Carbon dioxide, public enemy No1?

Why it may be crucial to stop looking at carbon dioxide as public enemy #1

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is, in fact, the “greenest” gas in our atmosphere, and the most essential ingredient for life itself. It has no odour, no colour and no ill effects whatsoever. All it does is nourish life and keep our climate warm. It is the primary and most essential nutrient at the very base of the food chain, as photosynthetic plants, algae and bacteria remove it from the atmosphere and hydrosphere to store it in their tissues. Along with water vapour, it keeps our planet away from the temperature extremes experienced daily by planetary bodies that are devoid of it, such as our own moon.

It is somewhat disconcerting that the rise of carbon dioxide levels has been somehow established as the greatest environmental threat faced by humanity, even though the pros and cons of this rise have never been properly assessed. Most scientific assessments on the issue of global warming only bring into focus its negative aspects and are therefore biased. As a result of this biased propaganda, which portrays carbon dioxide as the main evil of modern times, it is now considered by most as a blasphemy to dare bring forward any data that happen to place the accused in a good light.

It is well-known and non-controversial that the biosphere was in much better shape during the Cretaceous, when carbon dioxide levels were several times higher than today. Of course, whenever there is a change in external conditions, there are winners and losers. If crop species are doing better, chances are that pest species are not doing so well, and vice-versa. During the Cretaceous greenhouse age, benthic (bottom-dwelling) species were the main losers, as the oceans became permanently stratified, bringing anaerobic conditions on the deep seafloor. However, the hardships of benthic fauna, a minute fraction of the world’s biomass and biodiversity, were largely outdone by sheer happiness in the pelagic (water-column-dwelling) and terrestrial realms.

Most agree that, whether or not it is true that the current rise in atmospheric CO2 is detrimental, “better be safe than sorry” and work at curbing down emissions. Not necessarily. It all depends on what method is used to curb down emissions. For instance, many environmentalists are turning to alternative fuels, like used kitchen oils, to lower their contribution to global warming. It is sad to say that such environmentally-responsible people may in fact pollute more than less concerned citizens. However, if you remove carbon dioxide from the equation, they certainly do. Most of these alternative fuels do not burn nearly as well as refined gasoline. As a result, they emit much greater amounts of particulates, volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide, which are “true” pollutants.

If everyone switched to these alternative fuels, cities would soon become unlivable due to a quick rise in these atmospheric pollutants. In contrast, carbon dioxide is “not” a pollutant. While so much international effort is put forward to deal with the “carbon dioxide case”, less notorious environmental threats get a chance to stay out of the spotlight and thrive on the diversion (when did you last hear about acid rain?).

Another reason why we should give carbon dioxide a fair trial and a chance to revoke itself as public enemy #1 is the fact that it is a very strong opponent to tackle. The economic drawbacks of the ongoing climate war are astronomic, especially for developing countries. The widespread switch to “biofuel” farming is also creating a food crisis.

Moreover, before putting in place enormous international efforts such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Copenhagen Accord, it would have been preferable to derive proper estimates on which prospect is to be most feared, global warming or global cooling? Ice sheets have been intermittently covering most of North America and northern Europe over the past 2.5 million years. Just as winter and summer, glacial advances and retreats are clocked with orbital cycles. The “summer solstice” of this interglacial cycle (warm eccentricity peak in the Milankovitch cycles) is already 5,000 years behind us, and we are now heading towards the next winter. The current human-induced rise in atmospheric CO2 may be slowing down global cooling, but it is very unlikely that temperatures in the “Milankovitch winter” (we are now in the “Milankovitch autumn”) will ever exceed those of the “Milankovitch summer”. Hence, with the parallel threat of orbitally-induced global cooling, a more sophisticated and less biased assessment of climate evolution and its consequences for the global ecosystem is needed to better guide intervention strategies.

Looking at the geological record, it becomes quite obvious that the overall global cooling that the Earth is experiencing is a more important concern for the health of ecosystems than the temporary trend of global warming that we are presently observing.

Ironically, the only way to prevent the next glacial advance, which would be far more catastrophic for humanity than the so-called threat of global warming, is to keep sending back carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by releasing some of its excessive storage in the crust. Unfortunately, the release of carbon from carbonate rocks is energy consuming, but there very well might be enough accessible fossil fuels in the upper crust to give us the means to avoid suffering the next glacial advance.

In other words, there might come a time when humanity will try to find ways to burn more fossil fuels in order to save the day. By then, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the 2009 Copenhagen Summit might be seen as one of history’s greatest parodies.