Why Net-Zero Policies Risk Human Catastrophe and Carbon Dioxide Doesn’t

by Angela Wheeler

For years, the CO2 Coalition and independent scientists have warned that the U.S Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5) rested on a foundation of sand. Its dramatic projections of catastrophe relied heavily on U.N.-sponsored Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) and its successor SSP5-8.5—both extreme predictions of carbon dioxide emissions that were treated as realistic.

As far back as 2017, scientists noted the far-fetched nature of the U.N. predictions. In August, the Trump administration proposed an amendment to NCA5 that acknowledges its emission forecasts are implausible and must not guide federal policymaking. This is a welcome restoration of scientific integrity.

The amendment, issued under the U.S. Global Change Research Program and aligned with Executive Order 14303, “Restoring Gold Standard Science,” states that results dependent on RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, or equivalent emission scenarios “should not be used as expected, baseline, business-as-usual, likely, central, or policy-relevant federal planning futures.”

Any NCA5 figure, table, or claim based on these “implausible” scenarios must carry an explicit caveat. Projections of damages, health effects, or ecosystem collapse cannot stand alone as policy premises without comparison to plausible alternatives and real-world observations.

This correction is long overdue. RCP8.5 was never designed to forecast the most likely future. It was constructed as an upper-bound for climate-model experiments—an exploratory tool of imaginary, extreme conditions. Its predictions of global warming defied observed trends in growth of coal consumption, technological development, and socioeconomic trajectories, according to multiple peer-reviewed analyses.

Treating extreme emission scenarios as ordinary distorted the entire national climate assessment. It inflated projected impacts, fueled exaggerated risk narratives, and justified costly regulatory interventions that ignored economics and human welfare. The amendment properly requires that such results be contextualized or set aside for decision-making.

Yet this amendment, while necessary, is only a first step. NCA5’s deeper problems remain. It continues to lean on climate models that have systematically overestimated warming and failed basic observational tests. It elevates politically driven documents of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change over scientific data. Most critically, it omits the extraordinary benefits of rising atmospheric CO2 and of the fossil fuels that produce it.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it is the essential plant food that makes life on Earth possible. Current concentrations, near 420 parts per million, remain far below levels that have prevailed for much of Earth’s history and are still low for optimal plant growth. Decades of laboratory and field evidence demonstrate that elevated CO2 increases photosynthetic rates, improves water-use efficiency, and boosts crop yields—wheat by 20% to 30% and soybeans by up to 46% under controlled conditions. Satellite observations confirm global greening, with rising CO2 responsible for most of the increase in leaf area across vast regions. Nitrogen fertilizers derived from fossil fuels support roughly half the world’s population.

Without affordable energy and the CO2 fertilization effect, feeding 8 billion people becomes far more difficult.

Modest warming itself brings many benefits, including longer growing seasons in temperate zones, reduced cold-related mortality (which exceeds deaths from heat), and expanded habitable ranges. Trends of weather-driven disasters—hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires—do not match the alarmist storyline when examined against long-term records rather than model outputs.

The real catastrophe would come from policies that deliberately restrict reliable energy in pursuit of net zero. Such policies raise energy costs, harm the poor, slow development in the Global South, and risk food insecurity by limiting fertilizers and mechanization.

True gold-standard science demands that we begin with observations, test models against data, disclose assumptions transparently, and weigh risks and benefits. Future assessments must evaluate every emission scenario on empirical grounding, not institutional pedigree. They must acknowledge that humanity’s use of fossil fuels has lifted billions from poverty while restoring CO2 to levels that enhance the biosphere.

Validating what rigorous scientists have documented for years, the proposed NCA5 amendment is progress. Now, policymakers should seize this moment to reassess the entire report against observations, restore balance by including the benefits of CO2, and reject fearmongering that has driven policy for too long.

Energy abundance, a greener planet, and prosperity can be celebrated and advanced further through the application of science when ideology is set aside.

Originally published in Daily Wire on September 1, 2026.

Angela Wheeler is executive director of the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. She is a cum laude graduate of Emporia State University, Kansas, where she studied communication, with additional biology and pre-medicine coursework.

Tags: 

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 14 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
36 Comments
Kpar
September 2, 2026 6:22 pm

But, but, but…TRUMP!

That’s all I’ve got, and that’s all the climate nags have, too.

Curious George
Reply to  Kpar
September 2, 2026 6:40 pm

Unfortunately, you are right. I, too, wish for someone more savory.

Bryan A
Reply to  Curious George
September 2, 2026 9:58 pm

Frankly I’d be happier to see a better argument on the.part of the Climate Faithful.

2hotel9
Reply to  Curious George
September 3, 2026 4:34 am

So you want economic ruin. Got it.

Reply to  2hotel9
September 3, 2026 5:24 am

As long as the ruined economy is run by someone savory, he’ll be happy.

Reply to  Curious George
September 3, 2026 5:19 am

I’ll take results over more savory.

observa
Reply to  Kpar
September 2, 2026 8:00 pm
September 2, 2026 6:42 pm

Did I miss modest warming should bring more rain? Expanded habitable ranges, same as more arable land? And longer growing seasons Plus the CO2 fertilization effect. Once more, CO2 is way more than mere fertilizer it’s just as important as water. Bottom line, there isn’t any problem with more CO2.

Bryan A
September 2, 2026 7:40 pm

Renewable Generation is neither clean nor green, while the fuel is free it’s only available when nature decides to deliver it.
Solar power for example requires…
.
Major Toxic Wastes and Byproducts

  • Silicon Tetrachloride (\(SiCl_{4}\)): This is the primary toxic byproduct generated during the conversion of metallurgical-grade silicon into high-purity polysilicon. For every ton of pure polysilicon produced, roughly 3 to 4 tons of \(SiCl_{4}\) can be created. It is a corrosive liquid that reacts violently with moisture in the air or water to produce toxic hydrochloric acid fumes and silica. (Note: Modern, responsible facilities recycle this byproduct back into the production loop, but unmanaged or cheap disposal leads to severe environmental contamination).
  • Kerf Loss (Silicon Sawing Dust): Slicing silicon ingots into thin wafers wastes 50% or more of the crystalline silicon. Mixed with cutting fluids and abrasives, this silicon powder slurry creates solid and liquid waste streams that require specialized recovery or chemical leaching to prevent pollution.
  • Spent Acids and Etching Chemicals: Wafers are chemically cleaned and etched using dangerous acids—such as hydrofluoric acid (HF), nitric acid (\(HNO_{3}\)), and phosphoric acid (\(H_{3}PO_{4}\))—to remove surface impurities and sawing damage. Rinsing and processing these wafers generates heavy fluoride-laden wastewater and chemical sludge that must undergo strict neutralization and treatment
  • Reactor Cleaning and Process Gases: Manufacturing setups use potent greenhouse and toxic gases like silane (\(SiH_{4}\)), nitrogen trifluoride (\(NF_{3}\)), and sulfur hexafluoride (\(SF_{3}\)/\(SF_{6}\)) to clean reactors and deposit layers. Accidental leaks or improper exhaust scrubbing release severe air pollutants or potent greenhouse gases.
  • Heavy Metal and Solder Contamination: Finished PV cells and assemblies can contain trace heavy metals like lead or cadmium used in contacts and solders, which turn into hazardous electronic waste at the end of a panel’s life if improperly landfilled.

Numerous toxins and dangerous greenhouse gasses are generated and or released during the refinement of silica and the creation of silicon waters essential for Solar power.
.
While Wind has its own set of toxins and waste…
.
Raw Material Extraction and Refining

  • Rare Earth Elements: Mining and refining magnets for generators (like neodymium) produce acidic wastewater, radioactive thorium residue, and waste gas containing hydrofluoric and sulfuric acids.
  • Fiberglass and Carbon Fiber: Producing glass and carbon fibers requires high-temperature manufacturing that releases greenhouse gases and chemical vapors.

Blade Manufacturing and Resins

  • Resin Byproducts: Wind blades use thermoset resins (like epoxy or polyester) containing compounds like styrene. Improper incineration or thermal processing of these fiber-reinforced plastics releases toxic gases that require careful filtering.
  • Cutting Dust: Machining composite blades creates fine particulate dust that makes a hazardous working environment.

End-of-Life Disposal Waste

  • Decommissioned Blades: Old fiberglass blades are difficult to melt or reshape. While categorized as non-hazardous solid waste in many regions and often sent to landfills, discarding them wastes embedded composite materials

Even Rechargeable Batteries, the linchpin of the renewable industry produces dangerous wastes…
.

Heavy Metals

  • Cobalt and Nickel: These mined metals exceed hazardous waste thresholds and can pollute local water and soil.
  • Manganese and Copper: Production and processing release these metals, which harm local ecosystems.

Electrolyte Chemicals

  • Lithium Salts: Manufacturing uses toxic and flammable compounds like LiPF₆, LiBF₄, and LiClO₄.
  • Organic Solvents: These chemicals pose severe contamination risks if they leak during factory assembly or improper disposal.

Mining and Processing Byproducts

  • Sulfuric Acid: Used in extraction and recycling to leach out critical metals.
  • Brine Waste: Extracting lithium from salt flats leaves behind lime, magnesium, and trace radioactive materials.

PFAS “Forever Chemicals”

  • Conductive Additives: Recent studies find unregulated PFAS compounds used in battery components leaching near manufacturing sites.

Renewable energy is neither Clean nor Green and their fuel can’t be stored for times nature refuses to deliver any or at a sufficient quantity to meet demand.

Reply to  Bryan A
September 2, 2026 7:57 pm

Great post exposing the massive amount of toxic substances needed to make solar panels and wind turbines.

One thing you could probably add for wind turbines is the large amount that has to be dug up compared to the amount of neodymium produced.

Coal.. You just dig it up and burn it !!

Gas, you drill, baby drill.. pipe it, then burn it.

Oil.. processing is required… but it provides many useful chemicals that the world cannot do without it.

You cannot build wind turbines or solar panels without using large amounts of Coal, Oil and Gas.

Bryan A
Reply to  bnice2000
September 2, 2026 10:00 pm

You can’t build anything considered to be Wired Electronics without petrochemicals to make plastic wire insulation.

Reply to  Bryan A
September 2, 2026 10:56 pm

Trying to think of any part of a wind turbine or solar panel that you can make without using Coal, Oil or Gas, or products derived from Coal, Oil or Gas. !

Bryan A
Reply to  bnice2000
September 3, 2026 5:44 am

Net Zero Parts 😋😘

Tom Johnson
Reply to  bnice2000
September 3, 2026 5:10 am

Wind turbines and solar panels do, indeed, generate large amounts of hyperbole, but I believe you covered that by including “gas”.

Reply to  bnice2000
September 3, 2026 5:28 am

And they need a lot of ff to produce the many tons of cement for each wind turbine foundation.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
September 3, 2026 7:08 am

Cement and concrete are major sources of CO2.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 3, 2026 8:11 am

Not that we might care about that- but they’re supposed to. 🙂

Iain Reid
Reply to  Bryan A
September 2, 2026 10:47 pm

Bryan,

not only that renewables are totally unsuited for grid supply, both practically (Intermittent) and technically possessing none of the essential grid attributes generators should have for an economic, stable and reliable source of generation.
They only exist on grids due to the support of conventional generators, which need to run as well. A duplication of systems cannot help but put up the overall cost significantly.
Expensive electricity diminishes greatly the scope for economic prosperity, just as the United Nations is aiming for.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Iain Reid
September 3, 2026 8:16 am

Oxford Prof Dieter Helm says the UK’s National Energy System Operator (NESO) scenarios project that Britain will end up, if nothing changes, with c. 300GW – 450GW of capacity to meet an expected maximum demand of 90GW. This is more than three to five times the expected maximum peak demand! Madness.

1saveenergy
Reply to  Bryan A
September 3, 2026 12:36 am

[” while the fuel is free “]

ALL fuel is free …
The cost comes from converting the contained energy into a useful form.

Great list; I will copy & disseminate.

Bryan A
Reply to  1saveenergy
September 3, 2026 5:49 am

Not necessarily, wind and solar travel freely through atmosphere. Oil, gas and coal require mining/drilling, refining, transportation and storage at a cost so their fuel, while having superior energy density, still has a cost and so isn’t free. It’s just that the “Free Fuels” are so low density that they’re expensive to harvest and use in the quantities needed AND aren’t available when needed most.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Bryan A
September 3, 2026 7:11 am

You missed the nuance. Coal, petroleum, and natural gas are free. The cost of getting it to the generator is real.

Wind and sunshine as “fuel” are free in that no body gets paid for the delivery, but they are not free in terms of changing the micro climates in which those silly farms are installed.

Bryan A
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 3, 2026 8:53 am

Very true!

2hotel9
Reply to  Bryan A
September 3, 2026 4:37 am

And as I type more heavy thunderstorms roll through the region of NY state where Hochul is forcing more solar panels against the directly stated wishes of the citizens, causing more damaged solar panels and more toxic leakage from them.

Reply to  2hotel9
September 3, 2026 5:30 am

Been dark and gloomy here in Wokeachusetts the last few days. Any solar panels can’t be producing much electricity.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  2hotel9
September 3, 2026 7:11 am

And more power disruptions.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Bryan A
September 3, 2026 7:07 am

Not that it is needed in your post, but the environmental devastation incurred when constructing those crimes against nature is huge.

One that might need adding is the solvents needed to clean solar panels and de-ice turban blades.

Bryan A
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 3, 2026 10:17 am

People don’t realize the logistics involved in transporting a single 260-300′ Wind Turbine Blade from a seaport to where it will be installed then figure that move is done 3 times per installation. Those roads need to be built with sufficient tree clearing to allow for large radius sweeps and the pads themself pass need to be cleared and leveled before the footing is ever dug out, formed and poured with 4,500 tons of concrete. Then this must be repeated for every turbine installed in the subsidy generating farm

Nevada_Geo
September 2, 2026 8:33 pm

Key takeaway: More CO2 improves the conditions for plant and animal life. Photosynthesis alone sustains life on this planet. No CO2, no life.

Does too much CO2 destroy life? So far it hasn’t; life has adapted to and benefited from the CO2 levels we have experienced. Will hypothesized extreme CO2 levels destroy life?

Hypothesis is the FIRST STEP in doing science. Those who believe it is the LAST STEP in doing science, i.e. who treat their hypotheses as the One And Only Truth (“I have hypothesized, therefore the science is settled!”) may, by following their misguided belief, end much more life than any increase in CO2 ever could.

Mr.
Reply to  Nevada_Geo
September 2, 2026 10:42 pm

and the Scientific Method’s basic mandated obligation to present a Null Hypothesis got completely ignored.

Great ‘Science’ you religous ideologues.
You should be ashamed.

D Sandberg
September 2, 2026 11:44 pm

Nice story from the CO2 coalition but what I really want is a suitable for framing print of that most beautiful solar farm ever for hanging in my man-cave. Well, yes, it’s not real but it’s still wonderful. Help, I have my credit card at the ready, give me a link and the price.

Nigel King
September 2, 2026 11:46 pm

So true. In addition the graphs of CO2 density during the Holocene do not appear to be correct. The constant value of ~280ppm for most of the Holocene cannot be right. Since the temperature changed Henry’s Law would suggest that the CO2 density should have changed, albeit with a delay because of the temperature of the oceans changing more slowly than the atmosphere.

Reply to  Nigel King
September 3, 2026 12:03 am

Thing is, we know that most of the Holocene was warmer than now..

.. so they have to stick to low CO2 levels otherwise it kills their “human caused” meme.

CO2 at 280ppm is too low for proper tree ring growth, so using tree ring proxies gives them Mickey’s nearly flat Hockey Stick handle, which they need…

Its fun looking at all the inconsistencies, isn’t it 😉

September 3, 2026 1:51 am

Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
ATTN: Everyone
RE: “Carbon Dioxide Cannot Cause Warming Of Air”

At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 429 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 grams and contains a mere 0.84 grams of CO2 at STP. This trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot absorb enough out-going long wavelength IR light to heat up such a large mass of air.

The claims by corrupt IPCC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientists (aka welfare queens in white coats) that this trace amount of CO2 in the air causes “global warming” and is the “control knob of climate change” is not only flat-out incorrect but a deliberate fabrication and lie, the purpose of which is ensure the continued maintenance and generous funding of this UN organization. The IPCC ca. 400 workers should be arrested and thrown in jail. The IPCC headquarters is in Bern. In winter every weekend is party time in St. Moritz!

Please remember and never for get how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere.

September 3, 2026 1:57 am

There can never ever be “Net Zero” because there will be long and cold snow winters in vast regions of the earth. I live in Canada and fossil fuels keep 41 million people from freezing to death in winter.

Sparta Nova 4
September 3, 2026 7:05 am

One only needs to read The Population Bomb (and other related tomes) to understand that this is not about improving the human condition by anything except significantly reducing the population. Note: a smaller population is easier to control.