Thus, CO2 literally is the “food” that sustains essentially all plants (and animals who consume plants, including humans) on the face of the Earth. And when that food supply is diminished, nature begins to diminish.
In my last post I shared the results of research findings demonstrating that rising atmospheric CO2 levels represent no current direct threat to human health and/or cognitive performance and decision making. Further, I explained that they present no realistic future threat either; for CO2 levels would need to increase some 36 times above the present concentration before they would even begin to pose a mild health concern.
That value (i.e., 15,000 ppm) will never occur, given it is a factor of ten above the approximate 1500 ppm atmospheric CO2 limit that scientists think is possible if society utilized all of the currently-known fossil fuel reserves on the planet.…
“… breathe easy. Atmospheric CO2 is not causing, nor will it ever cause, and direct threat to your health or cognitive performance.”
Almost all trace elements and compounds, even beneficial ones, can be poisonous if ingested or inhaled in large enough concentrations. So, what about carbon dioxide (CO2)? Do we have to worry about any deleterious health effects as its atmospheric concentration continues to climb?
As an answer to the above questions, consider the work of the following four research teams, two of which focused on human physiological responses to elevated levels of CO2 and two of which focused on human cognitive responses.
Liu et al. (2017)
Liu et al. (2017) examined the performance, acute health symptoms and physiological responses of human subjects exposed to both ambient (403 ppm) and elevated (3025 ppm) atmospheric CO2.…
“… a $150 per ton of CO2-equivalent (CO2e) tax [is estimated to globally] … increase the price of milk by approximately 49 percent, the price of rice by 67 percent, and the price of beef by a whopping 108 percent.”
Over the course of my career I have often been asked by concerned persons if there is any downside to implementing CO2 emission reduction policies on the off-chance that model projections of future climate change might be right. These well-meaning individuals do not necessarily believe or buy into the mantra of global warming extremism, they simply seek some sort of an insurance policy to defuse fears accumulated from the constant flow of projections of a forthcoming climate apocalypse.
And so it is when legislation like the recent U.S.…