Thread

It really is wild to me that the propaganda has been so strong that people literally think CO2 is bad for the environment. Even people trying to counter the idea, tacitly frame their position in this direction (like but methane is even worse!) to not cause outrage. CO2 is literally the only reason an environment exists. It is the literal life creator. It's like demonizing language itself as being "bad for communication."

Replies (74)

Quite to the contrary to this bizarre belief, life exploded inexplicably, the literal "Cambrian explosion," when CO2 levels ranged in the 3,000-8,000 parts per million. And if levels ever fell below 150 ppm (which ironically we came pretty close to reaching in the pre-industrial age) its quite possible that most life on earth would simply die out. Levels below 300 are generally associated with ice ages and environmental destruction.
Significant moves in either direction could have a huge impact on human life. Like ok you may have had events in the past at very high levels of co2 that resulted in an increase of life on the planet, but going back to those levels may not be good for humanity specifically. Increasing global temperatures 5C+ or whatever the number is would be extremely risky for us. To me it seems desirable to limit the amount to what it has been when humanity has been healthiest.
It’s less about total amounts and much more about rate of change. The actual issue is the rate of change acceleration that the industrial era has seen. The rate of change is the fastest in recorded human history. Obviously the screeching freak outs over this issue are absurd, but that doesn’t change the fact that accelerating rate of change of most systems is generally hard to manage for biological entities.
There is exactly zero evidence to suggest that warmer climates or previously cold areas becoming warm has any effect other than less death. Cold is the absolute #1 environmental killer. And all of the warming we have seen so far is almost exclusively in the colder areas, which still have no clear and direct link to CO2 levels, despite the broad acceptance that there is a cause and effect, which conveniently takes huge breaks, or reverse for a little while. Nothing over the last 100 years about more energy and warmer temperatures suggest anything at all except that fewer people die and there is more and greener environments. In fact environmental deaths have fallen faster than the value of the dollar. The dollar inflation has only had it lose ~98% of its value, while environmental deaths have fallen by more than 99%. Your belief is pure propaganda and extrapolation that doesn't align with reality. Environmental deaths have virtually done nothing but decline.
I can intuitively take this at face value, except that coldest areas are the ones most affected, and are generally “life deserts.” I think largely the most reliable connection to higher CO2 levels post industrial age is what NASA terms, “the great greening.” The earth is literally visibly greener, and if you test this in any controlled environment with slightly higher CO2 levels, plants grow faster, healthier, and a deeper green.
I can agree with all that. The only issue is that the rates we are seeing are estimated at 100-200x faster than during the great greening. So there are issues with how a system adapts. The ocean acidification can outpace the ability for marine life to adapt which can create a cascade of failures. Current estimates put the rate of change of ocean PH at roughly10x faster than any period in the past 300 million years. Functioning ocean ecosystems are critical to human flourishing. 20% of the protein humans eat come from the oceans. If the corals and scavenger animals of the seas can’t cope with the ph changes and being shell based there is evidence that they can’t it could be a rough century for the seas.
They study fossilized plankton. It is possible that the acidification can be adapted to quickly enough or that plankton that can handle it flourishes and helps to bring down the acid levels. We really don’t know. The issue isn’t that the oceans can’t handle more co2 it’s that the life in the ocean may not be able to handle the rapid influx of co2 and moves in ph. The ph scale is logarithmic so minimal changes could mean a mass die off of critical animals.
Correct, when there is very little, life on earth would die out. If we were back in the 3000-8000 ppm range, life would likely explode again. This is actually the sort of thing I'm talking about, you feel the need to have some caveat here, when there is absolutely no evidence that CO2 is bad for anything in any levels that are even practically achievable or have ever existed since there has been life on the planet at all. Every reasonable piece of evidence we have says that more CO2 means more life.
Actually it matters more how fast things change. Biological systems can’t adjust to rapid changes because evolution takes many generations. There are upper limits and lower limits that humans and most other things can’t survive, but there are rates of changes that will destabilize our world regardless of our ability to survive within the absolute values.
I get why it feels wild, a lot of the debate around climate can be emotionally charged and full of simplified sound bites. But the idea that CO₂ is “bad for the environment” isn’t really propaganda so much as a scientific conclusion based on decades of measurement and observation.
Isn't their point that too much CO2 causes an unhealthy imbalance? I'm probably on your side in general on this issue, but it's unhelpful to misrepresent the actual arguments. I've never heard anyone argue that 0% CO2 on the planet is the goal or even a good thing. There are a few anti-human nuts who actually do just want us all to die (still wouldn't take us to 0%), but I see that as an extreme minority. There is a point at which too much CO2 would kill us. You can cover your head with an airtight plastic bag and prove that. The question is whether current levels are as emergent as people claim (I have doubts).
First, the belief is extremely broadly and explicitly accepted that it is "bad" in a total senbse. It is literally trated as a pollutant. Second, there is no evidence for the latter point. All major animal life breathed oxygen during the cambrian explosion and seemed to survive just fine (or rather thrived to an insane degree) at ~20x the CO2 levels as today. So I don't know where this notion is evidenced exactly
Guy. Love your work. Really. But this topic is SO much more nuanced. Humans and their current habitat couldn’t survive in the same conditions in which the earth has spent 99 percent of it post-Cambrian explosion epochs. It’s called “hot bulb”. And it’s great for reptiles. Devastating for mammals. Yes. The CO2 “emergency” is a politicised power play, hoax. But no, we can’t jump to multiples of higher levels of higher CO2 (or oxygen! For that matter) and survive. We have to move at evolutions scale to meet the organic changes. 🧬 I only answered because I love your work and you seem genuinely confused.
It is demonised because it can be taxed if the right narrative is found... If it can be taxed, then linking it to whoever releases it could be done. Of course this needs a Digital Identity linked to a Central Bank Digital Currency so that every transaction can be properly identified and taxed... The whole Climate Change issue can be traced back to a very small number of people wanting to control everyone else on the planet...
Maybe, except that there's little evidence that even one tiny prediction of the harm has come true, and the assumption that we ought to be deliberately manipulating the environment, blocking out the sun, modifying the air, and also taxing people trillions of dollars and politicizing every single industry and even human breath seems like 1000x the problem and negative externalities versus protecting our basic liberties. I think having the freedom to progress, protect more people, produce more energy in more varied and creative ways, raise the global population out of poverty, and having the humility to consider that we might not be able to "engineer the world" any better than nature, or that deliberately causing extreme widespread poverty and allowing arrogant centralized governments to control every aspect of our lives might not be a "better" course of action.
Back to the topic: -CO2 is rising, check (280 ppm since industrial revolution) -Sea levels are rising in response, check (obviously) -Rising sea levels are bad for coastal cities, check Yeah you can argue that in the grand scheme of things this rise is not overly unhealthy for the planet, and that all these coastal cities and towns are going to have to just take the hit, bad luck for them, but hey, good luck for Russian and Danish shipping companies. But if someone wants to argue that we should make an effort to protect the currently-settled coastal areas, then can't really poo poo that argument either.
I hear that CO2 is bad on the daily. I hear people who even disagree with it shifting their frame to allow for “we know it’s bad but…” I see governments explicitly labeling it a pollutant an an ocean of incessant, ideological demonization of it as the worst and most important environmental concern of our time. I do not believe I am misrepresenting the stance that I hear demonstrated almost every day. Just my experience tho
From Los Angeles Times, June 30, 1989: "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000", a senior U.N. environmental official said. It's been over 36 years since that prediction and absolutely nothing like that has happened. Don't believe the lies that cause fear. Fear is the currency of control. Fear is the mind killer. Source:
Fun, inconvenient observation: As CO2 increases, the stomata on plant leaves don’t need to open as much to intake CO2, which also means that the plant retains more H2O. More H2O retainment means that plants can survive in more arid environments. Which means that plants can encroach further into deserts. More CO2 = de-desertification. Very inconvenient for CO2 alarmists.
Okay, so let me use a metaphor: you have an outdoor plant, that needs to be watered only every once in a while, it adapted to the surroundings and the climate, and the rain itself is sufficient for it to grow and stay healthy. Sometimes it rains more, sometimes less, but overall the plant can handle the level of hydration based on the years of evolution. Now, suddenly, in scope of several years, which looking at the pace of evolution is less than a blink of an eye, rains are getting more intense, there is more water evaporating, because some “water reservoirs” near it have been exposed after being almost always underneath the ground. Would that plant still survive? It needs water to live, but too sudden change in the amount will led to its death. Now, the reservoirs of water I’m referring to are fossil fuels, emitting CO2, which usually wouldn’t be there. CO2 is not a pollutant, just as water is not a killer. But CO2 of “external” origin is killing the planet, just as “external” water would kill the plant.
This graph shows the outflow of energy depending of the different atmosphere composition. TLDR, There is literally no effect of doubling the amount of CO2. image The blue bell-shaped curve shows the amount of solar energy flux (at different wavelengths, x-axis) radiated to space from an earth with no atmosphere. (Most is in the infrared region 400-1000 or so.) The green line is the flux with an atmosphere with no CO2 but with all other greenhouse gases at their standard concentrations. The black line is for all greenhouse gases, CO2 included, at their standard concentrations. The red line is for twice the standard concentration of CO2 (400 to 800 ppm) but with all the other greenhouse gases unchanged. At 400 ppm CO2 does have a greenhouse effect: Radiated energy is reduced in the 500-700 frequency range. But an increase to 800 ppm has almost no additional effect – the black and red lines are almost the same. Doubling the standard concentration of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm has almost no additional greenhouse effect.
I see what you’re saying, but there is merit in the concern around absolute obliteration of entire ecosystems that have maintained our climate for millennia. Factory farming is fiat. Covering the earth in corn, soy, and wheat just to feed other farmed animals is fiat. Destroying the lungs of our planet 🌳 in order to make a living is fiat. Bitcoin is not carnivorous despite how many bitcoiners will tell you they only eat meat. That just feeds the fiat relationship with the environment even further. Bitcoiners should grow their own food, their own plants, and their own meat. Are you really self sovereign if you rely on someone else for the very nutrients you need to survive?
I agree with all of those things being problems, but I don't seem them as related to the debate of whether CO2 is a good or bad thing. They are a problem in their own right without needing attachment to any other narrative. It's simply unsustainable practices and agricultural centralization through a parasitic financing system. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point.
Life will survive. Life will adapt. Life will thrive in the new environmental conditions. That's not in question. Humanity in our current form evolved to live within the web of life. That web of life evolved to thrive at concentrations below 320 ppm, in patterns that go back a million years. There have been periods when it was higher, like the Eocene (56-34 million years ago), when levels often exceeded 1,000 ppm. But homo sapiens haven't experienced that. None of the life forms currently existing on land are adapted to that. I agree that it's somewhat silly to blame a three atom molecule for global climate change. That's a shortcut and an insult to the science. It's like something that snake oil salesmen would come up with to sell their wares. The threat is not the CO2. It's how the Earth will change and how life will adapt to that change. Follow the science, replace the money.