Xiaoye Tong.

In the Hotan Prefecture of the Xinjiang desert, farmers grow tomatoes, cucumbers, and melons in greenhouses having CO2 levels up to 1,200 ppm, triple the outdoor concentration. 

Greenhouses in this region have enabled the development of fast-breeding rice, reducing the growth cycle to just 75 days by leveraging vertical soil-less cultivation and artificial light control. The Desert Greenhouse Project in Xinjiang’s Shawan Oasis has over 2,100 units that can produce annually about 19,000 tons of vegetables and fruits in more than 30 varieties. 

“The rate of expansion is the most dramatic in China, but the increase is a global phenomenon,” says Tong. For example, India’s greenhouse horticultural sector is growing by more than 6% annually. India’s government is fueling this growth through subsidies under the National Horticulture Mission, which covers up to 50% of setup costs. 

The Metrolina Greenhouses in Huntersville, North Carolina, consists of 8 million square feet of heated indoor growing space, making it the largest single-site, heated greenhouse in the U.S.

In Spain, Novagric built the largest single-module greenhouses that cultivate high-yield tomato plants. Production rose from 21 kilograms of tomatoes per square meter to a record 30 kilograms of cherry tomatoes, and the yield is expected to continue rising. 

You don’t need a Ph.D. to see through the haze. Ask yourself: If CO2 is so harmful, why do farmers pump it into greenhouses? Why are crop yields breaking records as CO2 levels rise? The answers are in biology, not ideology.

Plants evolved when CO2 levels were five times higher than today. CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are restoring the carbon dioxide that was removed from the atmosphere when coal, oil and natural gas were formed from the remains of flora and fauna in swamps and seas millions of years ago. A deficiency of atmospheric carbon dioxide is being rectified.

In the meantime, greenhouse farming, fueled by this life-giving molecule, will be part of a promising future free of hunger.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.

5 19 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

69 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
July 1, 2025 10:08 am

But any change is Evil! And the Little Ice
Age was Eden! And give me more money!!/s

observa
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 1, 2025 7:01 pm

….or a sustainable Gummint green job-
340 jobs at risk as Aussie paper mill teeters

Newminster
July 1, 2025 10:12 am

I could be first up but I would only be saying what I have always said — CO2 does not drive climate; 420ppm is not dangerous; we’ve known for years that tomato growers (and others) discovered years ago that 1200ppm produces better crops cheaper.
Will somebody please explain all this to Ed Miliband and the useful idiots in Greenpeace et al before they destroy modern civilisation?!

Reply to  Newminster
July 1, 2025 12:02 pm

I am sure some people have tried to explain this to Mad Ed but he won’t listen and neither will the MSM.

Until some world political leader (Mr. Trump maybe?) makes that statement with proof that ordinary people can understand the Bandar-log will continue to be listened to.

And who decided that the current idiots at Greenpeace were useful in any way ?????

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Oldseadog
July 1, 2025 12:50 pm

Trying to fathom how useful and idiots can logically be placed in the same sentence.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 1, 2025 3:12 pm

Miliband knows they’re useful, as did Joseph Stalin. Just saying …..

I live amongst them and their Black Lives Matter lawn signs. Kinda funny really.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  philincalifornia
July 2, 2025 8:32 am

Thanks for the course correction. You are correct.

July 1, 2025 10:34 am

The fact of the matter is that C3 plants have already evolved the ability to use 4X the amount of CO2 for photosynthesis currently available to them in the atmosphere.

So if you are worried about the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you can rest assured that the plants aren’t.

And if you don’t think that evolution played any part in this, then the only other possible reason is divine intervention. Of course, that means that the divine can re-intervene at any point, which should really ease all your worries in your lifetime.

Reply to  doonman
July 1, 2025 12:29 pm

Mostly grasses, maize, millet, pineapple, sugarcane and papyrus. Could these have supported life after couple iceages had reduced CO2 to starvation and extinguishing levels for other plants.

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
July 3, 2025 10:20 am

Those are C4 plants not C3.

John Hultquist
July 1, 2025 11:09 am

” fast-breeding rice “
Is it called that, or perhaps, fast growing? 🤔
I get veggies from B.C., Canada here in WA State.

sturmudgeon
Reply to  John Hultquist
July 2, 2025 11:32 am

It’s a strain called “rabbitrice”, and it IS quite a strain.

Bruce Cobb
July 1, 2025 11:13 am

That can’t be right. Scientists say we are “poisoning the planet” with our CO2. Jim Hansen literally called trains carrying coal “coal trains of death”. Surely, scientists wouldn’t lie, would they?
/sarc

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 1, 2025 12:04 pm

“Scientists wouldn’t lie, would they?.”

Aye, right.

(For those who don’t know, in English a double negative equals a positive, but Scotland is the only place where a double positive equals a negative.)

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Oldseadog
July 1, 2025 12:52 pm

And if it’s nae Scottish, it’s crrrrrap!

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 2, 2025 8:33 am

How can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving.

July 1, 2025 11:30 am

Global warming due to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT exist. It is a SCAM, as explained below:

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) aerosols are an atmospheric pollutant that reflects the incoming solar radiation, and cools the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface. They enter our stratosphere from VEI4 and larger volcanic eruptions, and our troposphere from industrial activity, due to the burning of fossil fuels.

In the 1970’s “Clean Air” legislation was introduced in the US and Europe to decrease industrial SO2 aerosol emissions because of Acid Rain and Health concerns.

Their levels began falling in 1980 due to the legislation, and later, also due to “Net-Zero” activities.

As the amount of pollution in the air decreased, the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface increased, and warming naturally occurred.

However, this INEVITABLE warming is ignored by everyone, and instead it is WRONGLY attributed to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Consequently, the trace (0.04%) amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has no empirical basis for any climatic effect, apart from decreasing Earth’s albedo because of global greening.

This is a controversial post, but I believe that it is irrefutable.

1saveenergy
Reply to  Burl Henry
July 1, 2025 12:04 pm

“This is a controversial post”

No it’s not, it’s factual … real settled science.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Burl Henry
July 1, 2025 12:53 pm

SO2 has its place in the scheme of things, but it is not a single answer, it is not exclusive, and it certainly, in and of itself, the control knob.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 1, 2025 1:17 pm

Sparta Nova 4:

Please explain why it is NOT .the control knob.

1saveenergy
Reply to  Burl Henry
July 1, 2025 2:17 pm

The control knob is & always has been … water vapour !!

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  1saveenergy
July 2, 2025 8:37 am

H2O is a major player, but in and of itself, it is not the control knob.

Chaotic, non-linear, dynamic, coupled multiple energy systems do not have a single control knob.

sturmudgeon
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 2, 2025 11:35 am

IF I had a TV, my remote would be the control knob.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  sturmudgeon
July 3, 2025 9:07 am

Not a control knob, but yest a control function.
TV remotes are binary.
Control knobs are continuous (aka analog).

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 2, 2025 2:06 pm

Nor is there usually a single reason for the increase or decrease in a particular parameter in a “chaotic, non-linear, dynamic, coupled multiple energy system.” There need not be any reason, other than that fact that chaos is inherently chaotic.

Reply to  1saveenergy
July 2, 2025 6:28 pm

Isaveenergy:

It CANNOT be water vapor.

Any plot of anomalous global temperatures shows constant short term increases and decreases in temperatures that correlate with changing levels of SO2 aerosol pollution in our atmosphere. :

These changes can affect the amount of water vapor. so water vapor cannot be THE control knob.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Burl Henry
July 3, 2025 9:11 am

Changing levels of SO2 aerosols? No. The correlation is weak.
It also does not account for other factors, such as the vast reduction in particulate carbon.

Water vapor is the single most important player and that does not mean it is exclusive. It’s molecular structure causes kinetic response to EM fields, the latent heat through phase changes, and it is the only molecule that forms opaque clouds, make it much more significant than SO2 or CO2 or MH4 or any other of the molecules that have been falsely named “control knobs.”

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Burl Henry
July 2, 2025 8:37 am

The earth’s energy system is too complex to assign a single molecule be it CO2 or SO2 or even H2O as the control knob. All are factors, but nothing this complex has a simple, single cause.

Correlation is not causation is the simple answer.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 2, 2025 9:21 am

SO2 concentrations in 1980 were about 14 ppb (parts per billion). Not a whole lot of surface area per m^2 to reflect sunlight.

Yes, it is a factor, one of many, but it is not THE control knob.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 2, 2025 6:44 pm

Sparta Nova 4:

With respect to SO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, they are meaningless. SO2 aerosols are a haze of micron-sized droplets of Sulfuric Acid that reflect the incoming solar radiation, and cool the lower troposphere and the Earth’s surface. The attached image shows the global distribution of SO2 aerosols on Jan 1, 1980

Global-SO2-Jan-1-1980
Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Burl Henry
July 3, 2025 9:14 am

I see it is “well mixed.”
/sarc

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 2, 2025 7:00 pm

Sparta Nova 4:

Our climate is really NOT that complex. Increase the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere, and it cools down. Decrease the amount, and it warms up. NO exceptions, except for seasonal changes.

Changing levels of SO2 aerosol pollution are responsible for all of Earth’s temperature changes, back through the Ice Ages.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Burl Henry
July 3, 2025 9:14 am

False.

The dramatic trop in recent years in SO2 emissions due to fuel regulations was NOT accompanied by a similar change in temperatures anywhere on the planet.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 3, 2025 1:26 pm

Sparta Nova 4

FALSE.

Here is a direct quote from Berkley Earth’s recent “Carbon Brief”

“It is clear that rapid reductions in global SO2 emissions have had a major impact on the global climate”

Where do you get your misinformation?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Burl Henry
July 7, 2025 11:25 am

Berkley Earth. Got it.

Reply to  Burl Henry
July 2, 2025 2:02 pm

Because it doesn’t show up in the record of atmospheric optical depth.

rad_15
Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Thomas
July 3, 2025 9:20 am

That’s because it is insufficient in quantity to have a direct effect.
The secondary effect of seeding clouds (it is not the only process that seeds clouds) and clouds do reflect sunlight.

Currently at 0.9 ppb (parts per billion) and down from 14.7 ppb a couple of decades ago.

MarkW
July 1, 2025 11:44 am

I’ve read about a number of places that are using waste heat from fossil fuel power plants to heat green houses as well as provide warm water for raising fish.

1saveenergy
Reply to  MarkW
July 1, 2025 2:29 pm

They were doing that next to Drax when I was there ~ 50yrs ago, they were also experimenting with hydroponics. I remember the tomatoes were amazing.

Rud Istvan
July 1, 2025 11:49 am

This article is about C3 photosynthesis, about 85% of all plant species. The reason for Sahel C3 greening is simple. At higher CO2 levels, C3 plants can open their air intake stomata less, meaning they lose less water to evapotranspiration and become more water efficient.

Information supporting the C3 thesis is provided by the evolution of C4 photosynthesis about 30 million years ago.

  1. Is a classic example of convergent evolution, having evolved multiple times in multiple places in multiple species.
  2. Is a more efficient photosynthetic use of CO2.
  3. Evolutionary drivers include lower CO2 than in the more distant past, in places with higher aridity.
  4. The only three C4 human food crops are maize, sugar cane, and sorghum. Most other C4 plants are arid grasses. All three originally evolved in #3 conditions, and far from greenhouse conditions.

Fun factoid. Seguaro cactus (and most other desert succulents) evolved a third photosynthesis pathway, CAM (crassulacean acid metabolism). The stomata only open at night when the plant is cool, minimizing evapotranspiration. The CO2 is stored in the plant tissue as an acid, and then C3 photosynthesis occurs during the day with stomata closed as sunlight causes the acid to release stored CO2.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 1, 2025 12:54 pm

Always amazed at what spaceship Earth provides. New discoveries continuously.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 1, 2025 1:46 pm

Yup.
I was once ‘an expert’ at gene chips back in my Mot days running among other things running their nascent research/diagnostic gene chip business (sold to GE Med Systems after I left and then Chris Galvin was deposed). Back then, we just knew there was a lot of non gene coding ‘junk’ DNA.

Turns out was completely wrong thinking with the discovery of epigenetics, all coded in the ‘junk’.

Turns out all the various types of pulses (dried beans being an example, lentils with different genes another) are only epigenetically different. Take dried beans at the grocery store. You have red, black, navy, kidney, pinto, black eye… Different sizes, shapes, and colors. Yet all are just genetically identical DNA cultivars of wild P. Vulgaris. They only differ epigenetically!

sturmudgeon
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 2, 2025 11:42 am

Thanks. Looked that up… in layman’s terms, I accept that it means that it is different “in appearance”… correct?

sturmudgeon
Reply to  sturmudgeon
July 2, 2025 11:44 am

“A rose by any other name, would smell as sweet” ??

sturmudgeon
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 2, 2025 11:38 am

Thank you! THAT’s why I come here.

Mr.
July 1, 2025 12:13 pm

I read a UN report a while ago predicting that by 2025, to feed the population, the world will have to be producing every year as much as was produced in all the years together since the industrial revolution.

We’re gonna more CO2!

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Mr.
July 1, 2025 12:47 pm

UN is, as usual, a bit wrong.
I wrote a whole book (Gaia’s Limits) about this. Chapter one is likely population projections. Chapter two is water—much UN says is just wrong. Even the most basic water metrics are wrong, overlooking things like ‘precipitation’, ground water replenishment, and ‘virtual water’. Chapter 3 is food, which is a VERY complicated long story. How many calories per day, what kinds of calories, arable land changes, farming practice changes, crop yield improvements,… As just one example, beef protein per usable pound takes 4X the caloric feed input of an equivalent amount of poultry protein—but beef cattle can eat rangeland grasses, while poultry feed is grown on arable land that could produce other food calories. My bottom line, Gaia can support about 10.2-10.5 billion humans by about 2050-2060 or so. More is NOT possible given fundamental food constraints (even assuming continued farming practice and crop yield improvements).

And there are about 8 billion people now. Fortunately, declining birth rates suggest the world population will naturally peak at those numbers about then. So, natural limits arise, not UN crises.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 2, 2025 8:58 am

But what about Bill Gates buying up farmland and taking it out of production? What about lost production from Ukraine?

Andrew St John
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 3, 2025 3:09 am

Thank you Rud for your comments about population and natural limits. I have an old memory of a similar idea from Lord Boyd Orr from many years ago. Is your book still in print?

Mr.
Reply to  Mr.
July 1, 2025 1:37 pm

* by 2050

Sparta Nova 4
July 1, 2025 12:49 pm

Always said CO2 was a greenhouse gas, but only in a greenhouse.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 1, 2025 1:00 pm

Unfortunate misnomer, no different than ‘ocean acidification’. Greenhouses work by inhibiting terrestrial convection; they can be cooled by simply opening roof panels. Greenhouse gasses work by inhibiting radiative IR cooling to space below the ERL (effective radiative level, typically near the tropopause near the equator).

hdhoese
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 1, 2025 2:52 pm

Calling it OA may be a little like the government cutting spending when really cutting rate of increase. Similar misuses of interest rates. Also claims for bills providing more local benefits actually get to do more paperwork enhanced by computer improvements. Forget the politics, centralization has structural problems regardless of the operation, period.

As for epigenetics wonder how many such papers get discouraged or refused from too much sounding Lamarckian. Recall a fairly recent fish paper embarrassingly using the term.

Otto Kinne started Marine Ecology Progress Series.   
Kinne, O. 1962. Irreversible nongenetic adaptation. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 5:263-282.1964. Non-genetic adaptation to temperature and salinity. Helgo. Wissen. Meeres. 9(1-4):433-458.  Killifishes

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 2, 2025 8:42 am

Greenhouses work by preventing dispersion of hot air. True.

The rest is conjecture supported primarily by models and rhetoric.

sturmudgeon
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 2, 2025 11:48 am

Special Greenhouse housing for politicians.

Coeur de Lion
July 1, 2025 1:01 pm

If it’s us why didn’t the COVID deindustrialisation show up on the Keeling curve?

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
July 1, 2025 1:13 pm

Coeur de Lion:

Further proof that CO2 has no climatic effect

Duane
July 1, 2025 1:10 pm

Typical artificial CO2 concentration in greenhouse air for crop production is around 800-1,000 ppm. We’re a long long way from that in the earthian atmosphere.

strativarius
July 1, 2025 1:26 pm

Story tip

ED Miliband’s Net Zero department sent a health and safety inspector on a lavish 10,000-mile round trip – to check the hotels were up to scratch.
At least one civil servant got gas-guzzling flights to Brazil and back to scout out the British delegation’s accommodation for an upcoming summit on climate change.

The taxpayer-funded expedition was branded a “jolly in the jungle” 
https://apple.news/AVo9FGuenSFWzUQvRnybfzg

Rud Istvan
Reply to  strativarius
July 1, 2025 2:01 pm

COP30 will be held in Belem. Eastern gateway to the Amazon, located on the Atlantic coast in the Amazon delta. Definitely jungle.

1saveenergy
Reply to  strativarius
July 1, 2025 2:12 pm

Ed had to make sure his bacon sandwiches will be kosher

johnn635
Reply to  1saveenergy
July 1, 2025 2:46 pm

But it’s not about the climate, it’s about control – of energy and the minions. Censorship is increasing – 1984 was prescient.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  johnn635
July 2, 2025 8:43 am

1984 was prescient. Yes, in its day.
Today it is the operator’s manual.

Bob
July 1, 2025 3:37 pm

Very nice Vijay.

Fran
Reply to  Bob
July 2, 2025 11:58 am

Agreed, except the assumption at the end that humans are the main driver of increased CO2.

BigE
July 1, 2025 7:21 pm

Maybe the slight rise in atmospheric CO2 is the 5000 sq. miles worth of greenhouses contribution? How many cubic feet or lbs. of CO2 is sold to greenhouses worldwide?

Coach Springer
July 2, 2025 6:25 am

On the other hand, Archer Daniels Midland pumped spare waste heat and CO2 from processing grain into greenhouses. They sold vegetables / tomatoes. They abandoned the project.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Coach Springer
July 2, 2025 8:44 am

A shame. As a conservationist, recycling and reuse are high valued activities.
That said, a business needs to at least break even and all costs have to be covered of the business fails.

sturmudgeon
July 2, 2025 11:27 am

 Production rose from 21 kilograms of tomatoes per square meter to a record 30 kilograms of cherry tomatoes,”

Implied, but not clear, that “21 kilograms” represented “cherry tomatoes”.