New Year’s Resolution to Embrace CO2 Emissions and Benefits

By Vijay Jayaraj

Scientific advancement and agricultural technology have revolutionized food production, enabling humanity to feed more readily a ballooning population. And working behind these celebrated innovations is an unacknowledged but indispensable contributor to the world’s growing food security: rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).

The very molecule that has been wrongly branded as a doomsday gas has been contributing to increasing yields for essential crops like rice, wheat and soybeans.

Food Security is Serious Business

The 20th century’s Green Revolution demonstrated how scientific intervention – including the use of fertilizers – could dramatically boost crop yields. The late 1960s saw a huge turnaround in yields across the globe, thanks to Norman Borlaug’s high-yielding, drought-adaptive, disease-resistant varieties of food crops.

Nations that had suffered severe poverty and famine became agricultural giants within a decade or so. Between 1965 and 1970, wheat yields nearly doubled in Pakistan and India, two nations that were once pleading for international aid to rescue their people from malnourishment and starvation.

Despite being criticized by some, agricultural advancements in the use of fertilizers, pesticides and gene editing have been vital. Without them, feeding our growing global population would be impossible. But they’re not the complete story.

Also driving higher crop yields has been an increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere that began in the 19th century as the Industrial Revolution accelerated. The rate of increase rose further with global industrialization following World War II.

C3-C4 Divide: Understanding the Difference

Having an especially efficient photosynthetic pathway are C4 plants, which have a four-carbon sugar molecule produced during photosynthesis. These plants, which include corn and sugarcane, have an evolutionary adaptation from millions of years ago that was a response to an atmosphere relatively low in CO2. Thus, C4 crops are already operating near peak efficiency when it comes to CO2 utilization under suitable environmental conditions like that of the present era.

In contrast, C3 plants that developed during a time in the distant past when CO2 levels where many times higher than today’s show dramatic responses to increased atmospheric levels of the gas. C3 plants, named for their three-carbon sugar molecule, have a relatively inefficient photosynthetic process. Their stomata – tiny pores on leaves that allow gaseous exchange – must remain open longer to capture sufficient CO2, which leads to greater water loss through transpiration.

Higher ambient CO2 levels allow C3 plants to photosynthesize more efficiently while losing less water. The benefits of elevated CO2 aren’t merely theoretical, as proven in field studies that have confirmed laboratory findings.

These studies, conducted in real-world conditions, show consistent yield increases across various C3 crops. Wheat yields increase by 20-30% under elevated CO2 conditions, while rice shows increases of between 15-32%. Soybeans, another crucial C3 crop, exhibit yield increases of up to 46% in some studies.

Perhaps nowhere is the CO2 effect more evident than in greenhouse cultivation. Modern greenhouse operators routinely boost productivity by elevating CO2 levels to 800-1,000 parts per million (ppm), which are well above current atmospheric levels of around 420 ppm. The results are striking: tomato yields increase by 40-50%, cucumber production rises by 30-40%, and growth of lettuce and other vegetables accelerates significantly.

In addition, it has now come to light that even C4 crops – like corn and sugarcane – can benefit from elevated CO2 under conditions of drought and low soil nitrogen. This is big revelation for tropical Asian countries where sugarcane farmers often struggle with insufficient water for their plants. Further research could reveal that the 21st century’s elevated CO2 levels have been aiding crop production there.

Understanding CO2‘s role in crop productivity should inform the policy landscape, where governments and corporate entities like Blackrock and Vanguard have incorrectly promoted the reduction of atmospheric CO2 as a “life-saving” endeavor without understanding basic plant biology. The opposite is true: More atmospheric CO2 is a boon to humanity, and less is bad.

We should be grateful for the industrial emissions of carbon dioxide that contribute to greater crop productivity instead of spending billions on foolish projects to remove the gas from the air to store it underground. Such initiatives will do nothing to improve the weather while impoverishing people.

Today’s release of carbon dioxide through the combustion of coal, oil and natural gas is reversing a process that sequestered CO2 from the atmosphere millions of years and lowered to less than optimum concentrations the amount of the gas available for plant growth.

A resolution worth adopting this New Year would be to reject the coordinated demonization of CO2 by climate scaremongers and to celebrate it for what it is: the gas of life.

This commentary was first published at BizPac Review on December 27, 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.


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/9aD6gqe

January 2, 2025 at 08:03AM

BBC Extreme Weather Complaint

By Paul Homewood

 

I have now submitted a complaint to the BBC about the about their report, “A year of extreme weather that challenged billions”.

 


Your report claims that “climate change has brought extreme weather from hurricanes to month-long droughts”

It then goes on to list a handful of random weather events, but fails to provide any evidence that these are anything other than natural events which happen all the time. Nor any evidence that such events have been getting more frequent or extreme over time.

The report highlights typhoons in the Philipppines and Hurricane Beryl as examples of climate change, stating that it may be increasing their intensity. Yet last year the number of both global Tropical Cyclones (the generic term for typhoons and hurricanes), and the strongest ones were both below average. Nor does the official data show any evidence of them becoming more powerful over time. (See Fig 1).

There is also a section on heatwaves in Asia, which again fails to offer any evidence that these were in any way unusual. There is for instance a reference to a heatwave in Delhi last May & June, yet the official temperature record from the Indian Met Office for those months last year shows temperatures were not unusually high at all there. (See Fig 2)

Another section of your report addresses the drought in the Amazon, but the World Bank Climate Portal states that rainfall there has increased by 5% in the last 30 years: (See Fig 3)https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country-profiles

Whatever the cause of last year’s drought, it is not part of any longer term trend and therefore cannot be “climate-related”.

Finally you highlight floods in Nigeria, Chad and Sudan. It is certainly true that the climate in these countries is now wetter than it was 40 years ago, but the 1970s and 80s marked the Great Sahel Drought across this whole swathe of Africa. Since then rainfall has merely returned to levels seen before 1970. The wetter climate has nothing to do with global warming, as implied. (see Fig 4)

Throughout your report, you base your claims on Weather Attribution Computer Models. However computer models are not evidence of anything, and can be manipulated to provide whatever results are desired. That is why they are widely derided by the wider scientific community.

Unless you can provide factual data to back up your claims, the report should be withdrawn and a correction published.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/global-3.png

Figure 1https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/global-4.png

https://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&loc=global

image

image

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS_v4/tmp_IN022021900_15_0_1/station.txt

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/image-2.png

Figure 3

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/observed-annual-precipit-2.png

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/observed-annual-precipit-3.png

Figure 4

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/963t40o

January 2, 2025 at 04:54AM

Brazil’s Paris Pledge Lies in Tatters

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

 The World Bank Portal analysis of Brazil also includes details of the NDC, the emissions pledge made by the country as their contribution to the Paris Agreement:

https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/brazil

I wonder how that worked out?

BP Energy Review

We don’t have data for other GHGs, as they are not measured annually. But emissions of CO2 were 30% higher in 2023 than in 2005.

And they have barely dropped at all since the NDC was formally registered in 2016.

Yet the delusional Miliband still believes that the rest of the world follow our lead, and wreck their own economies as well!


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/DC7aFO1

January 2, 2025 at 04:06AM

Mexico’s Emissions Con Trick

By Paul Homewood

 

 

CAT_2022-12u_Graph_SplitSummary_Mexico.original

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/mexico/

While Miliband wants to lead us over the cliff, the rest of the world is just getting on as normal.

Mexico is another country which continues to increase emissions. Even their Paris NDC was explicit about this, as it pledged only to cut emissions from a theoretical Business as Usual scenario. The resulting targeted emissions in 2030 would be higher than they were in 2015!

Since then, Mexico has upped the reduction from 22% to 35%, but as Climate Action Tracker point out, they have also upped the BAU:

 

Mexico’s climate policies continue to go backwards, as fossil fuel use is prioritised and climate-related policies and institutions dismantled. Mexico’s updated 2030 target (NDC), submitted in November 2022 results in higher emission levels than the targets from 2016, breaching both agreements under the Paris Agreement and Mexican Law – where governments committed to improve their targets over time. The updated NDC lacks transparency and disguises its lack of ambition by counting forests differently in the base and in the target year. Mexico will meet the unambitious target with already implemented policies as emissions continue to rise through 2030. With this update, the CAT’s rating of Mexico’s climate targets and action worsens from “Highly insufficient” to “Critically insufficient”.

While the new target includes a larger percentage reduction it still leads to higher emissions. The NDC update increases the percentage reduction of the unconditional target from 22% to 35% (30% with own resources and an additional 5% from agreed international support) by 2030 and from 36% to 40% conditional on additional international support. But the business-as-usual (BAU) baseline, against which the targets are defined, has been revised upwards. In addition Mexico expects a higher contribution of emissions sinks in forests to achieving the target. Together this means that the new target can be met even if emissions excluding those of forestry are higher than what they could have been under the old target.

The 2022 NDC update replaces the 2020 update, which became invalid after a Mexican court found that it is less ambitious than the very first NDC of 2016 and therefore a violation of continuous progression of ambition. The 2022 update is less specific on the contribution of forestry to the target, which may make it more difficult to argue its ambition.

Mexico pursues a “gross-net” approach, meaning it counts only emissions sources in its BAU, ignoring sinks from land use and forestry. However, the NDC does intend to use these sinks to achieve the target, highlighting that nature-based solutions are ‘central’ to achieving the targets. In 2019, reported sinks were almost 200 MtCO2e, or about a quarter of Mexico’s emissions excl. land use, land use change and forestry. While technically allowed, this accounting approach has been criticised as in-transparent for over 20 years.

Mexico’s 2022 NDC update removes the target to peak emissions in 2026 and does not mention any net zero nor other long-term targets.

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/mexico/

In terms of just CO2, it is evident that Mexico never had any intention of cutting emissions:

 

image

BP Energy Review

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/o8KbOjM

January 2, 2025 at 03:50AM