CO2 cuts could lead to mass starvation, says scientist

Could impoverish the world

4 Jun 2016 – Decarbonizing the globe could have devastating consequences on the world’s way of life, warns M.J. Kelly, a University of Cambridge engineering professor.

CO2 brings immense benefits

In peer-reviewed research, Kelly argued that carbon dioxide should be considered the byproduct of the “immense benefits” of a technologically advanced society.

Cutting carbon, said Kelly, could result in a dramatic reduction in the world’s quality of life that would usher in mass starvation, poverty and civil strife. Massive decarbonization is “only possible if we wish to see large parts of the population die from starvation, destitution or violence in the absence of enough low-carbon energy to sustain society.”

 

“Humanity is owed a serious investigation of how we have gone so far with the decarbonization project without a serious challenge in terms of engineering reality,” Kelly added.

 CO2 has major upsides

“Everyone assumes that every change is for the worse, but we are starting to find upsides” in carbon dioxide, said Kelly. “The recent science is casting doubt on whether more CO2 is necessarily a bad thing.”

Last November, Indur Goklany, a U.S. Department of the Interior official and a former delegate to the IPCC, said carbon dioxide is a major factor in plant fertilization and boosting crop yields, among other benefits.

High levels of CO2 concentration have actually helped improve biosphere productivity by 14 percent over the last three decades, Goklany’s research found.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/04/climate-accord-irrelevant-and-co2-cuts-could-impoverish-the-world-scientist.html

Thanks to Stephen Bird for this link

20 thoughts on “CO2 cuts could lead to mass starvation, says scientist”

  1. So, in a set of findings, earth has adjusted to man and has naturally increased it’s C02 production to enhance plant growth and food production.

    Sounds like GOD got this thing right. So earth itself adjusts to it’s needs to supply life sustaining greenery for animals or (veggies for the supposedly superior vegan diet) to munch on that in turn feed people.

    One just has to appreciate intelligent design. (Sarcasm)

    1. Earth has adjusted to man?? I sure hope that’s sarcasm! 😉
      As far as the Earth knows, we are not even here. The Geologic record clearly shows there is no relationship between CO2 and temperature. That is to say CO2 does not cause higher global temperatures. Earth has had full-on Ice-ages when CO2 was many Hundreds of times todays levels. Photosynthesis and carbonate formation removes CO2 from the Earth system. Volcanism, forest fires, burning of Coal and Oil adds CO2. An artificial constraint or even a criminal purposeful removal of CO2 (as some idiots have suggested), would indeed bring on tough times for plants. At the end of the last glaciation the planet came perilously close to extinction of all plants and animals because of lack of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Do we really want to go there?

  2. If there wasn’t change of any kind, life itself wouldn’t evolve, expand and seek new areas to colonise. Without change, life loses its vigour, uses up all the nutrients in its local environment, and dies out.
    What we have now is an out of control propaganda exercise started by a bunch of climate alarmists in the 1970s not in possession of the true scientist facts that our variable star controls our climate via its own moderation of its emitted energy over very, very, long time scales.
    This climate fraud of science took 40 years to get to this point, it will take most of this current 30 year Solar Minimum to undue the harm caused.

  3. At a CO2 level of 0.015%, all life on Earth would perish within a year or so. At our current level of 0.04%, we seem safe, but let’s not mess around with reduction!

    1. Winrob

      At 0.04% the CO2 content of the air is very nearly 0% – very nearly ZERO – a trivial 1 part per 2,500.

      How anybody can really believe that a trace gas at 1 / 2,500th of the atmosphere can have any significant effect on the clmate is a complete mystery.

      Here in Sacramento, the temperature (“daily climate”) typically swings about 30 degrees, 90 at noon, 60 at midnight. If CO2 was doing much “heat trapping” I don’t think that would be possible. It couldn’t cool that fast.

      All this “catastrophic climate change is attributed to a 1/3 increase in CO2 from 0.03% (1 part per 3,333) 100 years ago to a whopping 0.04% (1 part per 2,5)) now, up a mind boggling 0.01% (1 part per 10,000) over 100 years.

      Whooopeee.

      As C. S. Lewis might have said, Horsefeathers.

  4. Record cold in Antarctica (Vostok)
    Temperature of -80.3ºC degrees was recorded in June 14-2016.
    Meteonovosti:
    -http://hmn.ru/index.php?index=1&ts=160615112429
    -http://www.ogimet.com/cgi-bin/gsynres?ind=89606&ano=2016&mes=6&day=14&hora=7&min=0&ndays=30

  5. Mass starvation and civil strife (major wars) caused by going green. I’ve been saying that for years. It’s the only logical conclusion that an intelligent person can come to. As Obama said: “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” So who could afford skyrocket high energy rates? The rich. The middle class would struggle but the poor would have to choose between buying food or heating their houses in winter.

  6. The two are right, but wrong. On their premises. We are coming from an era of low carbon, less then 400 ppm. We are entering a more normal period as past record reconstructs show. Now we have to study, why? Was it sequestered in the green? Or in the ground? Why is it now appearing in the air. I have seen studies where the human amount is listed from 3-10%. Depending on the original question, but none on why the variability, or the causes or the effects of reduction. A first.

    1. The oceans hold the bulk of CO2. When cold CO2 rich ocean waters surface and warm, that CO2 enters the atmosphere, where it can be utilised by land vegetation.

    2. The overwhelming majority of CO2 which was once in the atmosphere is today “locked up” in Geology as carbonates – calcium or calcium/magnesium carbonates which we call limestone or dolomite respectively.

      Just how much CO2 in limestone had a biological origin is a guess but it isn’t going to be released to the atmosphere without some major energy input – volcanic eruptions emit significant CO2 as do undersea “vents”.

  7. Imagine a world without clean water, sewage treatment, refrigeration and significantly reduced fresh food supply.

    Welcome to the green fantasy.

    All of the disease and violence of the dark ages would return within an amazingly short period of time if carbon based energy was simply shut off.

    Some idiots advocate this at present yet none would live long enough to see a return to even a tenth of the energy available today as it is simply impossible to build enough fantasy energy machines in that short period of time without carbon energy.

    Where would they get their lattes and power to recharge their iPhones and iPads ? Wouldn’t matter though as the networks would be without power or network access would be prohibitively expensive.

  8. Us “Deniers” need to start attacking the fairy tale more agressively, at the roots.

    How can a trivial 1 part per 10,000 increase in a trace gas from 0.03% to 0.04% cause any detectable, distinguishable, change in the clmate? It makes no sense.

    The world has fallen for the classical sophomoric fallacy that correlation = causation.

    And then it’s invented all kinds of computerizerd climate change models to prove it.

    But the computer models are Speculation (predictions of future events) based on Assumption (the assumption that CO2 is the only or primary driving force in climate change).

    Speculations and Assumptions are not admissible evidence, in law, or in science (real science), and Speculation based on Assumptions is doubly inadmissible evidence.

  9. A rational computer modeling of future climate changes would be an inductive model, following the last 50 million years of climate change patterns to project out the probably future climate changes if the patterns of the last 50 million years are not disrupted.

    Under those parameters, it would show (a) a long term global cooling trend, with (b) cycles of global warming and cooling at intervals of approx. 100,000 years, with (c) short warm eras of glacial retreat and comparatively long eras of glacial advance with a ratio of about 1-2 (warming) to 7-8 (cooling), and (d) with the amplitude of change increasing from cycle to cycle – the warming getting warmer (relative to the cooling) and the cooling getting colder in absolute terms.

    A scientific model of future climate change must account for the last billion years of known climate changes. If it does not “reverse predict” past climate changes, it cannot credibly predict future climate changes.

  10. There’s a reason greenhouses are set at 800 to 1000ppm of CO2 and its not to just trap heat (glass panes can do that on their own just sit in a car)…This green agenda goes back to the Georgia Guidestones…the goal is to depopulate and this is done through crop reduction….you cant reduce crop production more without reducing CO2….that’s why they are spraying those aerosols too…it’s so that the soil will only grow GMOs modified for that soil

  11. …….”if we wish to see large parts of the population die from starvation, destitution or violence”.
    I think that is what the whole global warming, climate disruption agenda is really about. No point discussing with fanatics who want to kill you as there is no compromise. If put this bluntly “Give the government money to change the weather” is so obviously stupid. Give the govt your money and they will give it to themselves and their cronies and dont mind at all if you die is much more plausible.

  12. This fellow is no better than the warmists in that he assumes that humans are controlling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere!

    We can’t reduce it, and we can’t increase it, not by any appreciable amount. These people need to get over themselves and their anthropocentric view of science and nature.

    The process of dumbing down of the human race has been successful.

  13. Not enough plant food (CO2) means mass starvation, Duh.
    Also 1+1=2, (sarc) .

    Too bad the increasing CO2 won’t offset the little ice age that’s starting, because “greenhouse” gases are a myth.

  14. No but it will help green the current desert regions of the world which now reciving rain fall they have been starved of since Roman times.

Comments are closed.