CO2 is Good for You

It is a fundamental error of climate alarmism to see a danger in something that is actually a boon. Increased atmospheric CO2 is a good thing. Good for plants and good for the planet.
Tailpipes and Chimneys Greening Gardens and Forests
By Vijay Jayaraj
A farmer in South Korea’s Gyeongbok Province carefully tends to his potato field, while halfway across the world the engines of a thousand cars idle on an American interstate highway. These seemingly disconnected scenes share a bond through the fertilization effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which has been greening the Earth for decades.

Yes, the CO2 effluent of tailpipes and industrial flues are good for plants and all of life, contrary to the alarming tales that make this invisible gas an environmental bogeyman. Increasing CO2 concentrations are literally making the world greener, and in many cases, it’s sending crop production to record levels.

A 2020 study, funded by Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science & Technology Development, reported that potatoes grown in an atmosphere of elevated CO2—similar to what might be expected in coming decades—didn’t just survive but thrived!

The plants yielded a “distinct increase in growth and development and canopy net photosynthetic rate during tuber initiation and bulking. Consequently, biomass and canopy net photosynthesis increased, and tuber yield increased by 20.3%,” the researchers wrote.

This isn’t just good news for potato farmers. The CO2 fertilization effect plays a role in the photosynthesis of all plants, and an increase in the gas acts as a kind of turbo boost. Significant increases in yields are seen in wheat, rice, soybeans and maize—all staple crops that feed billions.

As CO2 concentrations rise, the water requirement for many plants decreases, making them more tolerant of drought – a scourge of farmers for millennia.

In the U.S. too, agriculture has flourished because of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere, including in the agricultural heartland of the Midwest. As the data analysis in the CO2 Coalition’s report on the Midwest shows, it is very clear that a warming climate and the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide composition are increasing crop yields in the Midwest’s corn and soybean regions.

As Americans contribute roughly 14 metric tons of carbon dioxide per person annually, those emissions are fertilizing crops across the globe.

The greening effect extends far beyond agriculture. Satellite data from NASA has attributed the increased greenness over the past 35 years to the combined impact of elevated CO2 levels and optimal temperatures for plant growth.

The rising emissions of China and India from their increased use of fossil fuels have contributed significantly to this global greening and has benefited ambitious tree-planting programs and intensive agriculture. Certain countries in Europe have registered an increase in forest area as well. In fact, “36 countries are gaining more trees than they’re losing,” reports the World Resources Institute.

In fact, the rate of greening due to CO2 will be much higher than the rate of browning from the expansion of arid landscapes. Researchers at a Chinese university say that “by the end of this century, drylands will expand slightly by approximately 5%, while vegetation productivity will increase by about 50%.” Elevated CO2 impedes the expansion of drylands and “greatly promotes vegetation growth with increases in both leaf assimilation and canopy foliage,” they say.

Dr. Indur Goklany reports that 70% of Earth’s recent greening is attributed to emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels and that “fossil fuel dependent technologies have increased agricultural yields directly or indirectly by at least 167%.”

Whether it’s the tomato plants of Europe or the tropical forests in India, it’s clear that CO2-enriched air is greening the planet, and we as a society have been positive contributors to that. You might say that CO2 is the green energy for plant life.

This commentary was first published at California Globe on November 18, 2024.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, 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.

 

Don't take too much in one sitting.

 

YES. Greenhouse owners have known this for decades.

 

Stat out of greenhouses.

 

I think the idea of using greenhouses is to increase warmth and humidity, but I suppose also CO2.

 

Yes, as are alcohol and dental x-rays.

 

Just follow the science.

 

Yes, you should. It would end much of the BS controversy.

 

Right over your head. Greenhouses have been introducing CO2 to raise the concentration of CO2 in the air which the plants use for photosynthesis to increase growth rate and therefore yield for decades.

 

Hmm.....the arrogance.... tut-tut.

I said warmth and humidity and also CO2, and you respond by suggesting CO2 is the only benefit.

Let's take a peek

Why do plants grow better in a greenhouse?
"Warmth and humidity promote plant growth. Plants need moisture, warmth and light to grow. A greenhouse stabilises the growing environment by buffering the ambient temperature and protecting the plants from extreme cold."

Check

" Remember in the absence of light (at night) your plants will respire and produce carbon dioxide that will enrich the air in your greenhouse with CO2 and this will be used when the sun rises by the plants for photosynthesis."

Check

https://hartley-botanic.com/magazin...ty promote plant,the plants from extreme cold.

 

I suppose. How much CO2 is released by the plants?

 

The benefits of increased CO2 are literally abundant.

 

It always boils down to pros and cons. The argument is that is traps heat which raises temps, hence the name "greenhouse effect".

 

See? This is the standard style of a person who just wants to fight and is happy to create one.

I don't believe ANY adult who is not mentally disturbed or mentally defective thinks greenhouses are not intended to provide benefits of increased warmth and humidity. So why claim a person is thinking CO2 is "the only benefit"?????? DO YOU REALLY THINK HE MEANT CO2 "IS THE ONLY BENEFIT"?

 

I know the science. I understand the limitations. You are trying to ignore them.

 

Yes. Although Professor Koutsoyiannis says it works the other way around: rising heat drives increased CO2.

 

CO2 does not trap heat. The greenhouse effect is a misnomer.

 

No. I am not.

 

And as you know so does the natural history of the earth - all of it.

 

Hmmm...ok. I am not a "warmer" so I entertain arguments from both sides.

The argument is that it traps heat.

 

Then why are you telling me "the benefits of increased CO2 are literally abundant"?

 

Because they are, and I liked the play on words.

 

A greenhouse traps heat but that has nothing to do with the CO2 in the greenhouse air.

 

And geese fly South for the winter.

 

I wasn't talking about literal green houses anymore, but the global "green house effect" argument