Two views about humans and carbon dioxide (John Shanahan) USofA

Two views about humans and carbon dioxide July 12, 2019 View 1 - Anonymous Willing to dig more about the CO2 variations I just googled "150 ppm CO2" and found plenty of AGW articles but also this one : https://notrickszone.com/2013/05/17/atmospheric-co2-concentrations-at-400-ppmare-still-dangerously-low-for-life-on-earth/ Yes, plants are better off with more CO2 in the atmosphere, up to 800 ppm. This has been well known for at least 50 years or more.

This does not imply that plants will be 10 times better off at 8000 ppm. In fact they're not : there seems to be an optimal level for plants around 800 to 1000 ppm max (look at the graphs on the link above, there's a maximum around 1000 ppm for most plants).

The ease and good health of plants however collides with the ease and good health of humans : At 600 ppm humans with short breath, little lung capacity (sub asthmatic or asthmatic) start feeling discomfort and have difficulty breathing and keeping the oxygen transport to the brain sufficient. That's why I always sleep with open windows (CO2 is more important than temperature for quality of sleep), to keep the CO2 level as low as possible (without completely freezing) in any case below 600 ppm (there's a CO2 counter in bedrooms since 20 years back).

At 800 ppm the discomfort gets worse, and at 1000+ the brain starts really suffering. It is well known that above 1000 ppm the attention and concentration of school children and workers are badly damaged, and discomfort gets much greater, even non-asthmatic patients see lower concentration and learning scores. In fact (as a consequence) 1000 ppm is also the upper limit of regulations for authorized levels of CO2 in public places, schools and working places in France, in Europe, in the US and in most civilized countries). But very few really are careful and measure the CO2 levels. It is a major public health issue which is both under-researched and seems to interest nobody France, although everybody knows that CO2 is a poison for humans (at very high doses).

Therefore higher CO2 levels that are good for plant growth are unfortunately not optimal for humans...

1

Plants are better off >600 ppm in the 600 to 1000 ppm zone.

Humans are better off in the 200 to 500 ppm zone (600 is already too much and the lower the better in the 200 to 600 zone). The article mentions plants die below 200 ppm, but humans would probably thrive even more.

Therefore if we want a livable planet for both PLANTS and HUMANS, both can't be simultaneously in their top-comfort zone.

Maybe that's why nature seems to oscillate between 200 ppm and somewhere above 1000 ppm: to give all species over time a good chance of developing and adapting.

But I don't think we should "LOVE CO2" to the point that the more there is the more we worship it.

CO2 is food for plants but not for us: it is an excreted poison for humans !

For both plants and humans to thrive we need to stay somewhere in the 200 to 1000 ppm zone.

Right now in history, we are indeed in that zone. And happy enough to live in more or less good harmony with plants.

Perhaps the middle of this zone (to be calculated in a logarithmic manner -> 400 to 600 ppm ?) is a good compromise for the planet AND for humanity.

But it seems to me that the spontaneous oscillation over large time scale (ice ages and warm eras) gives a chance to all living species of thriving while killing none of them.

Nature is rather smart ! As we say in French "la nature a toujours raison."

Jim Lovelock would say Gaia is wise and self-regulates in an optimal manner.

Our religious friends would say Good loves us all (including plants!).

Let us celebrate CO2, but not too much please ! (I would be happy to survive and even happier to live comfortably in a low CO2 environment).

Ideally it would be great to have higher CO2 levels for plants (outside, in the atmosphere) and LOWER CO2 levels inside buildings (where humans live and sleep most of the time.

Unfortunately, it is exactly the opposite : we have too little CO2 for plants in the 2

atmosphere (twice the current 410 ppm would be better). And we have TOO MUCH CO2 inside buildings where humans are (half the current level would be much better.

In fact the world is sort of upside down : the 800 to 1000 or so ppm humans are exposed to inside the buildings would be optimal for plants. And the 400 (or lower) ppm in the outdoor world is great for humans (no more than that for me, please !!!).

View 2 – John Shanahan The question of what the world can do and should do about man-made atmospheric CO2 and what to do with fossil fuels is vitally important.

Here are my comments from a civil engineer. I am not an expert on atmospheric CO2 or the biology - health aspects of people who may be very sensitive to CO2. But everyone should try to make informed decisions.

1) Many people have extreme sensitivities to various types of chemicals and biological material in the air.

2) I know one individual who is extremely sensitive to man-made chemicals in the air, scents from flowers, light, etc. She and her husband had to move to pristine air and plant conditions in a remote area of Arizona from California. Conventional medical practitioners and the pharmaceutical industry don't understand this person's health issues and have been no help. She and her husband have no magazines or newspapers in their home, because of the off gases from these sources. They drive a 25-year-old car, because the materials in the car no-longer give off as much irritant gases. They keep the curtains drawn on their windows in mid-day to avoid light pollution. She has gradually accustomed herself to use a computer (light pollution) to get information from the world and communicate with friends. She goes outside in the Arizona desert for walks near sunrise and sunset.

3) Can, should governments ban these things that are health irritants to some people, ban fossil fuel-based chemicals, ban trees and plants that cause allergic reactions worldwide? For many people, the world is better off with fossil fuel-based chemicals and trees and plants, at least everything in moderation. We probably could ban very toxic plants like poison ivy and disease carrying insects like mosquitos. But banning them would not mean that we could get rid of them on the entire planet, even in an entire country. The same is true about controlling atmospheric CO2 and man-made global warming. Many scientists say that reversing man-made climate change can't be done, in part because mankind is not the dominant factor in climate change. Here is a paper by atmospheric scientist, Ed Berry with a simple, elegant proof from physics that carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is not a catastrophe for the planet. See last paragraph of conclusions on page 24.

3

4) Do you have to sleep with the windows open in the winter, when you have an excellent naturally pre-heated fresh air system for your eco-house?

5) Most people, except those who are against fossil fuels in principal (I have friends and family members in this category), recognize the tremendous benefits of fossil fuels and fossil fuel by-products. Vaclav Smil does an excellent job of documenting the benefits of fossil fuels and their by-products in ENERGY AND CIVILIZATION - A HISTORY. Everyone should read this book before they go out and demand stopping use of fossil fuels. But so many people would rather protest than read this book.

Many protestors, like the child above and her adult handlers in the background, don't care at all about billions who are much poorer off and don't have adequate amounts of fossil fuels and their by-products. That includes most supporters of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, 1000 x etc.

Below are examples of people who don't have enough fossil fuels, fossil fuel by-products and strong economies supported by fossil fuels. Anti-fossil fuel and man-made global warming alarmists would take good modern living away from billions of people causing vast suffering and death.

4

5

At allaboutenergy.net, we are working to have the world properly use fossil fuels, hydroelectric and nuclear and their by-products. That means stable governments, good government planning, sound operation and environmental management of energy sources. We are working to identify the barriers set by anti-modernity activists and correct them. We are working to set realistic time schedules for change.

This is what the world can look like with stable governments and wise use of fossil fuels, hydro-electric and nuclear power.

6