Both the quantity and nutritional value of plants is growing around the planet due to recent increases in carbon dioxide, claim the authors of an important new science paper. The recent rise in carbon dioxide during modern industrial times, from a period of dangerous denudation, is at the centre of worldwide fearmongering designed to enforce a Net Zero collectivisation. “In fact, the only clear result of increasing CO2 has been an overall greening of the Earth and increasing productivity of agricultural and forest crops,” state the authors.
Regular readers of the Daily Sceptic will be aware of the massive greening of the planet that has occurred over the last 40 years. Alas, this astonishing success story is inexplicably missing from most mainstream Net Zero-focused discourse. This latest paper is written by a group of scientists and published by the U.S.-based educational foundation CO2 Coalition. It is highly technical but it seeks to explain why the nutritional value of the world’s more abundant crops “can and will remain high as atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase towards values more representative of those existing throughout most of Earth’s history”. With CO2 levels considerably higher over most geological history, the current level of 425 parts per million (ppm) is much less than optimum for most plants, the experts observe.
For too long, note the scientists, atmospheric CO2 has been the nutrient in shortest supply holding back plant growth. “Rising atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have clearly been beneficial for the biosphere, agriculture, humanity and particularly for global food security at very low additional cost. Still higher concentrations will bring additional benefits,” they note. The CO2 Coalition, supported by the work of atmospheric scientists like Emeritus Professor William Happer of Princeton, has long argued that CO2 becomes ‘saturated’ at certain levels in the atmosphere. At higher levels its warming properties diminish rapidly. Due to this ‘saturation’, which helps explain why atmospheric CO2 concentrations been up to 20 times higher in the past without the planet turning into a fireball, “man-made CO2 emissions are not capable of triggering dangerous future warming”.
The great success of what is termed the ‘green revolution’ is shown above. The scientists note that important factors in the dramatic increase in food production have been increased atmospheric CO2, the development of greatly improved plant varieties and intelligent use of mineral fertilisers. The authors quote from a recent scientific paper, Taylor and Sclenker 2023, which states: “We consistently find a large CO2 fertilisation effect: a 1 ppm increase in CO2 equates to a 0.4%, 0.6%, 1% yield increase for corn, soybeans and wheat respectively.”
The evidence for greening of the Earth from atmospheric carbon dioxide “is now too obvious to deny”. The scientists publish the world map below to prove their point.
The above map was produced from satellite data recorded between 1982 and 2012. Greening by 20-30% was recorded in India, West Australia, the Sahel and the Anatolian highlands. Reference is also made to Chen et al. 2024, reported here in the Daily Sceptic, that found CO2 greening had actually accelerated over the last two decades. The increase in C02 was found to be the dominant driver of the positive trend of the Leaf Area Index over most of the global land surface.
Attempts have been made recently to downplay the benefits of more vigorous CO2-driven plant growth by suggesting it leads to a slight dilution of some nutrients, notably nitrogen, in plant tissues. In the course of their work, the authors state that these deficiencies are small compared with the nutritional shortages that agriculture and livestock face because of natural phenomena. “These problems have been routinely dealt with for generations through adequate fertilisation, proper species and cultivar selection, and food supplements for livestock and humans,” they argue.
The numerous desirable and beneficial effects of more CO2 in the atmosphere greatly outweigh ‘climate-damaging’ or ‘nutrient-damaging’ impacts, to the extent that these even exist. There is no ‘social cost’ of carbon, as is incorrectly claimed in numerous recent publications. In the course of their paper, the scientists say that have reviewed the literature and provided arguments that “arrive at quite a contrary view” to those who claim enhanced atmospheric CO2 somehow threatens human nutrition. “In fact, there is a social benefit from more CO2 in the air,” they conclude.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Perhaps the BBC’s go to climate Nazi, Chris pretend scientist Packham,could share this science on twitter?
He’ll declare the Scientists who are responsible for this Paper are all in hoc to the Oil Industry.
Whilst those who propagandise for the Net Zero lunatics are all completely independent and neither they nor their Institutions receive and rely on funding from the Eco Nutter Billionaires.
Yes apparently Big Oil is evil but Big Wind is all Sweetness and Light. —–ha ha ha jeez.
BBC will deny this fact. Co2, a trace chemical necessary for life 95% emitted by natural processes, is pace the BBC and the climate nazi propaganda; ‘actually decreasing and erasing green acreage across the globe, as the world hurtles into the abyss of globaloney boiling, proof of this is the human started forest fires now raging in Alberta Canada where only 500 out of the 600 burning fires are linked to human causation...’ etc. Lies are truth. Fraud is science. The stupider you are, the smarter you are. Follow that money. All hail.
I wonder if Chris ‘Septic’ Packham would like to write an article which overturns the above?
Also it is people like him that have been wanting to reintroduce Beavers everywhere. They are destructive to trees, ask a gamekeeper!
Their counter to this is: any gains are short term and will be cancelled out by the Apocalypse which follows.
Isn’t it peculiar that in an era where politicians are less trusted than ever before and people don’t believe a word coming from their mouths on all issues, like immigration, education, foreign policy, covid and infact on almost everything, that somehow people do believe them when they say we that are we are having a “climate emergency”? ——–Why do they not believe them on all other stuff but do believe them on the phony “climate crisis”? ——Yes very peculiar indeed. —-I would say there are 3 main reasons why people believe the climate change stuff (1) They think it is all about science and they are not prepared to argue about science because they think they don’t know enough. (2) The climate scare is repeated so often on Mainstream News and with such an air of authority that it is hard to want to go against the herd, and be ridiculed for arguing about something that appears to be just plain facts (3) Extreme weather events are beamed to our living rooms 24 hours a day on satellite TV from all corners of the globe, giving the impression that the climate is changing dangerously. ———–This combination is enough to convince most people that we are indeed having a climate emergency and politicians have no choice but to follow the “science. ————People are very busy with work and family life and don’t have the time to investigate every single issue, especially when they think TV News are investigating it for them and providing them with the facts. But if they only realised that even a little bit of investigating of their own would cause them to become very suspicious that the facts simply do not fit what they are being told, and the next step is to ask why that is. ——-And as Mark Twain pointed out “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble, it is what you know for sure just ain’t so”. ———-There is no climate emergency and the quicker people realise it ain’t so then the quicker this fraud can be put a stop to . ————Wakey wakey people you are being manipulated.
Quite right, Varmint.
An understanding of the difference between “Climate” and just ornery old “Weather” might assist.
But one problem there, is the utter fraudulence of the MET Office. They hold actual evidence that there isn’t a problem, whilst shouting “Hottest Ever” claims about alleged temperature readings (over a six second period) at Coningsby whilst five Tornado jets were taking off and landing. Coningsby, a World Meteorological Organisation grade 4 station, with temperatures anyway only accurate to plus/minus 2ºC, but a “record” by a tenth of 1ºC. Someone should examine the bank accounts of the MET and BBC Thermoggedonists.
The temperature record of earth is a dog’s breakfast of adjusted and manipulated data.
I think there is also a puritanical ‘hair shirt’, dismal strand that runs through the human psyche, it is as if we are sure that some sort of doom or disaster or evil spirit is just around the corner so that when one is presented people are inclined accept it as inevitable and that we must suffer as a consequence.
Yes I think so, and that despite the fact that all end of the world apocalyptic scare stories have a 100% fail rate.
I noticed the same thing with CONVID… Everyone “hated the Tories” and said “politicians are useless liars” then totally fell into the lies…
A lot of the time people were coerced as with Net Zero. They had to get their vaccine and vaccine passport if they wanted to go on holiday. They had to give their mobile numbers at restaurants. They had masks stuck in their faces at surgeries and hospitals and most people went along with this thinking it would be temporary, and they better do the “right thing”. —–But there is an old saying “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me”. ——People might not be so easily fooled next time and let’s hope they wake up to Net Zero as well similar to what has just happened in Wales where they have had to abandon their silly 20mph speed limits.
There’s also the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect, weaponised by the MSM and ably described by James Corbett:
…directly after reading [an] inaccurate, error-riddled report that we know to be seriously flawed, we flip the page, proceed to the next story, forget that these reporters are idiots, and go on more or less taking what we’re reading at face value.
Did you know that this strange amnesia that we all experience—this act of forgetting that allows us to believe what we’re reading so long as it’s not in our wheelhouse—has a name? Well, it does!
And have you ever considered how this phenomenon has been weaponized by the powers-that-shouldn’t-be to get us to believe in nonsense and absurdity?….
This is how the media can weaponize the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect. They can frame an issue however they want, completely disregard reality and even directly contradict positions they previously advocated. Most people—forgetting that the lying liars of the dinosaur media are wrong about everything all of the time—won’t even bat an eyelid.
https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect
Nice one
“Extreme weather events”
I must pick you up varmint. Firstly this is the language of the nutters and secondly there is no such thing as an “Extreme weather event.”
When climate alarmists use the term “extreme weather events” they mean weather events that are only occurring because of human activity and those events would not happen if we were not emitting carbon dioxide. But those of us who are not climate alarmists (like you an I) can easily use this term to mean weather events that are outliers in the statistics of natural variability of weather. In other words they are “extreme weather events” but not at all unusual or unprecedented. We should not let climate alarmists hijack ordinary language for their scaremongering purposes.
Their conclusion is wise, but those who manage greenhouses have known that for years. Using some of the exhaust from gas fired heating is often used for that reason, not just to avoid throwing out the warm air in the greenhouses.
Vaguely on topic
I watch TV very occasionally and even less often I don’t turn the sound down in time when the ads come on (they make me furious). This really takes the biscuit: Flora asks a Cow if ‘udder butter is a bit weird?’ (creative.salon)
“Is it a bit weird we spent all those years pumping the plants through a cow?”
“The latest iteration in the ‘Skip The Cow’ brand campaign, created by Pablo, asks consumers to question the perceived normality of dairy”
So in their sick world, we somehow contrived to “pump plants through a cow” and use the product of that rather than the obviously more sensible approach of harvesting plants and putting them through some complicated industrial process to produce revolting crap that is nutritionally nothing like dairy products. Obviously millions of years of evolution/God can’t compete with chemically “enhanced” spreads. In fact, why do we pump plants through mothers when they could feed their babies Flora?
Some things in life are so obvious like mothers breast milk being far better than formula yet people are so thick and lazy they choose the latter over the health of their own child. You only need to spend 5 minutes thinking about Net Zero to know it’s not only impossible but complete nonsense. Then spend another 5 minutes thinking about CO2. People are either to thick to lazy or differ responsibility of their own thoughts.
Flora plant butter ingredients:
Plant oils (sustainable palm*, sunflower, rapeseed), filtered water, sea salt (1,7%), fava bean preparation, plant-based emulsifier (sunflower lecithin), natural flavourings
*Flora Plant uses certified segregated palm oil.
Hmmmm – isn’t the linoleic acid in seed oils currently being implicated in numerous health concerns like diabetes, heart disease, certain cancers, macular degeneration, dementia and…obesity? Don’t mention that in the ad, do they?
“Most of this linoleic acid, when it oxidizes, it develops lipid hydroperoxides and then these rapidly degenerate into … oxidized linoleic acid metabolites,” says Dr. Chris Knobbe, an ophthalmologist and the founder and president of the Cure AMD Foundation. OXLAMs (oxidized linoleic acid metabolites) create a perfect storm, as they are cytotoxic, genotoxic, mutagenic, carcinogenic, atherogenic and thrombogenic, according to Knobbe. Their atherosclerosis and thrombogenic actions are especially concerning because they can produce strokes and clots, however metabolic dysfunction can also occur.
https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2022/January/PDF/vegetable-oil-linoleic-acid-pdf.pdf
Yeah, not very appealing.
I prefer to buy whole milk, and conventional butter & cheese, rather than artificial plant oil based products.
I have eaten butter all my life. The so-called spreads are disgusting and in due course will be proven to be harmful to health. Animal fats every time.
“Plant based” substitutes for milk and cheese seem pretty revolting to me too; the real thing every time for me. The cow is a fantastic piece of technology – why “skip” it? I wonder if all the people involved in the making of that ad campaign spread Flora on their bread – somehow I doubt it.
Is Lurpak Lighter ok?
Butter first every time, olive oil second.
What I find rather perplexing about the war on cows because they burp, and flatulate because of eating vegetation. Is that they want to remove these beasts from the environment and replace them with the worlds population of humans forcibly turned into vegetarians to do exactly the same thing.
Can you imagine living in a hermetically sealed building because of the inefficiencies of your heat pump with your fellow vegetarians? No wonder they are trying to outlaw smoking, gas, and any other source of naked flame.
Meanwhile the wheels are coming off the nut zero bus ahead of the 2024 GE. Sneer is promising to restore the jobs lost at Port Talbot but not the thousands of other jobs lost caused by the nut zero high energy and fuel costs that drive up every other cost.
The SNP have realised that their ‘Green’ plans would result in the end of the Scottish oil and related chemical industry and the voters might not be too pleased. Will be interesting to see how Labour flip the Scottish votes with the same nut zero ideas!
Indeed. Worth remembering that Scottish Labour MPs have been quite useful in Westminster between 1997 & 2019.
The worlds CO2 has been diminishing for many years, and as a result of industrialisation, the CO2 atmospheric content is now on the rise, to the benefit of all plant growth that enhances vegetational growth and subsequently all life of the planet. Well done industrialisation for saving the Earth, and all the life forms it supports, from extinction.
HI Chris. One of the problems with the DS approach to Net Zero etc is that by default and in the absence of anything positive it seems to be promoting the status quo ante , I.e big oil & big aggro. Yes the C02 argument is rubbish, but the 2nd law still applies , there probably is a sustainable population limit and where have all the flies gone?
You can’t not do environmentalism because it’s all our children’s future. The point is to steal it back from the nut jobs.
I suspect a return to organic farming is part of the answer. I believe the is a significant Netflix film called Kiss the Earth which highlights some of the issues and what can be done.
“there is probably a sustainable population limit” ———These things happen naturally not by coercion. You will find that most of the Malthusian limits to growth and panic about resources etc are shown to be false by the likes of Julian Simon. ——–I often hear people talk about “too many people”. But actually in the wealthy west there is a shortage of people which is why we are always bringing in millions of migrants. In the developing world birth rates are high, but once poor people start to become prosperous, they get educated, they live more organised lives, with contraception, family planning etc and birth rates fall to levels seen in the wealthy west. So the answer to concerns about too many people is WEALTH. There is only one way for poor people in poor countries to become prosperous and that is by using the same fuels as we did…..coal oil and gas, but absurd climate policies are keeping these people poor and one billion of them still do not have electricity, and therefore birth rates are still high. ——-It is climate policies, not climate change that is hurting poor people.
I think you completely misunderstood me, and its not just black and white. I note the comment happen naturally though. A natural and sustainable soil, is what will impose natural limits on a whole load of other things. There is no sense in which the status quo is natural, neither is the net zero nut job approach of the likes of Chris Packham, nor globalist mass immigration.
Unfortunately if the provided graph were to be reproduced for the UK it would give a less optimistic impression. Here population is rising fast while agricultural land area is declining. Tax payer subsidies to not farm it (including the fatuous “rewilding”), more housing and other development to look after our new arrivals and solar farms.
In Cambridgeshire huge areas of good land have already been taken for solar farms and the country’s biggest ever one will be approved by HMG very soon (Sunnica).
Great article. It’s about time some scientific thinking was brought into discussions of increased CO2 levels. Le Chatelier’s principle tells us that if a system moves away from equilibrium, eg CO2 levels rise, then the system naturally adjusts to oppose the change, in this case increased vegetation growth absorbs atmospheric CO2. Personally I like more verdant trees and hedgerows.