Scientific Report Pours Cold Water On Major Talking Point Of Climate Activists

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

The purveyors of climate doom will not tolerate the good news of our planet thriving because of modest warming and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, a recent scientific paper concludes that an optimistic vision for Earth and its inhabitants is nonetheless justified.

Widely accepted data show an overall greening of Earth resulting from a cycle of natural warming that began more than 300 years ago and from industrialization’s additions of CO₂ that started in the 19^th century and accelerated with vigorous economic activity following World War II.

Also attributed to these and other factors is record crop production, which now sustains 8 billion people—ten times the population prior to the Industrial Revolution. The boost in atmospheric CO₂ since 1940 alone is linked to yield increases for corn, soybeans and wheat of 10%, 30% and 40%, respectively.

The positive contribution of carbon dioxide to the human condition should be cause for celebration, but this is more than demonizers of the gas can abide. Right on cue, narrators of a planet supposedly overheating from carbon dioxide began sensationalizing research findings that increased plant volume results in lower concentrations of nutrients in food.

“The potential health consequences are large, given that there are already billions of people around the world who don’t get enough protein, vitamins or other nutrients in their daily diet,” concluded the The New York Times, a reliable promoter of apocalypse forever. Among others chiming in have been The Lancet, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the National Institutes of Health.

Of course, such yellow journalism lacks context and countervailing facts —elements provided in “Nutritive Value of Plants Growing in Enhanced CO₂ Concentrations” published by the CO₂Coalition, Arlington, Virginia.

Any deficiency of nutrients from the enhancement of plant growth by elevated carbon dioxide “are small, compared to the nutrient shortages that agriculture and livestock routinely face because of natural phenomena, such as severe soil fertility differences, nutrient dilution in plants due to rainfall or irrigation and even aging of crops,” says the paper.

And while there is evidence of marginal decreases in some nutrients, data also show that higher levels of CO₂ “may enhance certain groups of health-promoting phytochemicals in food crops” that serve as antioxidants and anti-inflammatory compounds, says the paper, which lists seven authors and more than 100 references. The lead author is Albrecht Glatzle, a member of the Rural Association of Paraguay and a former international researcher of plant and animal nutrition.

Among other points made by the paper are the following: Throughout a majority of geological history, atmospheric CO₂ concentrations have been several times higher than today’s, which are less than optimum for most plants; atmospheric warming from even a quadrupling of CO₂ concentrations would be small compared to natural temperature fluctuations since the last glacial advance more than 10,000 years ago.

Having virtually no scientific basis, the “green” movement’s hostility to carbon dioxide seemingly ignores the gas’s critical role as a plant food. As the paper notes, “CO₂ is the only source of the chemical element carbon for all life on Earth, be it for plants, animals or fungi and bacteria — through photosynthesis and food chains.”

The so-called greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide— perversely exaggerated to support climate fearmongering— is a life-saving temperature moderator that keeps Earth from freezing over.

The obvious benefits of CO₂ is “an embarrassment to the large and profitable movement to ‘save the planet’ from ‘carbon pollution,’” write the authors. “If CO₂ greatly benefits agriculture and forestry and has a small, benign effect on climate, it is not a pollutant at all.

More CO₂ is good news. It’s not that complicated.

Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist; executive director of the CO₂ Coalition, Arlington, 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” and a co-author of “Nutritive Value of Plants Growing in Enhanced CO₂ Concentrations.”

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Related Topics:#CO2 #CO2YieldIncreases #DailyCaller #GregoryWrightstone #NaturalWarming #PositiveContributionOfCarbonDioxide climatechange

Up Next

America Is Really Bad At Foreign Interventions. Why Does Biden Think Ukraine Will Be Any Different?

Don't Miss

COVID Is Over — But Did We Learn Anything From It?

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

One dead, over 60 injured after Iranian missiles pierce Iron Dome

conflict / 2 days ago

Iran nuclear talks were ‘coordinated deception’ between US and Israel: report

Alberta / 2 days ago

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith Discusses Moving Energy Forward at the Global Energy Show in Calgary

Energy

Affordable Energy: Everything you need to know about energy and the environment

Published on June 8, 2025

Todayville

The Dual Challenge: Energy and Environment

Scott Tinker

The world faces two important and interrelated challenges. Affordable and reliable energy for all, and protecting the environment. The energy-environment challenge is not simple, but it is solvable if we understand and address the complex fabric of energy security, scale of energy demand, physics of energy density, distribution of energy resources, interconnectedness of the land, air, water and atmosphere, and the extreme disparity in global wealth and economic health. The truth is that there are no good and bad, clean and dirty, renewable and nonrenewable energy sources. They all have benefits, and they all have challenges. Climate change is an important issue, but it is not the only environmental issue. Solar and wind are important low carbon solutions, but they are only part of the solution. We must put our best minds to the task of addressing the dual challenge, working together to better the world.

Economy

Canadian Natural Gas Exports Could Significantly Reduce Global Emissions

Published on May 25, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Elmira Aliakbari and Julio Mejía

Doubling Canadian natural gas production and exporting to Asia could reduce global emissions by up to 630 million tonnes—nearly as much as Canada produces in a year

Canada could help significantly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by increasing natural gas production and exporting the additional supply to Asia in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG), according to a new study from the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think tank.

“As countries like China and India continue to burn coal for power, Canadian LNG offers a lower-emission alternative with the potential for major global impact,” said Elmira Aliakbari, director of natural resource studies at the Fraser Institute and coauthor of the study, Exporting Canadian LNG to the World: A Practical Solution for Reducing GHG Emissions

The study estimates the impact from Canada doubling its natural gas production and exporting to Asia to replace coal-fired power. In that scenario, global emissions could drop up to 630 million tonnes annually, which is the equivalent of removing approximately 137 million cars from the road. More specifically, replacing coal-fired power in China with Canadian LNG could cut emissions by up to 62 per cent for every unit of power produced.

“Focusing only on domestic emissions ignores Canada’s potential to support global climate goals,” said Aliakbari. “By displacing coal abroad, Canadian LNG can play a critical role in cutting total global emissions even if domestic emissions were to increase.”

However, regulatory uncertainty and a range of federal and provincial policies continue to hinder LNG development in Canada, despite strong global demand.

“Policymakers need to clear a path if Canada is going to play a meaningful role in reducing global emissions,” Aliakbari added.

Exporting Canadian LNG to the World: A Practical Solution for Reducing GHG Emissions

Coal, a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, remains a leading energy source in many Asian countries, especially China and India. Some European countries have also turned back to coal as sanctions on Russian energy intensified following the invasion of Ukraine.
As the world seeks practical solutions for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, natural gas, with its lower carbon footprint, offers a promising alternative to coal.
With abundant reserve, Canada is well positioned to help reduce global reliance on coal. By exporting Canadian liquified natural gas (LNG) and helping Asian and European countries reduce their reliance on coal, Canada can lower net global GHG emissions.
Exporting LNG from Canada to China and substituting LNG for coal in the generation of power there can eliminate between 291 and 687 gCO₂eq per kWh of power generated, a reduction of between 34% and 62%.
If Canada were to double its current natural gas production and export the additional supply to Asia as LNG to displace an equivalent amount of coal used to generate power, global GHG emissions could be reduced by up to 630 million tonnes annually, a significant reduction equivalent to 89% of Canada’s total GHG emissions.
Canada enjoys several competitive advantages, including cooler temperatures that reduce liquefaction energy costs and a strategic location that offers shorter shipping routes to Europe and Asia compared to many other suppliers.
Regulatory challenges and a mix of federal and provincial policies, however, have slowed or blocked LNG developments in Canada.