Carbon Dioxide
Benefits the World:
See for Yourself

Carbon Dioxide
Benefits the World:
See for Yourself

CO2Coalition.org

PrefaceThis white paper summarizes the views of the CO2 Coalition, a new andindependent, non-profit organization that seeks to engage thought leaders, policy
makers, and the public in an informed, dispassionate discussion of how our planet
will be affected by CO2 released from the combustion of fossil fuel. Available
scientific facts have persuaded Coalition members that additional CO2 will be a net
benefit. Rather than immediately setting this document aside for promoting sucha politically incorrect view, readers would do well to act on the ancient motto of
Britain’s prestigious Royal Society—nullius in verba, “don’t take anyone’s word forit,” or more simply, “see for yourself.”
Claims that “97 percent of scientists” agree that a climate catastrophe is looming
because of the emission of CO2 should be greeted with skepticism. Traditional
science has advanced by comparing observations or experiments with theoreticalpredictions. If there is agreement with theory, confidence in the theory is increased.
If there is disagreement, the theory is abandoned or it is modified and tested again
against observations.
Scientific truth has never been established by consensus, for example, by “97percent agreement.” History reveals many instances when the scientific consensus
of the day was later discredited. The widespread embrace and practice of eugenics
in the early 1900s; opposition to the theory of plate tectonics in geology; and thedominance of Lysenkoist biology in the Soviet bloc, are a few recent examples. Given
the frequency of mistaken consensus, citizens everywhere should heed the Royal
Society’s motto and learn as much as they can about how increasing CO2 levels in theatmosphere will affect the planet.

Overview

Green plants grow faster with more CO2. Many also become more droughtresistant because higher CO2 levels allow plants to use water more efficiently. Moreabundant vegetation from increased CO2 is already apparent. Satellite images reveal
significant greening of the planet in recent decades, especially at desert margins,
where drought resistance is critical. This remarkable planetary greening is the resultof a mere 30% increase of CO2 from its preindustrial levels. Still higher CO2 levels willbring still more benefits to agriculture.
Plants use energy from sunlight to fuse a molecule of CO2 to a molecule of water,
H2O, to form carbohydrates. One molecule of oxygen O2 is released to the air for each
CO2 molecule removed. Biological machinery of plants reworks the carbohydrate
polymers into proteins, oils and other molecules of life. Every living creature, fromthe blooming rose, to the newborn baby, is made of carbon from former atmospheric
CO2 molecules. Long-dead plants used CO2 from ancient atmospheres to produce
most of the fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas that have transformed the life of
most humans – moving from drudgery and near starvation before the industrial
revolution to the rising potential for abundance today.
The fraction of the beneficial molecule CO2 in the current atmosphere is tiny,
about 0.04% by volume. This level is about 30% larger than pre-industrial levels in
1800. But today’s levels are still much smaller than the levels, 0.20% or more, thatprevailed over much of geological history. CO2 levels during the past tens of millionsof years have been much closer to starvation levels, 0.015%, when many plants die,than to the much higher levels that most plants prefer.
Basic physics implies that more atmospheric CO2 will increase greenhousewarming. However, atmospheric processes are so complicated that the amount ofwarming cannot be reliably predicted from first principles. Recent observations of
the atmosphere and oceans, together with geological history, point to very modest
warming, about 1 C (1.8 F) if atmospheric CO2 levels are doubled.
Observations also show no significant change in extreme weather, tornadoes,
hurricanes, floods, or droughts. Sea levels are rising at about the same rate as incenturies past. A few degrees of warming will have many benefits, longer growing
seasons and less winter heating expenses. And this will be in addition to major
benefits to agriculture.
More CO2 in the atmosphere is not an unprecedented experiment with anunpredictable outcome. The Earth has done the experiment many times in thegeological past. Life flourished abundantly on land and in the oceans at much larger
CO2 levels than those today. Responsible use of fossil fuels, with cost-effective
control of genuine pollutants like fly ash or oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, will be amajor benefit for the world.

Introduction

Around the year 1861, John Tyndall, a prominent Irish physicist, discovered thatwater vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and many other molecular gases that aretransparent to visible light can absorb invisible heat radiation—such as that given
off by a warm tea kettle, the human body, or the Earth itself. Tyndall recognized thatwater vapor is the dominant greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, with CO2
a less important contributor.1
Tyndall’s discovery came as the combustion of coal in the Industrial Revolution was beginning to release substantial amounts of CO2. These emissions havecoincided with a steady increase of atmospheric CO2, from around 285 ppm (partsper-million) in the 1860s to around 400 ppm today.
Increased CO2 levels have likely produced some warming of the Earth and willcontinue to do so in the future, although with ever decreasing efficiency becauseof the “logarithmic” dependence of warming on CO2 concentrations, an importantdetail discussed more extensively below. At the same time, more CO2 will have ahugely beneficial effect on agriculture, forests and plant growth in general. The
benefits of more CO2 will greatly exceed any harm.2

Key Findings

Mainstream warming forecasts have been wrong. Over the past two decades,
the global warming predicted by climate models has mostly failed to materialize. The
real “equilibrium climate sensitivity”—the amount of global warming to be expected
for a doubling of atmospheric CO2—is likely to be about three times smaller than what
the models have assumed. Observational data suggest that doubling atmospheric CO2
levels will increase the surface temperature by about 1 C, not the much larger values
that were originally assumed in mainstream models. Using these much smaller,
observationally based climate sensitivities, the projected warming from continued
use of fossil fuels will be moderate and benign for the foreseeable future.

Negative effects of more CO2 have been exaggerated. Readily available datafrom governmental and reliable non-governmental sources confirm that extreme
weather events in recent years have not occurred more frequently or with greater
intensity. Such data also refute claims of ecologically damaging ocean acidification,
accelerating sea-level rises, and disappearing global sea ice and other alleged
dangers. If further observations confirm a small climate sensitivity, these realities
will not change.

Higher carbon-dioxide levels will be beneficial. CO2 is an essential nutrient forland-based plants. The Earth’s biosphere has also experienced a relative CO2 famine
for many millennia—the recent increase in CO2 levels has thus had a measurable,
positive effect on plant life. Future CO2 increases will boost agricultural productivity
and improve drought resistance, thereby bolstering food security and contributing
to a greener, lusher planet.

Global Warming: The Neglected Facts

Most research that tries to project future climate has focused on developing
and applying complex computer models that attempt to simulate the Earth’s
climate system. These models have sought to explain past climate and have beenused to calculate various future global and regional climate scenarios. These futureclimate scenarios have, in turn, prompted policy proposals that would reduce future
emissions—thereby, according to the models, limiting future global warming, though
admittedly at the cost of reducing future global economic development.
This emphasis on computer model forecasts has been very costly, with manytens of billions of dollars invested but has failed to accurately predict the Earth’s
climate: the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC)
estimates of the critical parameter, the equilibrium climate sensitivity, for example,
have not become more precise over the past 25 years. Figure 1 summarizes the
IPCC’s findings, as documented in its five comprehensive research reports released
over more than three decades, as well as the findings of two major pre-IPPC research
reports. Since scientific research is generally aimed at reducing uncertainty, the lackof progress over more than three decades is extremely unusual.
In science, observational data are the ultimate test of theory and modeling.
Climate data show significant divergence between computer predictions and theEarth’s actual climate record. Figure 2 shows average global temperature changes
during 1995–2015, as provided by NASA satellite data: despite a 13 percent increase
in atmospheric CO2 levels during this period, there is no statistically discernible
warming trend.3 The climate record is thus at odds with the IPCC’s Third (2001) and
Fourth (2007) Assessment Reports’ forecasts.4 During this 20-year period, the Earth’s
atmosphere warmed by only 0.05 C;5 but computer models predicted a far more
dramatic 0.4 C rise in global temperature.6

Figure 1. Key Findings, IPCC and Pre-IPCC Climate Reports**In Figure 1, the far-right column lists successive estimates of the range of the equilibrium climate
sensitivity (the “doubling sensitivity,” in IPCC reports and two pre-IPCC reports). The range remains
unchanged despite costly efforts to invest in reliable computer models. In science—where extensive
research over time nearly always reduces uncertainty—this lack of progress is rare.
Source: American Physical Society Climate Change Statement Review framing document (2015),
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-framing.pdf.

Figure 2. Global Temperature Change as Measured by Satellite, 1995–2015**NASA satellite data for the temperature of the Earth’s lower troposphere for the 20-year period
1995-2014. Monthly global temperature is shown relative to the 1981–2010 base-period average.
Despite month-to-month volatility, there has been little—or zero—global warming during this period.
For more, see Appendix.
Source: Roy W. Spencer, Earth Systems Science Center, University of Alabama at Huntsville.

Figure 3 compares various climate forecasts—specifically, 102 computer climate
models used by the IPCC—with the actual change in average tropical atmospherictemperature during 1979–2013, as measured by balloon and satellite. Why focus
on tropical atmospheric temperature? Because the Earth’s tropical surface andtroposphere, the lowest layer of the atmosphere, receive a major portion of theplanet’s incoming solar energy. The rising warm, humid air from the oceans and rainforests that cover much of the tropics should lead to especially large warming of the
middle troposphere. As Figure 3 demonstrates, actual temperature changes differ
dramatically from those predicted by models: the average computer model forecast
warming of a full 1 C for the period 1979–2013; in reality, only 0.2 C (at most) has
been observed.
Figure 3. Average Change in Tropical Atmospheric Temperature,
Forecasts v. Actual, 1979–2013**As measured by satellite and balloon, from the Earth’s surface to an altitude of 50,000 feet.
Forecasts extend to 2024. For more, see Appendix.
Source: https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/
HHRG-113-SY18-WState-JChristy-20131211.pdf

Figure 4 shows CO2 concentration measured at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa: the longterm rise in CO2 has seasonal oscillations caused mostly by removal of CO2 from theair of the northern hemisphere by growing land plants during the summer; and by
release of CO2 during the winter, when respiration of CO2 by the biosphere exceeds
its removal by photosynthesis.

Figure 4. Atmospheric Concentration of CO2, 2011–15**Annual CO2 oscillations represent seasonal variations in the biosphere. The annual growth rate (blackline) averages about 2 ppm annually. Annual growth, according to the IPCC, accounts for only about
half of CO2 emissions from human activities; the other half is naturally absorbed by oceans and land.
For more, see Appendix.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

The failure of computer models to reliably predict future temperatures hascreated a growing awareness that such models are fundamentally flawed—and
have greatly exaggerated past and future anthropogenic (man-made) global
warming.7 Indeed, there is good reason to believe that any future anthropogenic
warming will be far smaller than projected by the IPCC’s models. The best
available evidence suggests that the equilibrium doubling sensitivity, the final
warming of the surface in response to doubling atmospheric CO2, is closer to
1 C than to the “most likely” 3 C of mainstream climate models.
The best available evidence also suggests that—despite two periods of 20th
century warming, as well as a steady increase in atmospheric CO2—the frequency of
extreme weather events has not risen. And the rise in sea levels has been modest.
“Ocean acidification,” a slight decrease of the alkalinity of the oceans by a few tenthsof a pH unit, will be much less than variations of pH with location, depth and timein today’s oceans. Such facts do not support widespread predictions of imminent
planetary catastrophe from rising CO2 levels. Numerous studies suggest that amodestly warmer Earth with more atmospheric CO2 will be good for all living things.8

Benefits of More Carbon Dioxide

Pure CO2 gas is chemically inert, transparent, colorless, and odorless. On a cold
winter day, chilled air often condenses the water vapor of human breath—of which
4 to 5 percent is CO2—into visible fog. Such fog, however, is not CO2. Similarly, water
vapor often condenses into clouds of steam over fossil-fuel power plants, creating theimpression of smoke. Such steam clouds are not CO2, either.
Of every million air molecules in today’s atmosphere, 400 are CO2. This averagemasks wide variation. For example, without strong ventilation, CO2 levels in crowded
indoor spaces, such as classrooms, courtrooms, and trains, commonly reach 2,000
ppm—with no clinically documented ill effects to people. The U.S Navy strives to keep
CO2 levels in its submarines below 5,000 ppm.9
On a calm summer day, CO2 concentrations in a cornfield can drop to 200 ppm,
as the growing corn consumes the available CO2.10 At a concentration of about 150
ppm or less, many plants die of CO2 starvation.11 The differences between the peak
winter CO2 levels and minimum summer CO2 levels, measured at Hawaii’s Mauna
Loa volcano (Fig. 4), have increased over the past 50 years. This is believed to be due
a global expansion of forests and other plant life.
That Earth has experienced a CO2 “famine” for millions of years is also notwidely known. As illustrated in Figure 5, in the 550 million years since the Cambrianperiod—when abundant fossils first appeared in the sedimentary record—CO2 levels
have averaged many thousands of ppm, that is, much larger than the CO2 level of
400 ppm today.12
All animals, including humans, owe their existence to green plants that use
energy from sunlight to convert CO2 and water molecules into carbohydrates,
releasing oxygen into the atmosphere in the process. Land plants get the carbon
they need from CO2 in the air, and they obtain other essential nutrients from the soil.
Just as plants grow better in fertilized, well-watered soils, they grow better with CO2
concentrations several times higher than the Earth’s current level.13 For this reason,
additional CO2 is often pumped into greenhouses to enhance plant growth.14
Figure 6 illustrates the effect of various levels of CO2 on the growth of sourorange trees. Because the growth rate of plants is proportional, on average, to thesquare root of CO2 concentration, doubling atmospheric CO2 will increase green
plant growth by 40 percent—a boon for crop productivity and, thus, for global
food security.

Figure 5. CO2 Levels on Earth: A Long View**CO2 estimates during the Earth’s Phanerozoic era are derived from fossil records in sedimentaryrocks. A typical Phanerozoic CO2 level is about 1,500 ppm, considerably higher than today’s 400 ppm.
For more, see Appendix.
Source: Berner and Kothavala

Figure 6. CO2’s Effect on Growth of Sour Orange Trees**Measured dry weight of above-ground biomass produced by sour orange trees between specified
sequential coppicing dates; and mean atmospheric CO2 concentration. Figure 6 is a particularly
dramatic example of the CO2 fertilization effect. For more, see Appendix.
Source: Idso and Kimbal

CO2’s nutritional value is only part of its benefit for plants. No less importantis CO2’s contribution to making plants more drought-resistant: plant leaves are
perforated by stomata, surface holes that allow CO2 to diffuse from the atmosphere
into the leaf’s interior, where they are photosynthesized into carbohydrates.
Depending on the relative humidity of the outside air, as many as 100 H2O molecules
can diffuse out of the leaf for each CO2 molecule that diffuses in. This is why mostland plants need at least 100 grams of water to produce one gram of carbohydrate.
The 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 during the 20th century boosted crop
productivity by around 15 percent. Continued improvements in crop variety, fertilizer,
and water management—coupled with higher CO2 levels—will strengthen food security
in large parts of Africa and Asia where hunger remains widespread.
Figure 7 shows how the Earth is getting greener. The study from which the image
is drawn analyzed plant growth at desert margins and other semi-arid areas andfound an 11 percent net growth in foliage ground cover during 1982–2006—growth
attributed to improved water-use efficiency arising from higher atmospheric CO2
levels.15 The study’s authors conclude: “Our results conﬁrm that the anticipated CO2
fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations tothe carbon cycle and that the fertilization effect is now a signiﬁcant land surface
process.” As CO2 levels continue to rise, the Earth will grow greener and agricultural
yields will continue to increase, with additional contributions from better varieties,
improved cropping practices, more efficient use of fertilizer, and other factors.
Figure 7. Greening of the Earth, 1982–2006**Percentage change in foliage cover as revealed by satellite.
Source: Donohue et al

The Developing World

Developing nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America will need enormous increases
in low-cost energy to power their economic development and lift their citizens out ofpoverty. Fossil fuels— notably coal, natural gas, and oil—which currently supply morethan 80 percent of the world’s energy, will remain indispensable. As countries growmore affluent, they will also acquire greater means to reduce pollution. Indeed, it isprecisely the wealth unleashed by industrialization that enables societies to invest inmodern technologies and other practices that clean up the environment.
Further, the best available evidence suggests that current levels—and forseeable
future increases—of carbon dioxide are not only harmless, but are indeed beneficial
to plants and humans. Quixotic policies to supposedly limit global warming, bymaking fossil fuels prohibitively expensive, would condemn much of humanity to
wretched conditions unimaginable in developed nations.

Initial Members of the CO2 Coalition

BELL, Larry: Launched the research and education program in space architecture
at the University of Houston; author of Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power
Behind the Global Warming Hoax.
COHEN, Roger: PhD in physics, Rutgers University; Fellow of the American PhysicalSociety; former Senior Scientist, ExxonMobil.
EVERETT, Bruce: Faculty, Tufts University’s Fletcher School; over forty years ofexperience in the international energy industry.
HAPPER, William: Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics (emeritus), Princeton
University; former Director, Office of Energy Research; Director of Research, U.S.
Department of Energy; Member, National Academy of Sciences.
HARTNETT-WHITE, Kathleen: Distinguished Senior Fellow in Residence and the
Director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment (CEE) at the Texas
Public Policy Foundation.
IDSO, Craig: Founder and Chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide andGlobal Change; Member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society.
LINDZEN, Richard: Emeritus, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology; Member,
National Academy of Sciences; author of numerous papers on climate and meteorology.

MICHAELS, Pat: Director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato
Institute; a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists;
former Virginia state climatologist; program chair, Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society.
MILLS, Mark: Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Chief Executive Officer, Digital
Power Group, a tech-centric capital advisory group; Faculty Fellow, McCormick
School of Engineering and Applied Science, Northwestern University.
MOORE, Patrick: Co-founder, Chair, and Chief Scientist, Greenspirit Strategies,
a Vancouver-based consulting firm on environmental and sustainability issues;
founding member of Greenpeace (nine years as president of Greenpeace Canada
and seven years as a director of Greenpeace International).
NICHOLS, Rodney: Former President and Chief Executive Officer of the New York
Academy of Sciences; Scholar-in-Residence at the Carnegie Corporation of New
York; Executive Vice President of The Rockefeller University; R&D Manager, Office of
the Secretary of Defense.
O’KEEFE, William: Chief Executive Officer of the George C. Marshall Institute;founder of Solutions; Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, American
Petroleum Institute; Chief Administrative Officer of the Center for Naval Analyses.
ROGERS, Norman: Founder of Rabbit Semiconductor Company; Policy Advisor to The
Heartland Institute; member of the American Geophysical Union and the American
Meteorological Society.
SCHMITT, Harrison: PhD in Geology from Harvard University; Astronaut and last
man to walk the moon (Apollo 17); Adjunct Professor of Physics at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison; former U.S. Senator from New Mexico.
SPENCER, Roy: Climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabamain Huntsville; served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space
Flight Center; Co-Developer of satellite temperature measurement system.
STEWARD, Leighton: Geologist; Environmentalist; Author; Chairman of Plants Need
CO2.org; Chairman of the Board of The Institute for the Study of Earth and Man
at SMU; past Chairman of the National Wetlands Coalition; twice Chairman of the
Audubon Nature Institute.
YAPPS-COHEN, Lorraine: M.S. in chemistry and an M.B.A. in marketing; former
Communications & Marketing Manager, ExxonMobil; columnist for the Examiner
newspapers.

References

1. J. Tyndall, Heat, A Mode of Motion, Longmans, Green and Company,
London, 1875.
2. See, e.g., R. S. J. Tol, The Economic Effects of Climate Change, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 29-51 (2009). Such studies do not fully
account for the positive effects of CO2 fertilization and water-efficiency gains.
3. R. McKitrick, HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series, Open Journal of Statistics, Vol. 4,
pp. 527-535 (2014). doi:10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.
4. See, eg., IPCC 4th Assessment Report WG1 (2007), Summary for Policy Makers,
p. 12. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
5. From the statistical trend lines of the UAH data set shown in Figure 2, for 1995–
2014. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/6. IPCC 4th Assessment Report WG1 (2007), Summary for Policy Makers, p. 12,
ibid; 3rd Assessment Report WG1 (2001), Summary for Policy Makers, p. 34;
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/
7. J.C Fyfe et al, Overestimated Global Warming over the Past 20 Years,
Nature Climate Change, Vol. 3, p. 767 (2013); P. Stott et al, The Upper End of Climate Model Temperature Projections is Inconsistent with Past Warming, Environ. Res. Lett. Vol. 8, 014024 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014024.
8. Indur Goklany, Is a Richer-but-Warmer World Better than Poorer but Colder
Worlds? Energy & Environment, Vol. 18, Nos. 7-8, pp. 1023-1048 (2007).
Detailed empirical studies of human mortality, in hundreds of communities around the world, show that in all countries and regions, minimum
mortality is observed when temperatures are warmer than the medianfor that location. See, eg., Y. Guo et al, Global Variation in the Effectss ofAmbient Temperature on Mortality, Epidemiology, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 781789 (2014).
9. J. T. James and A. Macatangay, Carbon Dioxide, Our Common “Enemy” http://
ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090029352.pdf

10. H. W. Chapman, L. S. Gleason and W. E. Loomis, The Carbon Dioxide Content ofField Air, Plant Physiology, 29, 500 (1954).

11. J. K. Dippery, D. T. Tissue, R. B. Thomas and B. R. Strain, Effects of low and elevated CO2 levels on C3 and C4 annuals, Oecologia, Vol. 101, p. 13 (1995).
12. R. A. Berner and C. Kothavala, Geocarb:III, A revised model of atmospheric CO2
over the Phanerozoic time, American Journal of Science, 301, 182 (2001).
13. S. B. Idso and B. A. Kimball, Effects of the enrichment of CO2 on regrowth ofsour orange trees (Citrus aurantium; Rutacea) after copicing, Am. J. Bot. Vol. 81,
p. 843 (1994).
14. http://www.ocap.nl/files/Ocap_Factsheet2012_UK.pdf.
15. R. J. Donohue, M. L. Roderick, T. R. McVicar, and G. D. Farquhar, Impact of CO2
fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments, Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 40, pp. 3031-3035 (2013).