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

Why the West’s separatists could be just as big a threat as Quebec’s

Business / 6 hours ago

Massive government child-care plan wreaking havoc across Ontario

Crime / 6 hours ago

Suspected ambush leaves two firefighters dead in Idaho

Business

Europe backs off greenwashing rules — Canada should take note

Published on June 29, 2025

Todayville

From Resource Works

A major shift is underway in Europe — and it’s a warning Canada would do well to heed.

Last week, the European Commission confirmed it plans to scrap its so-called “Green Claims Directive.” The proposal was designed to crack down on corporate greenwashing — companies making vague or misleading claims about how environmentally friendly their products are.

At first glance, that might sound like a worthy goal. Who wants false advertising? But the plan quickly ran into trouble, especially from smaller businesses who warned it would add layers of red tape, compliance costs, and legal risk.

In fact, the Commission itself admitted that as many as 30 million micro-enterprises could end up having to comply with the rules. Even with exemptions written in, the direction of negotiations pointed to increased burdens, not clarity. The result? A lot of businesses — even the well-intentioned ones — would stop talking about their environmental practices altogether, just to stay out of legal trouble.

Czech economist and tax expert Danuše Nerudová, a member of the European Parliament and a lead negotiator on the file, put it plainly: “I welcome the fact that the Commission has listened … and hope this opens the door to a more balanced and effective approach.” The proposal, she said, was “overly complex.”

If that sounds familiar, it should.

Canada’s own Bill C-59, which came into force this month, is already having a similar effect. The bill, which changes the Competition Act to target “greenwashing,” makes it legally risky for companies to say anything about their climate efforts unless they have airtight, independently verified proof — the kind often only available to large companies with big legal budgets.

At Resource Works, we’ve heard from organizations who’ve made the decision to stop communicating about environmental performance entirely. Not because they’ve done something wrong — but because the rules are vague, expensive to follow, and expose them to complaints even when acting in good faith.

That’s a loss. For consumers, for environmental progress, and for transparency.

Canada should be encouraging companies to communicate openly and credibly about their sustainability performance — not shutting down those conversations with threats of litigation. The European Commission has now acknowledged that its own approach, despite good intentions, risks backfiring. It’s time for Ottawa to take a similar step back.

With Prime Minister Mark Carney under pressure to unleash Canadian potential in the resource sector, revisiting Bill C-59 would be a sign of both good faith and practicality. Canada needs more innovation, more investment, and more real progress — not more reasons to say nothing.

It’s time to recycle Bill C-59 into something that actually supports good environmental practice instead of stifling it.

Business

Rhetoric—not evidence—continues to dominate climate debate and policy

Published on June 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Myths, fallacies and ideological rhetoric continue to dominate the climate policy discussion, leading to costly and ineffective government policies,
according to a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, nonpartisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“When considering climate policies, it’s important to understand what the science and analysis actually show instead of what the climate alarmists believe to be true,” said Kenneth P. Green, Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of Four Climate Fallacies.

The study dispels several myths about climate change and popular—but ineffective—emission reduction policies, specifically:

• Capitalism causes climate change: In fact, according to several environment/climate indices and the Fraser Institute’s annual Economic Freedom of the World Index, the more economically free a country is, the more effective it is at protecting its environment and combatting climate change.

• Even small-emitting countries can do their part to fight climate change: Even if Canada reduced its greenhouse gas emissions to zero, there would be
little to no measurable impact in global emissions, and it distracts people from the main drivers of emissions, which are China, India and the developing
world.

• Vehicle electrification will reduce climate risk and clean the air: Research has shown that while EVs can reduce GHG emissions when powered with
low-GHG energy, they often are not, and further, have offsetting environmental harms, reducing net environmental/climate benefits.

• Carbon capture and storage is a viable strategy to combat climate change: While effective at a small scale, the benefits of carbon capture and
storage to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions on a massive scale are limited and questionable.

“Citizens and their governments around the world need to be guided by scientific evidence when it comes to what climate policies make the most sense,” Green said.

“Unfortunately, the climate policy debate is too often dominated by myths, fallacies and false claims by activists and alarmists, with costly and ineffective results.”

Four Climate Fallacies

This study examines four climate narratives circulating in public discourse regarding climate change.
Fallacy 1: Climate Change Is Caused by Capitalism. As we will observe, this is backward: the more capitalist a country is, the more effective it is at protecting its environment and combatting climate change.
Fallacy 2: Even Small-Emitting Countries Can Do Their Part to Fight Climate Change. Again, in reality, even a casual inspection of the emission trends and projections of large-emitting countries such as China would reveal that for small-emitting countries like Canada, even driving their greenhouse gas emissions to zero would have no measurable impact in reducing climate risk.
Fallacy 3: Vehicle Electrification Will Reduce Climate Risk and Clean the Air. However, when looking beyond the hype, it becomes evident that vehicle electrification presents an array of climate and environmental benefits and harms that extend beyond climate change.
Fallacy 4: Carbon Capture and Storage Is a Viable Strategy to Combat Climate Change. This fallacy, most popular with those in the fossil fuel industry and those of a more market-oriented and politically conservative bent, is no more realistic than the previous three. An examination of the history, effectiveness, and efficiency of carbon capture and storage suggests that it is a far more limited approach to regulating greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere than proponents suggest.