Trained engineers and economists are aware that the solution to a problem is best expressed in terms of a tradeoff. Making the tradeoff explicit results in less confusion about why one arrived at a decision. With that thought in mind, I will proceed to frame the tradeoff between the cost and benefit of increasing atmospheric CO2 and the cost and benefit of reducing CO2 emissions with the current net zero scheme that is in vogue.

One benefit which gets rarely reported in the media is the increased crop yield from CO2 fertilization. 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. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

Another benefit, which at present is not even considered to be one by the media, is the resulting warmer temperatures at higher latitudes from an increase in CO2. Although, the degree to which it will occur is debatable and predicated on estimates of CO2 forcing and feedback due to water vapor and clouds, any warming should be considered a bonus. It will only enhance the planetary greening that is underway with CO2 enrichment.

Throughout Earth’s geological history, surface temperatures have not risen in a uniform fashion across latitude. Temperatures in the tropics have remained relatively stable over time while any increase in global temperature is reflected in the temperature gradient across latitude decreasing. As the climate at upper latitudes becomes more benign, it will extend the growing season and increase crop yield.

Our European ancestors experienced this firsthand, but in reverse. They wrote with delight about vineyard cultivation in Britain during the mild climate that was the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), and chronicled the despair from crop failures, famine, and peasant revolts with the advent of a colder climatic period called the Little Ice Age. We will start to understand their sentiment when the interglacial coffee break comes to an end and our world returns to the deep freeze of the next glacial maximum.

The unfounded fear of CO2 and climate change has driven governments to implement expensive net zero schemes with wind and solar power, costing trillions of dollars. What seems to be overlooked in the rush is that the addition of wind and solar power does not negate the need for fossil fuel power as backup. Fossil fuel power capacity must remain at its prior level if reliable generation is to be maintained. With added wind and solar power capacity, one can substitute renewable for fossil fuel generation, but one cannot safely reduce fossil fuel power capacity. This leaves power grid owners with three underutilized generating assets (solar, wind, and fossil fuel) rather than one (fossil fuel) that is fully utilized. This raises the question of whether the fuel savings offset the additional capital cost of the solar and wind assets. The evidence from different regions points to this not being the case. The ratio of the energy cost (USD/kWh) of a system running solar, wind, and fossil fuel in concert to the energy cost of a system running fossil fuel only is between 1.5 to 2.5 depending upon the region (see calculations). In conclusion, net zero policy provides an example of a staggering misallocation of economic resources, and even if it were successful in curtailing global CO2 emissions, which it is not, it would be a sadly misguided policy.

Image generated by ChatGPT.