Just in! The world needs more CO₂

And if you believe that, I have some floodplain property for you...

Nov 2, 2024. The United Conservative Party (UCP) believes that the Government of Alberta should recognize the importance of CO2 to life and Alberta’s prosperity by implementing the following measures:. i. Abandoning “Net-Zero” targets, ii. Removing the designation of CO2 as a pollutant, and iii. Recognize that CO2 is a foundational nutrient for all life on Earth. 

Rationale:  CO2 is a nutrient foundational for all life on earth. The carbon cycle is a biological necessity. CO2 is presently at around 420 ppm, near the lowest level in over 1000 years. It is estimated that CO2 levels need to be above 150 ppm to ensure the survival of plant life. The earth needs more CO2 to support life and to increase plant yields, both of which will contribute to the Health and Prosperity of all Albertans.

So, one of the main reasons I'm writing this blog is because—brace yourselves—knowledge of human ecology ain’t exactly a societal or market forte these days. Shocking, right? And guess what? It’s nothing new… 

Recently, we learned of the passing of Michael Ruse, a distinguished philosopher of science and a professor at the Universities of Guelph and Florida State. He played a starring role in defending science in Arkansas in the early '80s. The state had this brilliant idea to introduce something called "creation science" alongside evolutionary biology in public schools. Professor Ruse acting on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, pointed out that creationism doesn't quite hit the scientific mark and that teaching it would violate the First Amendment—you know, that little thing about separating church and state. The courts, thankfully, sided with Ruse and other scientists, noting that the bill would have required teaching a "religious view that's masquerading as science." Imagine that.

Now, fast forward to today. A serious political party up here in Canada—the United Conservative Party, which holds power in Alberta—adopted the resolution above that's either deceptive, misguided, or simply false. You'd think this would get more attention given our little problem with forest fires up here, but apparently, we're all too busy looking for Taylor Swift tickets to notice!

In a democracy, the political arena is supposed to help us figure out which important issues deserve our attention. But that's a tad difficult when those in positions of influence are busy throwing smoke bombs to obscure the truth. Who needs actual facts when you can have fake facts, right?

Call me old-fashioned, but I firmly believe that ‘actual facts’ should matter when it comes to making policy. Or allocating long-term capital, for that matter. So, in the spirit of sprinkling some into the mix, I hope the following Q&A proves useful.

Is Carbon a Key Nutrient Required for Life? Answer: Bingo!

Carbon is the life of the party in the biological world. Plants use it during photosynthesis to whip up some glucose, and we get our carbon fix by munching on plants or animals that have done the same. Other all-star plant nutrients include nitrogen, and phosphorus, and for humans, proteins, fats, vitamins, minerals—you know, the usual suspects. If you made it through junior high, you know this.

Can Natural Systems Overload on Nutrients? Answer: Ever heard of Ozempic?

Like all good things, moderation is key. Give natural systems too few nutrients, and they underperform; give them too much, and they can't cope, which is why we have an obesity epidemic. It's also especially obvious in agriculture. When farmers pour on fertilizers rich in nitrogen or phosphorus like there's no tomorrow, the excess doesn't just disappear. It washes into rivers, lakes, and oceans, where algae throw a wild party, creating massive blooms. Sounds festive until you realize these blooms lead to oxygen depletion and toxins that are basically a death sentence for marine life.

What about excess carbon? Turns out Earth's systems tune over time to specific carbon levels: oceans and plants act as massive carbon sinks—until they're overwhelmed. When they've had enough, we see a spike in atmospheric carbon, while in the oceans, all that extra dissolved CO₂ ramps up acidity levels (so, lower pH). Coral bleaching becomes the most visible and not-so-subtle cry for help.

We’ll save more details for later notes, but suffice to say the planet has quite enough CO₂ right now, thanks.

Are Carbon Emissions Rising Dramatically? Answer: Sure Looks Like It!

Today's atmospheric CO₂ levels are hovering around 422 ppm (parts per million). Back in 1970, it was about 320 ppm, and in preindustrial times, around 280 ppm. So, despite what some might wishfully think, we're not at the lowest levels in the last thousand years. In terms of total CO₂ emissions, we're cranking out over 38 billion tons—figures that were unimaginable before the industrial revolution.

There's no credible scientific explanation for this spike other than human activities. Sorry, but blaming volcanoes or natural cycles just doesn't cut it. Even if it did, we would still have a problem on our hands, especially with carbon from fires the size of those up in Canada, eh?!

Are Earth Temperatures Rising? Answer: Bit Hard to Miss!

Temperatures are rising (just in case you didn’t step outside in the last decade). That decade saw a lineup of the 10 warmest years in the books with an average global temperature 1.2 degrees above the preindustrial average. Eager to set new Olympic records, 2024 boasted the warmest July on record. No wonder athletes brought their own A/C to Paris! 

Closer to home, winters are about 2% warmer in the US than they averaged in the decades starting in 1990, while annual cooling days are 17% higher than the same period (BNEF). So, perfect timing for all those heat-generating data centers, right?

And yes, for those conspiracy theorists out there, it’s also accurate to say that Earth's temperatures have always fluctuated. But here's the fun part: the scenarios we're facing now are nudging us out of that comfy little zone we've enjoyed since, well, since we stopped living in caves and thatch huts (that's around the 12,000-year ago mark below, for those using reading glasses).

Also, if you draw a line straight across from the Holocene temperature ‘setting’ (orange line), you'll notice that’s the setting that helped Lucy (remember her?) clamber down from the trees about 4 million years ago. Personally, I prefer not having a tail! 

How is our Record for Adapting to Rising Temps? Answer: Hopeful

Humans have done pretty darn well since the temperature roller coaster hit its lowest point, back when we were still sharing the spotlight with our buddies the Neanderthals.  They apparently didn’t like the warmer weather and once they exited the scene, it was just us basking in the sun. 

But here's the thing: everything on Earth thrives on stability, and we're no different. It’s not a coincidence that our population grew from under 10 million to over 8 billion during the ‘Holocene Ecobee Setting.’ Modern economies? They're basically just a tax on Earth's systems, cashing in big time on those stable temps. A functioning biosphere ensures functioning economies. So, in a way, money does grow on trees!

Suffice to say minor temperature hiccups have been enough to help wipe out some pretty exceptional civilizations—just ask the Mayans, Ancient Egyptians, Khmers, or Akkadians. While major climate mood swings have even changed the course of our evolution (cue that population squeeze of all squeezes that H. erectus faced)

Today we have foresight and technology that was unavailable to earlier societies, and we could learn from what went wrong, so we have a much better shot. But don't expect this level of adaptation to be a neat, orderly process without a concerted effort from everyone to get their act together. Humans appear hardwired to pursue a path until it’s completely blocked with natural or cognitive debris. Clearing the path by regenerating our ecology is the Marshall Plan of all plans. The one that’s likely inevitable anyway (unlike Mars) and puts us all on the same page (unlike mass migrations). It’s the one that would make us ‘great’, not again, but perhaps for the first time. Think Captain Kirk great, as when he looked back from space in 2022 and realized:

“I played my part in popularizing the idea that space was the final frontier. But I had to get to space to understand that Earth is, and will remain, our only home.”

For anyone thinking this sounds a bit too “eco-nut,” let me clarify: it’s not. It’s actually selfishly humanistic. Taking a page from Kirk, we could even call it ‘home economics’ as opposed to the offshoots of ‘fundamentalist economics’ such as protectionism, which hasn’t exactly made for an inspiring rallying cry for humanity. Not when cooperation, trade, and ecological awareness provided us evolutionary advantages that ‘beggar thy neighbors’ economics never could.

Meanwhile, Earth, in case you’re worried, has been around a lot longer than us and has adapted to far worse—she's been there, done that, and got the molten rock T-shirt.