Carbon Emissions Save People, and Plants

One of the great ironies of the debate over global warming is the notion that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a “pollutant.”

Green activists like to talk of “carbon pollution,” and they lament the callous “carbon footprint” of those who dispute the theory of man-made climate change.

Environmental activists often suggest that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere is “anti-environment.” However, as NASA has reported, the minor increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations seen over the past 35 years has led to a progressive “greening” of the earth—with increased plant growth and greater agricultural output.

By historical geologic standards, though, the earth currently exists in a CO2-starved world. And so, any small increase in atmospheric CO2 offers a global boon to plant life.

But just as plants have benefited from the burning of fossil fuels, countries with a higher carbon footprint also enjoy greater life expectancy rates.

This makes sense, since high-energy, fossil-fuel power (along with nuclear energy, in some countries) supports the necessities of safe, first world living—water and sewage treatment, high-tech medical facilities, refrigeration of food, etc.

The most recent United Nations data on per capita carbon emissions includes more than 200 countries. And when these carbon usage rates are compared with the 2015 life expectancy charts from the CIA World Factbook, some striking trends emerge.

Simply put, countries with the greatest carbon emissions enjoy much greater life expectancy.

For example, Chad, which emits only 0.045 metric tons of carbon per capita annually, suffers the world’s lowest life expectancy—just 49.81 years. Similarly, the bottom 25 countries for life expectancy all have per capita carbon emissions of less than 2.5 metric tons annually. In fact, 20 of the bottom 25 countries emit less than 1 metric ton of carbon per capita. And not one of these 25 countries enjoys an average life expectancy of 60 years or more.

Conversely, the top 25 countries for life expectancy enjoy an average lifespan of 81.6 years, and emit an annual average of 9.09 metric tons of carbon per capita. Overall, that’s a tremendous increase from the average of 0.49 metric tons emitted by the bottom 25 life expectancy countries.

The global warming debate continues to move along in contentious fashion. And climate alarmists often overlook the necessity of bountiful atmospheric carbon dioxide for the health of global plant life. And they often minimize the importance of high-energy power production for maintaining human health and safety.

Such facts should matter, however, when considering how to maximize human health and flourishing.


Comments (2)

  • Avatar



    Interestingly the greatly lamented “carbon footprint”has almost nothing to do with the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Because natural emissions are so much greater than anthropogenic ones the later are lost in the noise of the measurements. No one has shown this better than Professor Salby but there are several other sources now that have shown no there is correlation of human emissions and atmospheric content. I’m of the opinion that the rise of CO2 we have seen lately is the result of the natural warming out of the little ice age beginning some 300 years ago. This is in agreement with the history of waxing and waning CO2 always following temperature seen in the ice cores.
    So not only is the release of CO2 beneficial to the human family the supposed catastrophes resulting from increased CO2 can’t be blamed on using fossil fuels.

  • Avatar

    Steven Capozzola


    DMA: Thanks for the very insightful comment. And I completely agree–some of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration seen in the past 150 years is the result of net outgassing (as the oceans have warmed, due to increased solar activity). Best, Steven

Comments are closed