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

The Toppling of the woke authoritarians

COVID-19 / 1 hour ago

Japan’s most senior cancer doctor: COVID shots are ‘essentially murder’

Economy / 1 hour ago

Prime minister’s misleading capital gains video misses the point

Economy

Feds spend $3 million to fly 182 politicians and bureaucrats to climate conference

Published on May 17, 2024

Todayville

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Ryan Thorpe

Feds trip to COP28 in Dubai cost $3 million

The cost for Canada to send hundreds of people to COP28 in Dubai has doubled, rising to nearly $3 million, according to government records obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Included in those costs is $1.3 million the federal government dished out to host a “Canada Pavilion” at the summit, which featured a rapper performing a song on “climate disinformation,” while giving a shoutout to Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault.

“Nothing screams fighting climate change like flying around the world burning through jet fuel and millions of tax dollars,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Here’s a crazy idea: maybe the feds don’t need to spend $3 million flying 182 politicians and bureaucrats to Dubai.”

The federal government paid for at least 182 people to go to COP28, held from Nov. 30 to Dec. 12, 2023, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

A previous report from the National Post pegged the cost for Canada’s delegation at $1.4 million.

But the bill now sits at $2,954,188, including $825,466 for transportation, $472,570 for accommodations and $295,455 for meals and incidentals, according to the records.

The records indicate the cost could rise even higher, as certain invoices and travel claims “have yet to be processed.”

Costs included $1.3 million for a “Canada Pavilion” to “showcase the breadth of Canadian climate leadership.”

At the Canada Pavilion, a Canadian rapper known as Baba Brinkman – the son of Liberal MP Joyce Murray – performed a rap on “climate disinformation.”

“Climate disinformation, get that immunization, the vaccine for bad meme infiltration,” Brinkman rapped. “Climate misinformation, it leads to polarization, which leads to radical conspiracy ideation.”

Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault also received a shoutout during Brinkman’s rap.

“Really? Hosting a rapper half-way around the world to drop rhymes at a government podium will help the environment?” Terrazzano said.

The records were released in response to an order paper question from Conservative MP Dan Mazier (Dauphin-Swan River-Neepawa).

Most of the hotel expenses came from the Dubai Marriott and the Premier Inn at the Dubai Investment Park, with rooms coming in between $150 and $400 per night.

The most expensive digs was a $816-per-night suite at the Pullman Dubai Jumeriah Lakes Towers, a “five-star hotel offering upscale accommodations.”

The Canadian delegation also handed out $650 worth of gifts during the trip.

Business

Ottawa should end war on plastics for sake of the environment

Published on May 16, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Here’s the shocker: Meng shows that for 15 out of the 16 uses, plastic products incur fewer GHG emissions than their alternatives…

For example, when you swap plastic grocery bags for paper, you get 80 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substituting plastic furniture for wood—50 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substitute plastic-based carpeting with wool—80 per cent higher GHG emissions.

It’s been known for years that efforts to ban plastic products—and encourage people to use alternatives such as paper, metal or glass—can backfire. By banning plastic waste and plastic products, governments lead consumers to switch to substitutes, but those substitutes, mainly bulkier and heavier paper-based products, mean more waste to manage.

Now a new study by Fanran Meng of the University of Sheffield drives the point home—plastic substitutes are not inherently better for the environment. Meng uses comprehensive life-cycle analysis to understand how plastic substitutes increase or decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by assessing the GHG emissions of 16 uses of plastics in five major plastic-using sectors: packaging, building and construction, automotive, textiles and consumer durables. These plastics, according to Meng, account for about 90 per cent of global plastic volume.

Here’s the shocker: Meng shows that for 15 out of the 16 uses, plastic products incur fewer GHG emissions than their alternatives. Read that again. When considering 90 per cent of global plastic use, alternatives to plastic lead to greater GHG emissions than the plastic products they displace. For example, when you swap plastic grocery bags for paper, you get 80 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substituting plastic furniture for wood—50 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substitute plastic-based carpeting with wool—80 per cent higher GHG emissions.

A few substitutions were GHG neutral, such as swapping plastic drinking cups and milk containers with paper alternatives. But overall, in the 13 uses where a plastic product has lower emissions than its non-plastic alternatives, the GHG emission impact is between 10 per cent and 90 per cent lower than the next-best alternatives.

Meng concludes that “Across most applications, simply switching from plastics to currently available non-plastic alternatives is not a viable solution for reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, care should be taken when formulating policies or interventions to reduce plastic demand that they result in the removal of the plastics from use rather than a switch to an alternative material” adding that “applying material substitution strategies to plastics never really makes sense.” Instead, Meng suggests that policies encouraging re-use of plastic products would more effectively reduce GHG emissions associated with plastics, which, globally, are responsible for 4.5 per cent of global emissions.

The Meng study should drive the last nail into the coffin of the war on plastics. This study shows that encouraging substitutes for plastic—a key element of the Trudeau government’s climate plan—will lead to higher GHG emissions than sticking with plastics, making it more difficult to achieve the government’s goal of making Canada a “net-zero” emitter of GHG by 2050.

Clearly, the Trudeau government should end its misguided campaign against plastic products, “single use” or otherwise. According to the evidence, plastic bans and substitution policies not only deprive Canadians of products they value (and in many cases, products that protect human health), they are bad for the environment and bad for the climate. The government should encourage Canadians to reuse their plastic products rather than replace them.