THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT AND THE FERTILIZER EFFECT - The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels - page 72

All of this follows from basic chemistry and biology. Below 120 to 150 ppm CO 2 , most plants die,
which means human beings would die. All things being equal, in terms of plant growth, agriculture, et
cetera, more CO 2 is better. Today's climate gives us far less CO 2 than we would like from a plant-growth
perspective. We would prefer the thousands of ppm CO 2 that, say, the Cretaceous period had. 45
What's most important about all this is not that it proves that there will be overwhelmingly positive cli-
matological effects from increasing CO 2 —though I think that's a possibility. The climate system is com-
plex, and if no one among the specialists can predict it well, I certainly can't.
What's most striking is that these extremely positive plant effects of CO 2 are scientifically uncontro-
versial yet practically never mentioned, even by the climate-science community. This is a dereliction of
duty. It is our responsibility to look at the big picture, all positives and negatives, without prejudice. If they
think the plant positives are outweighed, they can give their reasons. But to ignore the fertilizer effect and
to fail to include it when discussing the impacts of CO 2 is dishonest. It is meant to advance an agenda by
not muddying it with “inconvenient” facts.
Occasionallythefertilizereffectwillbementionedasatrivialimpact,notworthyofdiscussion,because
the greenhouse effect will allegedly outweigh it so much with “too much” heat. This is dubious, given the
observable increase in plant growth under conditions of increased CO 2 and given that the heat predictions
are failures.
What's also striking is how, even though we all know that plants live on CO 2 , almost no one in the
culture thinks of potential positive impacts when he thinks about his “carbon footprint.” This is preju-
dice—the belief that man-made impacts on our environment are necessarily bad, that the standard of value
is nonimpact, and that there's no possibility of improving on Mother Nature.
Given that the climate naturally changes and human beings have generally thrived the warmer it has
been, it is quite possible that a higher global temperature with higher CO 2 levels would be a great boon. It
makes no sense to believe that the unchanged climate is the ideal.
My reading of the evidence is that there is a mild greenhouse effect in the direction human beings have
always wanted—warmer—and a significant fertilizer effect in the direction human beings have always
wanted—more plant life. I believe that the public discussion is prejudiced by an assumption that human
impacts are bad, which causes us to fear and disapprove of the idea of affecting climate, even though cli-
mate is an inherently changing phenomenon that has no naturally perfect state.
But with both of these, particularly the greenhouse effect, I think it's important to be open to new evid-
ence and new developments. And the only way to do that properly is for the community discussing this,
including the scientific community, to drop its prejudice against man-made impacts, stop thinking about
being “effective,” and think only about being honest.