Co2 is “Green” and Doesn’t Cause Global Warming?
Posted by Lisa Carey
Is carbon dioxide really good for the environment? This scientist says it is and that what we really need is not legislation on cap and trade, but more CO2 to make the earth a greener, lusher place.
Carbon dioxide has many uses, from helping plants to grow to causing bubbles in your soft drinks. It is also used in foods, beer, pneumatic systems, fire extinguishers, welding, removing caffeine (such as from coffee beans), pharmaceuticals, dry cleaning, refrigerants, coal mining, wine making, pH (measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution) control, and even oil recovery. While there are many positive and helpful uses for CO2, many believe the release of CO2 emissions is harmful, and a contributing factor to global warming. However, scientist and geologist Leighton Steward recently released the book, “Fire, Ice and Paradise,” claiming that CO2 emissions are actually good for the environment, and what the earth needs is not a cap on CO2 emissions, but more carbon dioxide.
His argument put before Congress, joined into by many corporations, is to stop a law regarding “cap and trade”, because CO2 does not actually cause global warming, and increased levels of CO2 will actually make the earth greener. Since carbon dioxide is used by plants during photosynthesis and is needed for plant growth and development, he claims that more carbon dioxide (at an estimated increase of 300 parts per million [ppm]) would increase vegetation by 30%, tree growth by 50%, green the earth, and feed more people. The result would be a lusher, greener environment, providing more plant and animal life.
When asked about carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas that causes global warming and changes in the global environment, he states, “This information is simply not true.” He suggests that there are many historical cases of rises in carbon dioxide, but the temperature actually fell. He further claims that CO2 is not a major factor in climate change and that there is no proof that CO2 is a pollution. By capping CO2 emission, he claims we will actually be taking food away from starving people and “browning” the earth.
From his book and an interview with U.S. News and World Reports “Washington Whispers”, Steward offers these top 10 global warming “myths.”
Steward’s Myth 1: The planet Earth will be healthier with lower CO2 levels.
He says: More CO2 is needed to bolster plant life, which turns the gas into oxygen, while also providing food.
Steward’s Myth 2: Rising CO2 levels cause temperatures to rise.
He says: Temperatures over time have fluctuated, while CO2 levels have remained steady. What’s more, temperature increases have historically led increases in CO2 levels.
Steward’s Myth 3: Sea levels will rise 20 feet by the end of the century.
He says: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts only a 17-inch rise, and “most climatologists predict a rise of only 7 or 8 inches”.
Steward’s Myth 4: Scientists unanimously say that CO2 caused by humans is the dominant cause of global warming.
He says: Not so. “Many, many reputable scientists believe that natural factors overpower the current influence of CO2 on global warming.”
Steward’s Myth 5: The United States is the largest contributor of human-caused CO2.
He says: China, which has no CO2 restrictions, has recently exceeded the United States. Plus, “It is opening a new coal-fired power plant every week, and its production of automobiles is growing at a much more rapid rate.”
Steward’s Myth 6: Storms are more frequent and intense because of global warming.
He says: “According to the National Hurricane Center, storms are no more intense or frequent worldwide than they have been since 1850. Temperatures were high in the 1920s and 1930s when there was much less CO2 in the atmosphere. Constant 24-7 media coverage of every significant storm worldwide just makes it seem that way. Insist on the facts, not just what some individuals or reporters say to support their cause”.
Steward’s Myth 7: Polar bears will go extinct if this warm period continues through the 21st century.
He says: “A jawbone of a polar bear has been found that is 120,000 years old, a time during the previous interglacial period when temperatures were 5 degrees Celsius warmer and sea level 19 feet higher than today. They adapted then; why not now?”
Steward’s Myth 8: CO2 is a pollutant.
He says: “CO2 is a great airborne fertilizer, which, as its concentrations rise, causes additional plant growth and causes plants to need less water.”
Steward’s Myth 9: As Earth warms, the climate will become much drier and windier.
He says: “Ice cores prove the opposite. The colder times were both windier and drier”.
Steward’s Myth 10: Higher levels of CO2 than the current 385 ppm in the atmosphere are harmful to humans.
He says: “The warning level of CO2 in submarines isn’t reached until the atmosphere has 8,000 ppm of CO2.
The question is: Is he right? Could more carbon dioxide actually be a good thing? According to this scientist and author, there are “thousands of studies that prove the correctness of his hypothesis.” Some examples include:
- Colorado State University conducted tests with carnations and other flowers in controlled CO2 atmospheres ranging from 200 to 550 ppm. The higher CO2 concentrations significantly increased the rate of formation of dry plant matter, total flower yield, and market value. While there are currently other programs in place to encourage more growth of plants, these require more work and costs. In the studies provided, carbon dioxide increases were achieved by the use of fossil fuels .
- At the University of Florida, elevated CO2 levels are stimulating rice growth and grain yield by factors of 30 to 40 percent. “We get increased carbon uptake through photosynthesis,” said Dr. Jeffrey Baker, of the UF Agronomy Department. “We also get a decline in total water use, and all this translates into an increase in grain yield”.
- “Higher CO2 levels have greatly increased the growth of cotton crops”, reports Dr. Bruce Kimball, Water Conservation Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture. “We found that in enriching the crop to about 550 ppm–which is 200 ppm above our control plots–that the growth is increased by about 40 percent more”.
However, there is no doubt about one thing, CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations. In concentrations of 1% (10,000 ppm), some people will feel drowsy. Concentrations of 7 to 10% can cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour. Continued exposure to these concentrations, as well as unconsciousness, can lead to death. So how do we make sure we get the levels of CO2 we need for a greener earth without achieving a level that would result in toxicity, illness, and death. My vote would be for a cap on carbon dioxide emissions. What would yours be?
About the author of Fire, Ice and Paradise: Steward is author-partner of Sugar Busters, LLC, a provider of seminars, books, and products related to helping people follow a healthy and nutritious lifestyle. He retired from Burlington Resources, Inc., an oil and gas exploration, production and development company, in 2000, where he had served as Vice Chairman since 1997. Steward is former Chairman of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association and the Natural Gas Supply Association, and is currently an honorary director of the American Petroleum Institute. Forbes Magazine .
Popularity: 3% [?]
11 Responses to “Co2 is “Green” and Doesn’t Cause Global Warming?”
Sea says:
“Steward’s Myth 9: As Earth warms, the climate will become much drier and windier. He says: Ice cores prove the opposite. The colder times were both windier and drier.”
I’ve never heard this argument from any scientist. I’ve heard that patterns of wet and dry may change, meaning perhaps part of the Sahel get wetter, and parts of Eastern North America get drier. Or perhaps the opposite. I’ve never heard that entire planet will get drier.paul carlson says:
Lisa,
Your review and summary of the book is quite good.
Your only argument against the MANY points of the book is that very high CO2 is toxic. The anticipated rise is way BELOW any toxic level. Your argument is like saying,”Because driving 200 MPH on the highway is unsafe, we must cap the speed limit to 25 MPH.”
How would you refute every one of his arguments?Lowell says:
It appears that Mr. Steward hasn’t noticed the air pollution on his glasses after the glasses are laid on a shelf/table/car dashboard ,etc., over night or long periods of time.
I am willing to bet money that Mr. Steward also believes in “clean coal”.Michael Elliott says:
Thank God someone with a brain (NOT AL GORE) that knows something about science, and is getting the truth out there. The whole global warming is a made up lie, and we sure don’t need another tax on energy and business with the cap and trade. Of course it probally was only on FOX news as the other stations would never have the truth on.
Bart says:
Mr Steward is absolutlely correct in all of the above. I’m amazed at how gullible the general public has been with regard to the Global Warming Hoax. Anyone whose done a little reading on the subject realizes that 1) CO2 emmissions from “man” represent a very tiny fraction of the total CO2 going into the atmosphere 2) historically, temperature increases have often PRECEEDED CO2 level rises, not occured after the fact. 3) The temperature “Global” temp variation corresponds to increases in the sun’s output and is pretty much independent of CO2 levels 4) 1998 is NOT the warmest year on record, 1930′s were much hotter instigating the “global cooling” scare of the 1970′s! (Imagine if we’d invested billions in the 70′s and 80′s to WARM the planet…make up my mind people!! 5) the 1998 ‘spike’ in global temp. coincided with the USSR shutting down many of it’s (COLD) weather monitoring stations (exclude 3rd world nations and average income per person on earth shows higher, remove the source of many cold temp readings, and global average temp shows an increase, but neither is a true increase is it!).
And since when has “profits”, “big business”, “wealth” become an evil thing? It’s a GOOD thing!! Government does not create wealth, it redistributes it, thus removing the incentive for companies to create it (along with creating jobs, and a wealthy middle class).
Let’s see…the big oil companies have kept us warm, powered the richest, most vast economy in history, which in turn creates jobs and wealth for everyone, keeps us safe, secure, with the highest standard of living ever in history….those rotten scoundrels!!
Global warming has led to “cap and trade” which bottom line is simply a TAX, nothing more…it’s a cash grab for the liberal governments of the world, and worse it’s going to strangle the wealthiest and most free nations on the planet…then we will truly all be ‘equal’..that is as poor and starving as the worst off 3rd world countries.
We’d better wake up soon as a free people and stop acting like a bunch of “Chicken Littles” running around in a panick over nothing.Oh and I apologize, I just couldn’t resist replying to the “Mr Steward hasn’t noticed the air pollution on his glasses” coment…yes I too have noticed those darn co2 stains on my glasses too!
Bullwhip says:
CO2 is not a “pollution” or a pollutant. It is a natural gas found all around us, and a little research will show that even some of our most vital bodily functions will cease to regulate properly without adequate amounts of CO2 in the blood.
This is the “new age” of the new century – a religion with faith(how else can you believe most of their claims?), a manufactured hell (seas will rise 20 feet, temperatures will rise by to unbearable levels, all life in the ocean wil perish, etc.), a distortion of science and history to accommodate their theories and predictions(thousands of scientists do not agree with the IPCC’s conclusions – which is a political body anyway), and an outright damning of everyone and anyone who dares to even question global warming.
Truth is we know science is a process that is imperfect, requires much questioning and revisions, and is never, never absolute.
I give the author credit for taking up the debate, but, like the fellow who posted above me, question her for only bringing up toxicity levels as an argument. As it is CO2 is no more than .036%(!!!) of ALL greenhouse gases.
Say no to pollution. But be sensible – no need to go off the wall. And that is precisely what’s been going on. We just can’t afford it.Thanks all for your interesting comments! I hope to come back soon and find even more!
Thanks also for the compliment on the review of the book, but I hope to clarify a couple of things.
First, my stand on cap and trade is because there does have to be some limit to what is exposed. I truly don’t believe that if you let business/corporations just release unchecked CO2 emissions into the atmosphere that the end result with be a greener more lush earth. There has to be some standards, after all there are limits based on speed, drinking and pollution emissions why not this also? Considering my libertarian leanings politically the fact that I hope for government interference means that this is something I feel strongly about and that unfortunately at this point government sanctions may be the only thing available.
Second, this article would not be complete if I didn’t present both sides – the scientific facts that say CO2 is good for the environment (and state the levels which he advocates), as well as the facts that CO2 in CERTAIN amounts can be harmful.
Look at it this way, would you consider one glass of wine to be a derogatory effect on your driving? No, sure most people wouldn’t, but yet in many states one drink is all it takes to be over the legal limit for driving. The argument is that the lower the limits placed, the less likely that people will exceed them and the more likely it would be for people to follow them say in this case by not drinking and driving at all.
I think CO2 caps would be like that, that hopefully the lower the limits placed, the harder that business would work to meet those standards or be fined, much like those signs on the side of the interstate that says, don’t dump or be fined.
A cap would just like many of the other limits placed on people in an effort to have them act reasonably. I am not saying his research is wrong or incorrect, I leave all that to the scientist, but what does need to happen is a limit to what can be produced to make sure we DON’T hit the harmful effects numbers.
I can’t refute all of his arguments, he presents excellent research to back up his thoughts, however, simply because I may agree with some of what he says doesn’t mean I agree with the end result – that of not having a cap on the emissions produced.rohan madann says:
Hello,
I am really sorry to say that the scientist is a moron who is just selling his book by telling people that we need CO2. He know that he will most probably die in next 10-15 years so it doesn’t matter whatever happens to earth.
And his claims about the CO2 are completely right but u should know one thing everything in excess is harmful. GO home and try one thing “Drink 4 liters of water more than what is recommended and do this for 1 month. Then go a doctor and tell him to do test for your body minerals etc. And you will come to know that they are on decrease.”
Secondly, he might be right about the increased production of trees and rice. I appreciate him for telling us that, but he forgot to tell us that the temperature patterns are getting weird but leads to decrease in crop growth.
And trees, the number is increasing day by day have he checked the forest map of Africa. His book will affect the forests in bad way now the tree cutters will get an excuse of cutting the trees as it leads to all good CO2 (according to morons)
Thirdly who thinks that CO2 is good for nature, for your information:-
1. take a bottle f coke(which you like to drink so much) put a tooth in the bottle and keep it untouched overnight. In the morning you can check your tooth. You will come to know what will CO2 do to you. Then come to this forum, and give us an honest reply
2. I hope you have read about the Methane gas,if not then you should know that the ice caps of the earth are filled with methane gas (and the size is almost equal to U.S.A). If the ice caps will melt the Methane will be released into our atmosphere which produces 200 times the greenhouse effect compared to CO2. Well you can also check the other harmful effects of the Methane gas on Google. I hope you not support this Scientist (EVIL scientist)So if I’m following the reasoning on the comment above, because my extracted tooth dissolves in a glass of Coke (as do steel nails by the way), this is evidence that CO2 will KILL me?
That’s quite the leap Einstein
Fox’s own agenda calls Mr. Steward’s credibility into question. This minority opinion, which happens to help industry and nations ignore regulation, finds a starring role while the majority of scientists and more qualified researchers are ignored. This is called ‘propoganda’ and begins, as Josef Goebells taught, with a Big Lie–once we swallow the complacency this attitude instills, we find ourselves on a path toward a future no one can predict but which most reputable scientists indicate will not be good for humanity and for other living beings.