If you are green to gardening you might not know that carbon dioxide, the gas we all exhale, is critical to plant growth and development. Photosynthesis, the process through which plants use light to create food, requires carbon dioxide. CO2 concentration in ambient air ranges from 300-500 parts per million (ppm), with a global atmospheric average of about 400 ppm. If you are growing in a greenhouse or indoors, the CO2 levels will be reduced as the plants use it up during photosynthesis. Increasing the CO2 levels in these environments is essential for good results. Additionally, there are benefits to raising the CO2 level higher than the global average, up to 1500 ppm. With CO2 maintained at this level, yields can be increased by as much as 30%!
Commercial greenhouse growing hydroponic tomatoes with CO2 enriched air.
Commercial greenhouses are aware of this and commonly use CO2 generators to maximize production. One thing to keep in mind while designing a CO2 system is that yields will only increase if CO2 is your ‘limiting factor’ (for more on ‘limiting factors’ and ‘Leibig’s Barrel’, see our previous post here). This means that if all your other variables are not optimal (light, fertilizer, temp/humidity, pH, etc.) you will not achieve the benefits of increased CO2 levels.
Now that we know the benefit of adding CO2 to your indoor growing environment, one thing to note is that CO2 enrichment will not be as effective if your grow area is not sealed since it will be exhausted before the plants can use it. Ideally, air should not be exchanged in an out of your grow room. If you have an air-cooled reflector, the air drawn through the fan to cool the bulb must enter and exit the grow area without coming in contact with the air in the grow room. Sealing your grow space allows plants to more completely use the CO2 that you enrich the environment with.
Another thing to note is that during the night cycle plants actually give off CO2. This causes a gradual increase during the night, until the lights come on and the plants resume absorbing CO2; you can save CO2 by waiting an hour or so into your daylight cycle to cut your CO2 device on.
Lastly, CO2 is notably heavier than air, so it is essential that your CO2 be dispensed from above your plant canopy. Oscillating fans in the grow space, particularly around the CO2 dispensed, will help distribute the CO2 around the area.
Now, let’s look at the various ways you can increase CO2 levels:
Homegrown CO2’s Exhale bags are a great option if you would like to see what CO2 can do for your garden on a budget and without a lot of equipment (i.e. timers, regulators and monitors). Exhale bags are filled with mycelium (non-fruiting mushrooms) that give off steady amounts of CO2 as a byproduct of their metabolism. These bags end up costing less and can save you a ton of hassle compared to the infamous fermentation and dry ice methods. For $32.99 you can buy an Exhale bag (available in-store only) that covers a 4×4 area for 6 months. After hanging your Exhale bag above the canopy you can use a CO2 test kit to see how much it raises CO2 levels.
If you are ready to move up to a longer term, more efficient CO2 delivery system, then the next system involves using a pin timer (Apollo 8), a CO2 regulator and either a CO2 tank (available for purchase or refill) or a CO2 generator. Tanks are typically the better option for smaller spaces for ease of use whereas generators tend to be the better option for larger spaces since they run off of propane and can generate large volumes of CO2 at low cost. Now, with either source, set the pin timer to turn the regulator on for 15 minutes every 90 minutes or so. A CO2 calculator like this one, available from Greentrees Hydroponics, will help you determine how much CO2 you need to release to achieve optimal concentrations for plant growth. You can also use a CO2 test kit to dial in your system so that 1500ppm level is maintained. As your plants grow and the garden changes, retesting your CO2 levels monthly can help you tweak your system to maintain optimum levels. Note, if you are using a Titan CO2 Regulator, a ¼” dispensing tube is included. Hang this line above your canopy in a circle with small holes every couple of inches (to allow the CO2 to ‘rain’).
Finally, for gardeners that want to achieve constant optimal growth conditions without ever wasting extra CO2, a CO2 monitor is a great device. These monitors, such as the Titan Atlas-3, completely automate your CO2 system by constantly measuring the CO2 in the area. If the ppm level falls lower than what you set on the monitor, it will automatically open the regulator and dispense CO2. These monitors also come equipped with a photocell to ensure that you never dispense CO2 during the night cycle.
By: Chase Werner
Useful Resources: CO2 Calculator – This is a great tool to use to make an intelligent first calibration of what your requirements will be for your room size instead of guessing and checking.
Jordan Peterson, world-famous psychologist and free speech advocate, has a reassuring message for women who’d like to have a family but who feel pressure from media, academia, and even friends to say “no” to their dream because, they’ve been told, a child has a “negative” impact on the environment.
“Bring a child into the world” anyway, Peterson said, and embark on a “maternal adventure” where you have “faith in life and in the possibilities of being [existence]” and the conviction that you’re “going to bring someone into the world who will be a net force for good rather than evil.”
Peterson made these comments during a conversation he had with Bishop Robert Barron that was published on the psychologist’s YouTube channel last week. (watch the full 1.5-hour conversation here).
Climate change alarmists have labeled children “carbon legacies” and have urged women to have small families and even no children at all, all in the name of “saving the planet.”
“A carbon footprint is the aggregate of resource use and carbon emissions over a person’s life. A carbon legacy occurs when a person chooses to procreate. All people have carbon footprints; only people with biological children have carbon legacies,” wrote Cristina Richie in a 2014 article in the Journal of Medical Ethics. Richie said that children being born are only “adding to worldwide carbon emissions.”
In 2017, Dr. Travis Rieder of the Berman Institute of Bioethics wrote in an article for NBC that having many children is “wrong, or at least morally suspect,” comparing parents having a large family to releasing murderers from prison.
The New York Timesfeatured a report last year highlighting women who chose not to have children “because of climate change.” Women are “acutely aware that having a child is one of the costliest actions they can take environmentally,” the report stated. The CBC recently ran a report telling Canadians that the best way to “mitigate” the “climate crisis” is to “have a smaller family.”
Peterson said that there will always be consequences to bringing a child into the world, but that women should look upon this as an “adventure” with the goal of raising children who will be a “force for good” in the world.
Here’s his full comment on the topic:
There’s a serious conversation to be had with young women. A woman asked me a question on my Q&A this month. She said that her friends are really down on her. She claims to not be a feminist, but even more importantly, because she wants to have children. And they’re telling her that only an evil and cruel person would bring a child into a world this terrible, and worse, [they tell her about] the damage to the planet that that child will inevitably do. And people are very serious about this. And they are very hard on young women.
I always think of the Pieta [sculpture by Michelangelo depicting the Virgin Mary cradling the body of her son Jesus, who was just taken down from the cross], because I kind of think of it as the Christian equivalent of the crucifix — you know, you have Mary there with her broken son in her arms. And I think that the great adventure for women — at least in part, this is the maternal adventure — is to bring a child into the world, knowing full well the consequence is a crucifixion-like brokenness. And that it’s still a mark of faith in the possibilities of being [existence], to participate in that and not to hide from it and to say: ‘Well, despite everything, I’m going to act out my faith in life and in the possibilities of being [existence] and I’m going to bring someone into the world who will be a net force for good rather than evil. And that’s my moral obligation.’
I think to present that to young women as a major part of the adventure of their life, which is certainly the truth, is something that is attractive to far more of them than would be likely to admit it in today’s time and age.
A civilization that views children merely as “carbon footprints” and not as beings with a spark of divinity in them that have something wonderful to contribute to humanity is a civilization that has lost it bearing. In the end, a civilization that has no children has no hope, no future.
Peterson’s remarks provide a path forward to those who want to have families but are weighed down by “climate change” talking points. Having a family is a serious adventure. Part of the adventure is a “crucifixion-like brokenness.” But, as people of faith know, when it looks like everything is lost, it’s at such moments that a resurrection can unexpectedly happen and the power of God, who works all things to good for those who love him, is revealed.
“One of the things I really learned from reading the Abrahamic stories is that the fundamental call is a call to adventure, not to ease or to happiness,” said Peterson a little later in his conversation with Barron. “The relationship with God that is part of that adventure is wrestling with God,” he added.
Senator Malcolm Roberts Exposing ‘Climate Crisis aka ‘Climate Change Scam! ⚠️ Elections have consequences, the beginning of the end of the CO2 caused climate change lie has started in Australia. Dr Tim Ball has presented in the Australian Senate on how the trillion dollar scam has been perpetrated and who is getting the money. Anyone interested in climate politics will be rewarded for finding 30 minutes to watch a video full of truth and facts that cannot be ignored.
. Tony Heller & Dr Tim Ball invited to the Australian Senate by Senator Malcolm Roberts Australian CSIRO ‘Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’ grilled over it’s constant lies and failed climate change predictions, Australia’s Bureau Of Meteorology, ‘BOM’ is also another Climate change propaganda machine, the biggest in the world for pushing this massive hoax, the BOM are on record for saying, “What we really need is more funding to study the effects of climate.
. Re-upload from: John Clarkson: YouTube.com/channel/UCAtiIJI-ISB47jcAZW_PxoA .
⚠️ Most climate crisis (“climate change”) activists deny and/or willfully ignore worldwide overt & covert #GeoEngineering operations causing (local) extreme weathers and are do not see that the push for “Global Governance” connected to UN #Agenda21 & #Agenda2030 “The Global Tax” agenda hijacking their “fight” with mass corruption, study: #ClimateGate … Mass rollout of #5G death-towers ☠️ everywhere is part of the A.I. Surveillance #IoT smart-grid to micromanage all humans to “Save The Earth” bs. . Meanwhile the real reasons are not discussed: NWO Depopulation Agenda, crowd control, making Orwellian type dystopian society run by #PsychoTechnocrats inevitable. . The trillions of dollars/euros that is needed to “Combat CO2” (what plants breathe) is NOT spend on suppressed inventions another topic most “green activists” do not discuss! …They are used to PUSH a world conditioned for control-freaks to take over! (normalizing insanity!) . #JohnKuhles Founder #Stop5G Fb Group, Page & Stop5G.net 🦜🦋🌳 .
⚠️’Extinction Rebellion Surveillance Agenda helping to PUSH the Mass Rollout of #5G Smart Grid! https://www.facebook.com/Stop5G/video… ~The climate changes every day, that is a given … The “Climate Change” Scam (hoax) has to do with multiple bogus claims “who is doing what, where, how and how big and how often and how big is the effect of that” … “Global Warming Science” has been debunked & exposed not only scientifically but also proven to be a fraud done by corrupt people #ClimateGate … It all about how much power “Global Governance” should & could get and pushing the the “Global Tax Agenda” connected to even more Orwellian type of Government Surveillance. Law enforcers tracking “criminals” by NEW invented unconstitutional “Laws & Regulations” … They will and CAN call you a “criminal” losing your (privacy) rights because of that lame excuse. . So in short: We have Hijacked Governments criminalizing solutions (suppressed inventions/alternative cures) and … legalizing crimes by creating new insane (unconstitutional) laws that are pushed by corporatism (lobbyists paying-buying out corrupt politicians). The Law Enforcers become more and more an extension of serving the Big Corporations and less the people’s interest. (…) Time to Unslave Humanity!
. “Global Warming” Scare predictions in the 80s & 90s turned out to be a HOAX …. all part of NWO UN ‘Agenda 21’ pushing for ‘Global Tax’ & ‘Global Governance!’ … but the rise of (man made) extreme weathers worldwide is real … so it is GIVEN that there is “climate change” … like kicking an open door … when Solar Storms & Solar Winds coming from our Sun has an huge effect on ALL planets in our Solar System … centuries of ALL planets had & have planetary cooling or warming due to the Sun Effect has been PROVEN over and over and over and over again GOT THAT? So know why they playing with our perceptions! … and Yes Covert Man Made Extreme Weathers (Weather Wars aka Weather Modification are also Real!). . ~Covert NATO run (above nation laws) SRM ‘Solar Radiation Management … Geoengineering Projects – Aerosol Crimes – Chemtrails – Secret Weather Modification Wars (study the declassified government hearing on this topic) – Stratospheric Aerosol Injections – #GlobalDimming etc. etc.
We have been lied to: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an alleged ‘well-mixed gas’ also alleged to reside in sufficient quantities high in the atmosphere to cause global warming (via the so-called greenhouse gas effect).
The first damaging fact to the theory: CO2 is actually a heavy gas. It is not ‘well mixed’ in the air as per the glib claim. Just check out the NASA image (below) showing widely varying carbon dioxide concentrations. Indeed, schoolchildren are shown just how heavy CO2 is by way of a simple school lab experiment.
This heavy gas thus struggles to rise and soon falls back to earth due to its Specific Gravity (SG). Real scientists rely on the SG measure which gives standard air a value of 1.0 where the measured SG of CO2 is 1.5 (considerably heavier). Thus, in the real world the warming theory barely gets off the ground.
Combining these properties allows for thermal mixing. Heavy CO2 warms faster and rises, as in a hot air balloon. It then rapidly cools and falls. Once it falls it loses any claimed climate impact.
You see, so much of what we have been told about the greenhouse gas mechanism is false. James Moodey wrote an excellent debunk of CO2 pseudo-science. He tells us:
“Proponents [of the greenhouse gas theory] point to scientist John Tyndall for postulating what we now call global warming in his 1861 paper published in “Philosophical Transactions.”
Tyndall’s experiments methodically measured with an electronic galvanometer, the relative heat absorption of various gases, gas vapors and even a few solids. He proved that they absorb heat in the order listed.
Generally, the larger the gas molecule (compound gases), the more heat they absorb with the most heat absorbed by olefiant gas (ethylene).
Although he does not mention carbon dioxide, it might absorb about a third of that amount. He discovered that that these gases absorb less heat as their pressure rises, so he measured at extreme low pressures.
At one point, he generalizes that gas vapors, such as aqueous vapor, absorb roughly 13 times more than dry gases. Solids absorb even more heat. He notes that gases cool in proportion to the absorption with large molecule gases taking longer to cool.
Tyndall leaps a bit with this concept when he hypothesizes the affect on our atmosphere by stating, “to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times” – which we attribute to global warming.”
There is no doubt what he measured exists, but nowhere in John Tyndall’s paper does he add the element of time. Yes, some gases absorb heat, but for how long?
If you ask any climate ‘scientist’ how long CO2 traps heat they are unable to tell you. They certainly can’t claim Tyndall “settled” it. Instead you will find airy-fairy, hand-waving pronouncements like this peach:
“As humans emit greenhouse gases like CO2, the air warms and holds more water vapor, which then traps more heat and accelerates warming.”
You see, they want to convince you that CO2 is trapping heat (like a greenhouse) but then don’t tell you how much and for how long.
In fact, the only scientist to test CO2 absorption / emission in the open atmosphere is Professor Nasif Nahle (Monterrey, Mexico) in his peer-reviewed paper, ‘Determining the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing Overlapping Absorption Bands.’ 
By performing his experiments in the open atmosphere Professor Nahle found:
“Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the Carbon Dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth’s surface and the Earth’s atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases.” [emphasis added]
So much for that ‘greenhouse effect’!
Alexander: numerous scientists (most are climate scientists, or climatologists) below who disagree that humans are to blame for global warming (please click the links and read or listen to what they have to say, then make up your own mind), and some go as far as calling it “pseudoscience” or outright a “scam”:
I would also like to add that none of the predictions made by Al Gore in his documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”, have come true. His predictions/claims were based on the scientific predictions about “global warming” made by what some call “climate alarmists“, and “exaggerated” computer models.Unlike academics playing with computers, applied scientists like Nahle and measurement engineers, who must be correct or buildings would catch fire, use four aspects of physics to measure gases: Pressure (Boyles Law), Temperature (Charles Law), Super-compressibility and Specific Gravity. Charles Law and Specific Gravity should be at the center of any analysis of Global Warming.
But take a look at any climate ‘science’ publication explaining how they quantify and explain their mechanism of carbon dioxide’s ‘heat trapping’ in the climate and you will only read about radiation effects, nothing at all on those essential laws that chemical science experts rely on. Anyway, a greenhouse works by blocking out cooling convection, not by trapping radiation.
And the greenhouse gas theory is all about radiation. But radiation is not the principle method of heat transport in a gaseous environment like earth’s atmosphere. Here. it is convection and conduction that carry heat around the system. No wonder climate computer models fail.
So, does carbon dioxide trap and retain heat? No, although it cools more slowly than some other gases, it absorbs some amount of heat and quickly cools the same amount when the heat source is removed. Does it rise up in the atmosphere? No, it does the opposite. It sinks.
It is well known that CO2 pools in the lower atmosphere – it is heavy and sinks to the ground where it forms large concentrations (e.g as carboniferous limestone).
Geologists know this all too well. They can point us to innumerable examples e.g. those prehistoric limestone deposits on ocean beds which gave the south coast of Britain its marvellous white cliffs of Dover (see image).
As Moodey goes on to tell us:
Charles Law precisely quantifies the volume expansion of gas when heated at each degree of temperature. Likewise, as gas cools its volume shrinks precisely the same.
Our modern instruments measure instantaneous changes in volume and temperature. This does the same as John Tyndall’s instrument, except we can measure a slight change in volume with each degree of temperature.
By my experience with this, I estimate that gases lose the absorbed temperature very rapidly when the heat source is removed.
Specific gravity is the weight of a gas compared with air. Carbon Dioxide has a specific gravity of 1.52. It is about one and a half times heavier than air.
It is the same weight as propane and anyone who uses propane knows it to be very heavy. Carbon dioxide sinks into our storm drains and into the ground like a puddle of water.
Now back to some Geology:
And we know carbon dioxide forms into insoluble carbonates that will eventually be washed into the ocean and settle on the ocean floor. Just as well it does. A high carbonate content in the ocean has been a godsend to life.
Dissolved carbonates in seawater provide an efficient chemical buffer to various processes that change the properties of seawater.
For instance, the addition of a strong acid such as hydrochloric acid (naturally added to the ocean by volcanism), is strongly buffered by the seawater carbonate system.
Marine biologists and oceanographers, unlike most climate ‘scientists’, know that Phytoplankton have always sucked CO2 out of the sky, then dumps to ocean floor. 
This is the carbon cycle in operation – heavier organic carbon settling down to intermediate and deep waters.
Earth’s oceans and rains serve as a go-between to transport the carbon back… and free the CO2 gas which makes its way back up to the surface through volcanoes. 
It is sensible to see dispersion of CO2 via volcanic eruptions (and the very tiny human emissions of CO2) as fertilization of the land fauna and flora.
The inconvenient truth for global warming alarmists is that NASA finds that the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last 35 years “represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.” 
If NASA is correct, then we need more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not less. Check the graph below and follow the blue line to see that life on earth has thrived on CO2 concentrations at 3,000 ppm, far higher than today’s levels of about 400 ppm (circled):
And if you think like a geologist and not like a climate ‘scientists’ and look back in the history of time you see the atmosphere had very large amounts of carbon dioxide in it. Today we have got less than 0.4%.
So where did that carbon dioxide go to?
It went into limestone, chalk, shells and life. All land-based lifeforms have been sequestering carbon for ONLY two and a half billion years. And all that CO2 that is supposed to turn the oceans more acidic?
If only those self-absorbed climate ‘scientists’ would speak to chemical scientists. All that Calcium Carbonate comes from the precipitation reaction of Calcium Hydroxide in the ocean with CO2 using the reaction Ca(OH)2 + CO2 -> CaCO3 + H20.
For example, shellfish need CO2 from the ocean to make their shells and control the conditions for PH, Temperature and Ion Concentration and they bind the crystals that form in a protein matrix for strength.
Shellfish are utterly unaffected by the piddling change in the ocean from being a base of 8.3 to being a base of PH 8.29 that might happen due to manmade CO2.
Our planet has been degassing carbon dioxide since it first formed four and a half billion years ago and now we are at a dangerously low level. The dumbest thing nations can do is permit scrubbing CO2 from the air (carbon sequestration).
As Professor Nahle found with his open air experiments:
“The general conclusion is that by adding any gas with total emissivity / absorptivity lower than the total emissivity/absorptivity of the main absorber / emitter in the mixture of gases makes that the total emissivity / absorptivity of the mixture of gases decreases.
In consequence, the carbon dioxide and the oxygen at the overlapping absorption spectral bands act as mitigating factors of the warming of the atmosphere, not as intensifier factors of the total absorptivity / emissivity of the atmosphere.”
Indeed, even with some slight cooling observed, the affect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of our atmosphere is not even measurable as the content is so tiny. Note that during our most dramatic industrial growth from 1950 to 1980, our atmosphere cooled.
In fact putting co2 into the air is saving the planet. If the industrial age did not occur for another 100 million years, what would the co2 ppm in air be then? The danger is without humans taking steps to put more carbon dioxide into the air then life as we know it could end.
(Natural News) In direct contradiction to the scare stories about carbon dioxide being relentlessly pushed by the climate change alarmists, a scientific study published in Nature Climate Change and highlighted by NASA reveals that rising carbon dioxide levels are having a tremendously positive impact on the re-greening of planet Earth over the last three decades, with some regions experiencing over a 50% increase in plant life.
The study, entitled, “Greening of the Earth and its drivers,” used satellite data to track and map the expansion of green plant growth across the globe from 1982 – 2015. Published in 2016, this study found that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide causes “fertilization” of plant life, resulting in a remarkable acceleration of increased “greening” across every Earth continent. As the study abstract explains:
We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area… Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend…
In other words, the planet is getting greener, and we have rising CO2 levels to thank for it, since rising CO2 accounts for about 70% of the increase in planet-wide greening, according to scientists. The more CO2 we release into the atmosphere, the more nutrients are available for plants, and the more rapidly the Earth is re-greened.
The following compilation map shows which land masses have experienced expanded greening since 1982. As the legend explains, the light green areas represent a 25% increase in green plants, and the dark green areas represent a 50% or greater increase:
Image credit: Boston University / R. Myeneni
Natural News readers may note this is exactly what we’ve been reporting for over a decade. It’s basic science, of course, since plants use carbon dioxide to thrive. Higher CO2 means a greener Earth, since CO2 is the single most important molecule for sustaining plant life across the globe. It is beyond astonishing that the entire climate change cult denies the basic science of botany and photosynthesis.
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
NASA explains almost exactly what I’ve been explaining for the last several years: That carbon dioxide is a necessary component of photosynthesis, the biochemical process by which plants produce metabolic energy. Via NASA:
Green leaves use energy from sunlight through photosynthesis to chemically combine carbon dioxide drawn in from the air with water and nutrients tapped from the ground to produce sugars, which are the main source of food, fiber and fuel for life on Earth. Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth.
Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University.
NASA even released a YouTube video that almost exactly mirrors the message Natural News has been advocating for years. The video is entitled, “Rising CO2 levels greening Earth”:
Why the Green New Deal would KILL the greening of the Earth
In direct contradiction to the real science on the greening benefits of carbon dioxide, Democrats routinely and mindlessly claim that carbon dioxide is a poisonous “pollutant” that will destroy the world. The anti-knowledge of lunatic Democrats demonstrates the extreme dangers of those who are scientifically illiterate yet spout “science” as their justification for demanding radical interventions in atmospheric chemistry.
In truth, rising levels of carbon dioxide will cause the following beneficial effects on Earth:
Reforestation due to Earth moving toward a warmer, wetter, more greenhouse-like environment
Acceleration of food production among food crops
An increase in the biodiversity of rainforests
Increased rainfall across Earth’s continents
The transformation of deserts into usable plains for grazing and agriculture
The acceleration of the greening of the planet, which is already far greener than it was 50 years ago
There are virtually no Democrats who recognize that carbon dioxide is the “miracle molecule” for plant life. “Green New Deal” proponents like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — who is scientifically and economically illiterate — think that carbon dioxide must be eliminated in order to save the planet. In fact, she warns that Earth only has 12 years to go before all life ceases to exist unless humans stop burning fossil fuels.
Not surprisingly, she has it all wrong: It’s the burning of fossil fuels that’s releasing beneficial CO2 into the atmosphere, causing the global greening that NASA has already confirmed (see above). If humans stop burning fossil fuels, the result would decrease atmospheric CO2, resulting in plants starving to death from lack of CO2.
This would, of course, lead to the mass global die-off of trees, grasslands, food crops and rainforests. The “Green New Deal,” in other words, would actually result in the mass killing of plant life across the entire planet. If the world were to follow the demands of Ocasio-Cortez, the world’s ecosystems would collapse, resulting in mass death of plants, animals and humans.
The Green New Deal is a “Death Cult”
It turns out that climate change alarmists, by vilifying CO2, are demanding actions that would make the planet less green by killing plants everywhere. Instead of a warm, wet planet with abundant rainfall and rainforests, Democrat seem to want a cold, dead world that’s devoid of plant life.
As any competent scientist would openly admit, the elimination of CO2 from the atmosphere would collapse the global ecosystem, leading to the complete wipe out of nearly all plants, animals and humans. Those who are calling for the elimination of CO2 are, as I have previously warned, actually advocating the terraforming of planet Earth into a post-human, post-life status that would collapse human civilization and annihilate nearly all food webs around the world.
People like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are not the saviors of the planet, it turns out: They are the death merchants who threaten to destroy all life as we know it. Carbon dioxide isn’t a threat to planet Earth, but people like Ocasio-Cortez surely are. If anything should be eliminated from the atmosphere, it’s the hot air coming from the mouths of the climate alarmists who are spewing their death cult quackery that would devastate our planet if deployed.
If you really want to “green” the planet, stop the climate change lunatics like Ocasio-Cortez whose proposals would quite literally murder nearly all life on planet Earth.
More carbon dioxide = more green plants
That’s why CO2 is called a “greenhouse gas.” It turns the planet into a lush, plant-filled greenhouse that’s warmer, wetter and more abundant across all plant life. Why don’t Democrats and Leftists want Earth to be more green?
This video on you tube show the importance of livestock, Mulching and Carbon Dioxide. Why the fake environmentalism movement is pushing the false form sustainability. The real reason why the land become desert because their no livestock to fertile the land restoring nutrients into soil for future growth. The idea of over farming can just go out the window because the nutrient can be restore in the soil. As long the nutrient is being put back into the soil the land can use on a longtime for agriculture. Having the soil mulched and covered will reduce erosion greatly than not having the soil mulched and covered as it was in the video from 23:20 to 28:00; the result was clear.
The 5 farming principals in the video from 31:10 to 36:55
Growing living in the soil as long possible
Keep skin on the soil(please the soil in 35:30 in the video show the soil; One without the mulch the temperature is 92.8°F(33.8°C); One with the mulch the temperature is 77.2°F(25.1)
Limit Chemical and Physical Disturbances
Increase Plants animals and insects diversity
Integrate livestock using adaptive stewardship.
Eco Liberty Conclusion: We encourage farmers to be better steward of the land they’re working on. Unlike the fake environmentalism movement they do not encourage better stewardship of the land but push Climate Change or Global warming scare upon people to pay Carbon tax; also push veganism in the name of sustainability which the false form of sustainability in an order to push for agenda 21/2030 by forcing people off their land and put them into jam pack cities which that is even more unsustainable but the global elites call sustainable. We say “no” to the false form of sustainability but we say “yes” to the true of sustainability.
Over 31,000 scientists have united against the political agenda of global warming. The scientific consensus, which includes over 9,000 scientists with Ph.D.s, supports the necessity of carbon dioxide and sheds light on the agenda of global warming, which includes industrial energy rationing, central economic planning, and global taxation schemes.
The petition, which includes important peer-reviewed research, is backed by various scientists with a wide spectrum of expertise.
The petition warns the United States about signing international treaties that only put a financial burden on the citizens of the country, steal national sovereignty, and restrict its energy production. The global warming alarmism, in other words, is pseudo-warfare designed to take down a country.
A letter from Frederick Seitz, President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, is also being circulated with the petition. The letter warns about the flawed science against carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is essentially a miracle molecule of life, not a dangerous pollutant that needs to be eradicated from the atmosphere. His letter also shines a light on the dangers of the U.S. entering global treaties which will ration energy and confiscate the Nation’s wealth.
Just because climate alarmist Al Gore can walk a stage, point to a graph, and correlate rising temperatures over oceans with a rise in greenhouse gases, does not make global warming a real issue or some kind of “settled science” that is going to destroy the planet.
Removing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide would actually hurt the planet, taking away the compound that plants need to thrive. If carbon dioxide is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to double plant growth?
The petition and its accompanying research dispel the myth that projected carbon dioxide levels are going to cause a catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and the disruption of climate. The evidence is actually in favor of greenhouse gases, which are beneficial to plant and animal environments on Earth.
The petition also takes aim at the global warming agenda, and says that it will hinder the advancement of science and technology around the world. The confiscation of U.S. energy output is a threat to U.S. sovereignty and the nation’s ability to offer aid to other countries.
What if climate change alarmists just took a deep breath, exhaled some carbon dioxide, and actually focused on real pollutants that are plaguing our environment and health?
MIT Climatologist Richard Lindzen on the Politics of Global Warming:
Oil company ConocoPhillips just pledged to spend $2 millionpromoting the carbon tax and dividend plan devised by the Climate Leadership Council (CLC) organized by former Republican Secretaries of State James Baker III and George Shultz. ConocoPhillips is among the CLC’s founding member oil companies, alongside ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell.
The goal of the CLC’s carbon tax and dividend plan is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels by increasing fossil fuel prices over time. Under the CLC’s carbon tax and dividend plan an initial tax per ton of carbon dioxide would be set at oil and gas wellheads and coal mineheads.
As the tax escalates at a steady predictable rate over the years, higher electricity and transport prices are supposed to encourage increased conservation, greater fuel efficiency, and the development and deployment of no-carbon energy sources. Once the CLC’s carbon tax plan is adopted, all other regulations and subsidies aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, e.g., automobile fuel efficiency and renewable portfolio standards, are supposed to be permanently repealed.
Finally, the linchpin of CLC’s plan is that all of the proceeds from the carbon tax would be divided equally among U.S. citizens and returned as an annual lump-sum directly to them. The CLC argues that “conferring financial benefits in the here and now would fundamentally alter the cost-benefit time horizon of climate mitigation, re-casting a carbon fee as a popular and even populist solution.”
The CLC cites a 2018 study that finds that 70 percent of American households would receive more in dividend payments than they would pay in increased energy prices. Taxpayers in the bottom income quintile would average a net tax cut of 4.4 percent of pretax income while those in the middle quintile would receive a net tax cut of 0.3 percent of pretax income.
While the concept of revenue neutral carbon taxes for addressing the problem of man-made climate change is belovedby most economists, the idea that they are “a popular and even populist solution” may be a bit premature.
The recent Yellow Vest protests in France were sparked by just a 12 cent increase in transport fuel taxes aimed at reducing that country’s carbon dioxide emissions. (For the record, a gallon of gas already costs $5.54 in France.) The New York Times suggested that this outburst might have been avoided if the taxes had been specifically devoted to “subsidies to encourage people to use less-polluting forms of energy, and expanding transit networks.”
Consider also what happened to carbon tax proposals in Washington state during the past couple of elections. In 2016, a revenue neutral carbon tax referendum failed when environmental activists opposed it on the grounds that the tax revenues should not be returned to voters, but instead be devoted to a panoply of green energy and public transit projects.
Australia adopted a carbon tax in 2012 that was repealed under popular pressure two years later.
Canada, meanwhile, has adopted a carbon tax scheme imposing a price of $20 per ton that applies to just four provinces (the others have set rates on carbon emissions that are already high enough to meet the new federal standards). Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has promised that 90 percent of the revenues collected will be rebated back to the residents of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and New Brunswick.
Despite the rebate pledge, Yellow Vest protests against the new Canadian carbon tax broke out this past weekend in some cities, including Edmonton, Toronto, Winnipeg, Okanagan, Moncton, Calgary, Saskatoon, and Halifax.
A 2018 World Bank report identifies 51 carbon pricing initiatives as having already been implemented or as scheduled for implementation. These consist of 25 emissions trading systems, mostly located in subnational jurisdictions, and 26 carbon taxes primarily implemented on a national level.
While carbon taxes make sense to economists worried about climate change, raising the price of staples like transport fuel, heat, and electricity remains a steep political hill to climb.
For folks who are worried about climate change, a more politically popular approach might be to incentivize a vigorous technology research and development program that aims at making low carbon energy cheaper than fossil fuels. In the meantime, encouraging economic growth will help to create the wealth needed to adopt low carbon technologies and adapt to whatever harms may emerge from man-made global warming.