The German Way or the CO
2
Delusion and its Consequences
Download as PDF-file: English or German.
See also: Opinion on a “Draft Law for Further Development of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Rate“
as Invited Expert at a Hearing of the German Parliament‘s Committee for Environment, Nature
Conservation and Nuclear Safety. Download as PDF: English or German.
Stepwise Exit from Fossil Fuels
In
2018
the
I
ntergovernmental
P
anel
on
C
limate
C
hange
(
IPCC
)
[1]
published
a
“
Special
Report
on
possible
impacts
of
global
warming
of
1.5°C
above
pre-industrial
levels
and
related
global
greenhouse
gas
emission
pathways“
[2].
This
report
is
a
sequel
of
previous
Assessment
Re
-
ports,
which
besides
many
alarmistic
exaggerations
also
presents
R
epresentative
C
oncen
tra
-
tion
P
athways
(RCPs)
for
reducing
anthropogenic
CO
2
emissions
to
restrict
global
warming
to
1.5°C
over
the
21st
century.
A
temperature
increase
less
than
2°C,
better
only
1.5°C,
was
re
-
commended
and
decided
on
the
21st
C
onference
o
f
P
arties
(COP
21)
of
the
U
nited
N
ations
F
ramework
C
onvention
on
C
limate
C
hange
(UNFCCC).
This
decision
is
known
as
the
Paris
Agreement
[3] and considered as the succeeding consent of the
Kyoto Protocol
[4].
The
RCPs,
which
are
accepted
by
almost
all
member
states
of
the
UNFCCC
(with
restrictions
by
the
USA),
are
simulations
of
simple
climate
models
based
on
unrealistic
and
speculative
assumptions
for
the
CO
2
climate
sensitivity
(temperature
increase
at
doubled
CO
2
concen
tra
-
tion;
see
Harde
2014
[5],
Harde
2017a
[6])
and
also
for
the
carbon
cycle
(
Harde
2017b
[7],
Harde 2019
[8]).
These
RCPs
prognosticate
a
significantly
too
high
temperature
increase
with
rising
CO
2
concen
-
tration,
and
they
exclu
sively
trace
the
ascending
CO
2
concen
tration
back
to
human
emissions,
while
any
natural
contributions
to
the
temperature
and
con
centration
growth
are
completely
neglected.
Independent
of
the
question
how
strong
human
emissions
of
CO
2
and
other
greenhouse
gases
can
really
impact
our
climate
and
destroy
our
planet
(we
will
discuss
this
in
Subsection:
Own
Climate
Studies
a)
to
e)
),
we
have
to
look
critically
to
the
energy
politics
of
some
industria
-
lized
states
which
ratified
the
Paris
Agreement
and
al
ready
started
to
shut-down
conventional
power
plants
without
caring
about
a
reliable
and
affordable
replacement
of
this
energy
and
without
caring
about
the
consequences.
As
an
ex
ample
for
such
a
misdirected
politics
we
consider
Germany;
with
some
smaller
modifications
this
situation
also
applies
to
countries
like
France,
Great
Britain,
Australia
or
even
the
United
States,
when
they
decide
for
the
same
politics.
:
Only
for
clarification
a
short
remembrance
of
the
agreement
of
the
UNFCCC-
member
states
in
1997,
which
is
known
as
the
[4].
Although
it
followed
a
long
ratification
process
till
this
agreement
became
effective
in
2005,
many
politi
cians
word
wide
announ
c
ed
to
abstain
from
fossil
energy
sources
or
to
reduce
their
use
in
or
der
to
re
strict
global
warming
by
anthro
pogenic
greenhouse
gases,
which
by
some
climate
experts
alone
are
made responsible for an observed climate change.
According to the Kyoto agreement all member states of the UNFCCC committed
•
to
reduce
the
emissions
of
carbon
dioxide
up
to
2012
by
at
least
5%
compared
to
the
level
of 1990,
•
and
for
the
period
2012
–
2020
the
European
Union
obliged
to
reduce
the
emissions
by
20% till 2020.
The German Government even declared as self-commitment
•
to cut emissions till 2012 down by 20% and till 2020 by 40%.
•
According
to
the
National
Climate
Protection
Agreement
Ger
many
wants
to
stop
all
fossil
fuel emissions until the mid-century.
When
the
emission
of
one
of
the
industrialized
countries
and
the
European
community
is
above
the
targets,
they
are
required
to
engage
in
emissions
trading,
i.e.
buying
CO
2
-certificates
from
another
participant
country,
which
is
able
to
exceed
its
reduction
targets
in
order
to
off
-
set.
In
this
way
climate
protection
shall
be
realized
on
market-oriented
structures
and
prac
-
ticed most economically.
Energy Consumption of Germany
Let‘s
look
closer
to
the
energy
balance
of
Germany
and
its
efforts
to
become
“climate
neutral“
in
2050.
Over
recent
years
the
P
rimary
E
nergy
C
onsumption
(PEC)
of
Germany
was
relatively
constant.
In
2017
this
were
13,525
PJ
and
in
2018
13,106
PJ
=
3.64
PWh
(Peta
Watt*hour)
(
Ministry
of
Economy&Energy
[9]).
Due
to
transfer
processes
and
a
limited
efficiency
in
converting
ener
gy
from
one
form
to
another,
typical
losses
from
PEC
to
the
F
inal
E
nergy
C
onsumpti
on (FEC) are 35%. Here we use the data from 2018, which are meanwhile available.
Up
to
now
by
far
the
largest
energy
supply
is
ensured
by
fossil
fuels
like
mineral
oil,
natural
gas
and
coal,
while
the
so-called
renewable
energies
are
only
contributing
13.8%.
From
these,
bio
-
mass
with
6.4%
is
the
largest
part,
but
experts
assume
a
further
increase
is
strongly
limited.
The
same
holds
for
water
power.
So,
there
comes
up
the
fundamental
question,
how
far
wind
power
and
photo
voltaic
-
in
2018
together
not
more
than
4.3%
-
can
really
replace
reliable
sources
like
fossil
fuels
and
also
nuclear
power.
In
2018
the
renewables
altogether
were
just
increasing by 0.6%.
For
generating
electric
power
the
fraction
of
renewables,
after
all,
could
be
improved
by
1.7%
in
2018
and
rose
to
34.9%.
But
even
further
in
crea
sing
the
nominal
wind
power
from
actually
60
GW
to
100
GW
in
2030,
as
plan
ned
by
the
German
Net
Agency,
and
assuming
the
same
consumption
of
647
TWh
per
year
as
nowadays,
regene
rative
energies
can
only
cover
300
TWh
(17.2%
from
647
TWh
times
100/60
for
wind
energy:
185.5
TWh,
and
17.5%
from
other
renew
-
ables:
114.5
TWh),
which
is
less
than
50%
of
the
required
electric
energy,
and
16%
of
the
primary energy.
In
addition,
realistically
we
have
to
expect
that
with
reduced
fossil
fuel
and
nuclear
energy
the
need
for
electric
energy
is
substantially
increasing,
and
it
remains
the
basic
que
s
tion,
how
this
missing
energy is generated and financed.
Increasing Energy Costs and Installations
It
is
clear
that
under
emissions
trading
the
energy
suppliers
and
the
industry
with
high
er
CO
2
-
emis
sions have to bear further substantial costs, which finally have to be paid by customers.
Additional
significant
costs
are
arising
from
the
short-dated
decision
of
the
German
Govern
-
ment
to
shut
down
eight
nuclear
power
plants
and
the
remainder
by
2022,
this
as
a
reaction
on
the
most
powerful
earthquake
and
Tsunami
in
modern
times,
which
struck
Japan
in
March
2011 with disastrous repercussions and destructions of the nuclear power plant in Fukushi
ma.
The
missing
power
had
to
be
replaced
by
new
coal
and
gas
power
plants,
so
that
an
inten
-
ded
reduc
tion
of
CO
2
-emissions
was
not
realizable
-
just
opposite
-
at
least
temporarily.
With
this
decision,
in
fact,
Germany
strongly
distinguishes
from
France
and
the
States,
even
from
Sweden,
which
actually
practices
the
exit
from
the
exit
and
invests
in
the
renewal
of
their
nuclear power plants.
At
present
nu
clear
energy
is
still
contributing
6.3%
to
the
PEC
of
3.64
PWh,
and
coal
as
local
resources
delivers
22.2%.
But
under
the
actual
political
situation
and
the
pressure
of
some
climate
de
monstrations
like
“
Fridays
for
Future
“,
in
May
2019
the
German
Government
decided,
also to exit from coal till 2038.
So,
Ger
many
completely
focuses
on
regenerative
power
from
wind
mills
and
solar
panels,
for
a
transient
period
also
on
natural
gas.
But
with
the
objective
of
zero
CO
2
-emissions
in
2050
not
only
nuclear
power
and
coal,
yet
also
the
largest
energy
suppliers,
mineral
oil
with
34%
and
natural gas with 23.4% have to be replaced. How can this work?
Renewable
energy
is
very
expensive,
not
relia
ble
and
not
available
in
sufficient
extent
(see
above). The same holds for the required power grid.
Some Rough Estimate:
Biomass
and
water
as
renewables
are
strongly
limited,
also
photo
voltaic
cannot
really
contri
-
bute to a better energy balance, particularly not over the winter seasons.
Remains the wind power!
In
2018
Germany
had
30,520
W
ind
P
ower
P
lants
(WPPs)
(
BWE
[10),
which
were
generating
111
TWh
=
111
Bill
kWh
of
electric
energy
(3.0
%
of
PEC).
To
cover
the
missing
85.9%
(mineral
oil
34.0%;
natural
gas
23.4%;
coal
22.2%;
nuclear
6.3%
-
see
above
diagram),
which
is
3.13
PWh,
this
would
require
857,570
additional
WPPs,
each
delivering
3.65
GWh
over
one
year
or
in
average 417 kW. This is not more than 20% of a wind turbine with a nominal power of 2 MW.
These
20%
are
only
realizable
with
priority
feed
into
the
net
and
with
conventional
power
plants at standby.
As
wind
power
generation
with
its
extremely
strong
variations
due
to
wea
ther
conditions
by
far
not
coincides
with
the
daily
and
seasonal
power
consumption,
the
electric
power
grid
can
only
be
operated
with
an
extensive
storage
technology
for
renewables,
e.g.,
wind
electricity
to
hydrogen-
or
methane-gas,
to
counterbalance
these
variations
in
production
and
consumption
over
the
year.
Up
to
now
the
respective
storage
technologies
are
not
available,
but
when
they
should
be
ready
for
use,
the
conversion
process
back
and
forth
with
an
estimated
efficiency
of
30 to 40% will further reduce the overall effici
ency of the wind power supply to about 10%.
When
mineral
oil
and
natural
gas
is
no
longer
available
for
transportation
and
heating,
a
sig
-
nificant
extra
demand
of
electricity
and
respective
storage
technology
is
necessary,
which
with
the low con
version efficiency requires to further in
crease the number of WPPs.
Based
on
the
preceding
considerations
and
assuming
that
in
2050
an
appropriate
storage
technology
already
exists
and
the
final
en
ergy
consumption
is
not
increasing
over
the
next
years
or
can
even
further
be
reduced
by
higher
conversion
efficiencies
from
PEC
to
FEC,
in
2050
Ger
many
requires
1.5
to
2
Mio
WPPs,
each
with
a
nominal
power
of
2
MW,
to
ensure a sufficient energy supply. In the worst case this could even be more.
This
also
means
that
over
the
next
30
years
60,000
new
WPPs
per
year
or
165
WWPs
per
day have to be installed.
But we will just make it, sure!
After
all,
Germany
is
well-known
for
its
short
approval
procedures
for
built-up
and
rede
-
signation
of
floor
space.
Expropriation
of
properties
in
favor
of
the
public
can
quickly
be
realized. And with Chinese credits, know-how and support we can manage this.
Germany
comprises
a
total
area
of
360,000
km
2
,
i.e.,
in
average
each
km
2
of
forests,
parks,
nature
reserves,
farmlands,
lakes
or
urban
areas
will
be
covered
by
5
to
6
wind
mills.
For
the
connection
to
the
grid
about
1
Mio
km
of
wires
-
underground
and/or
overhead
power
lines
-
together with maintenance ways to the plants have to be installed.
What a successful step forward to save our planet and what a great step backwards to nature!!
Looking
to
the
city
map
of
Berlin
with
the
Governmental
district
(left
lower
square),
the
distance
from
the
Chancellor‘s
Office
(Bundeskanzleramt)
to
the
Parliament
(Reichstag)
is
about
700
m,
and
on
his
or
her
way
to
the
parliament
the
future
chancellor
can
already
admire
3
WPPs
(mage
nta spots) at work - when they are rotating.
And
each
citizen
will
enjoy
these
tools
on
the
way
to
work
and
at
work,
at
leisure
times
or
when
rocked
to
sleep
with
infra
sound.
In
average,
on
each
square
km
we
will
find
5-6
wind
mills
all
over
the
country,
when
we
have
to
replace
the
conventional
energy
by
renew
ables.
This
invalidates
the
protest
of
the
Green
Party
against
planned
regulations
to
extend
the
distance
between
wind
parks
and
residential
areas
from
actually
400
m
to
1,000
m.
This
party
fears,
the
available
area
for
WPPs
could
further
shrink.
But
don‘t
worry,
Germany
will
develop
to
one
unique wind farm with a paddle directly in our front yard.
Such
scenario
is
the
logical
consequence
of
the
actual
politics.
There
is
almost
no
alternative
way,
except
energy
import
from
our
neighbors.
Sorry,
up
to
now
there
is
no
politician,
who
requests climate neutrality for Germany, and who is really aware of its consequences!
As
such
scenario
is
completely
unrealistic,
up
to
now
it
is
absolutely
not
clear,
how
to
bridge
the
gap
between
re
quired
and
avail
able
energy.
It
is
only
absolutely
clear
that
without
a
reliable
energy supply, Germany and other countries, copying the German way, will regress to anarchy:
A
collapsing
economy
and
industry,
rapidly
increasing
unemployment,
limited
heating
of
houses
and
flats,
restricted
traffic
and
trans
portation,
dramatic
consequen
ces
for
the
agricul
ture and health system, etc.
The
good
think
is,
then,
as
a
developing
country
the
UNFCCC
will
grant
us
the
more
reliable
and
cheaper fossil fuels, as it allows countries like the Congo or Uganda.
Expected Costs of an Energy Transformation
Already
the
present
costs
for
purchasing
emission
certi
ficates
and
particularly
the
immense
replacement
costs
of
the
shut
down
power
plants
as
well
as
many
local
re-structuring
pro
-
grams
have
developed
to
one
of
the
most
expensive
energy
supplies
worldwide
for
industry
and customers.
While
with
the
turn
of
the
millennium
the
electricity
prices
for
private
households
in
Germany
were
not
more
than
13,9
€Cent/kWh,
in
2018
they
climbed
up
to
29,4
€Cent/kWh
(
Strom-
Report
[11])
and
in
the
meantime
reached
an
all
time
record
of
30.5
Cent/kWh
(
Gesellschaft
für
Verbraucherinformationen
[12]).
This
is
an
increase
of
120%,
which
primarily
was
driven
by
a
tripling
of
the
governmental
costs
since
2000
(tax
and
share
costs
for
renewable
energies)
from 5,2 to 16,
8 Cent. Actually a further increase of 8% has been announced.
So,
meanwhile
these
governmental
burdens
add
up
to
more
than
half
of
the
total
electricity
price
(55%),
but
apparently
all
this
is
not
enough.
Additionally,
the
German
Government
decid
-
ed
to
impose
a
further
CO
2
tax,
starting
with
25
€/t
CO
2
in
2021
and
rising
to
35
€/t
till
2025.
A
further substantial increase up to 180 €/t in future years is already strongly discussed.
However,
all
this
is
by
far
not
enough
to
finance
and
to
realize
the
planned
energy
turnaround
in
Ger
many.
Referring
to
an
actual
study
from
2017
(
Ausfelder
et
al.
[13]),
which
was
performed
by
different
national
insti
tu
tes
and
order
ed
by
the
German
Government,
a
reduc
tion
of
the
CO
2
emiss
ions
by
90%
till
2050
is
expected
to
contribute
to
additional
costs
of
about
4.5
Trillion
€
=
4.5*10
12
€,
and
for
a
reduction
by
100%
accor
-
ding
to
the
National
Climate
Pro
tec
tion
Agree
ment
additional
3
Trillion
€
are
estimated.
Together
this
is
almost
4x
the
actual
debts
of
the
German
Republic
(1.92
Trillion
€),
which
have
summed
up
after
the
second
world
war,
and
this
is
about
21
times
the
actual
German State Budget (359.9 Bill €).
Without
further
increasing
the
actual
debts,
which
already
contribute
to
an
irresponsible
load
to
future
generations
(not
always
we
will
have
a
zero-interest
politic,
and
not
always
can
a
state
live
on
credit,
except
it
plans
a
na
tional
bankruptcy
and
currency
reform),
these extra costs have to be procured by the consumers.
With
40
Mio.
house
holds
this
is
an
extra
load
on
top
of
the
actual
electricity
costs
of
188,000
€
per
household
or
520
€
per
month
and
per
household
over
30
years
(without
any
additional
inter
ests).
A
‘climate
neutral
emission’
till
2035
as
required
by
“Fridays
for
Future”
and
also
requested
by
the
Greens
on
their
convention
in
November
2019,
this
would
even
in
crease
this
addi
tional load to 1040 € per month (see also
Vahrenholt & Tichy
[14]).
So,
that‘s
it
how
politics
wants
to
disburden
people
with
low
income
and
to
redistribute
from
top to bottom.
For
schoolboys
and
schoolgirls,
who
visit
demonstrations
to
have
some
action
and
to
partici
-
pate
in
an
event
without
really
understanding
for
what
they
are
demonstrating,
this
still
may
be
excused,
but
politicians
even
when
they
are
consulted
unilaterally
or
wrong
by
pressure
groups
or
organizations,
should
reflect
their
decisions
all
the
way;
they
are
responsible
for
their
poli
-
tics.
But
all
these
expenses
are
by
far
no
warranty
for
an
ever
realizable
emission
free
supply
of
sufficient and reliable energy for an industrialized country.
The Climate Delusion
An
energy
transformation
from
fossil
fuels
to
so-called
clean
energy
is
based
on
the
imagination
that
combustion
of
fossil
fuels
endangers
survival
of
our
planet,
but
humans
can
control
the
climate
by
reducing
the
anthropogenic
CO
2
-emissions
and
therewith
also
rescue
the planet.
This
is
an
absolute
delusion.
As
long
as
it
exists
weather
and
thereby
a
climate
on
Earth,
this
is
determined
by
internal
and
external
impacts.
We
had
to
change
the
solar
activity
or
the
orbit
of our planet to significantly influence our climate.
But
up
to
now
there
exists
no
evidence
for
the
hypothesis
of
an
exclusively
caused
A
nthro
-
pogenic
G
lobal
W
arming
(AGW).
Just
oppo
site,
we
have
many
indications
that
the
whole
bio
-
sphere
is
developing
more
successfully
at
higher
CO
2
levels
and
also
at
slightly
high
er
tempe
-
ra
tures
(
Wong
[15];
Morison&Lawlor
[16];
Zhu
et
al
.
,
NASA
[17]).
A
detailed
compilation
about
the
importance
of
carbon
dioxide
for
our
lives
and
the
economy
is
presented
by
the
CO
2
Coali
-
tion
[18].
Nevertheless,
larger
parts
of
our
population,
the
media
and
particularly
our
political
repre
sen
-
ta
tives are in
doc
trinated by some environmental organizations, which claim:
The only way to save our Earth is to stop all emissions of CO
2
,
•
this only based on speculations,
•
indepen
dent of the unimaginable bur
dens for custo
mers and the industry, and
•
independent of the disastrous consequences for the whole economy and social system.
At
the
same
time
developing
countries
like
China
or
India
replace
our
saved
emissions
within
a
few months by their increasing rates.
Meanwhile
we
have
a
real
Climate
Delusion
that
has
been
promulgated
around
the
world
by
our
educational
institutions,
politicians,
and
the
media.
It
is
the
belief
that
we
are
living
in
a
world
threatened
by
the
most
important
and
harmless
molecule
that
nature
has
bestowed
on
Earth,
carbon dioxide
(see:
CO
2
Coalition
[18];
Jay Lehr
[19]).
Rather
than
being
thankful
for
this
mole
cule,
which
provides
for
life
on
our
planet
(see
Refs
15
-
19),
some
people
have
decided
to
demonize
it,
obviously
for
political
reasons.
Nearly
half
the
population
of
the
developed
world
has
been
deluded
into
thinking
that
the
planet
is
in
immi
-
nent
danger
of
destruction
by
carbon
dioxide.
They
request
a
new
economic
and
social
sy
-
stem,
and
they
claim
the
only
way
to
save
the
Earth
would
be
to
transform
society
by
shutting
down
inexpensive
energy
that
only
made
possible
our
modern
civilization,
to
which
so
many
people of developing countries yearn for.
However,
the
strong
impact
of
CO
2
on
our
climate
and
its
responsibility
for
a
dramatic
in
crease
of
the
global
temperature
and
sea
level,
as
this
is
announced
by
the
IPCC,
is
mistrusted
by
an
increasing
number
of
scientists
and
rele
vant
climate
experts
(see
next
sections).
Most
of
them
don’t
question
a
smaller
enhancement
of
the
G
reen-
H
ouse
E
ffect
(GHE)
by
humans,
but
its
extent and the dramatic influence on our climate.
It
would
be
an
irresponsible
environmental
&
energy
politics
to
further
ignore
serious
peer-
reviewed
publications,
which
indicate
a
considerably
smaller
human
influence
on
the
climate
than
so
far
expected,
and
at
the
same
time
to
shut-down
a
well-operating
conventional
energy
supply
without
having
any
adequate
replacements.
Our
economy
and
life-quality
sensitively
depends
on
reliable
and
affordable
energy,
which
cannot
be
substituted
by
millions
of
wind
mills, which destroy our nature and shred billions of birds and insects.
References
1.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): https://www.ipcc.ch/
2.
IPCC Special Report 2018: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/download/
3.
Paris Agreement - December 2015: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2016/02/20160215%2006-
03%20PM/Ch_XXVII-7-d.pdf
4.
Kyoto-Protocol 1997
https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Artikel/Industrie/klimaschutz-kyoto-protokoll.html
https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf
5.
H. Harde, Advanced two-layer climate model for the assessment of global warming by CO
2
, Open
Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 1–50, 2014, ISSN (Print): 2374-3794,
ISSN (Online): 2374-3808
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.909.4771&rep=rep1&type=pdf
6.
H. Harde, Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming by CO
2
, International
Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 2017, Article ID 9251034, pp. 1-30 (2017),
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9251034
7.
H. Harde, Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO
2
residence time in the atmosphere, Global and
Planetary Change 152, pp. 19-26 (2017).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.02.009,
Free download of the Manuscript
8.
H. Harde, What Humans Contribute to Atmospheric CO
2
: Comparison of Carbon Cycle Models with
Observations, Earth Sciences. Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 139-159 (2019).
http://doi.org/10.11648/j.earth.20190803.13
9.
Ministry of Economy&Energy:
https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/Energiedaten/energiedaten-gesamt-pdf-
grafiken.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=34
10.
Bundesverband Windenergie (BWE):
https://www.wind-energie.de/themen/zahlen-und-fakten/
11.
Strom-Report:
http://strom-report.de/strompreise/strompreisentwicklung/
12.
Vergleich.de: Gesellschaft für Verbraucherinformationen,
https://www.vergleich.de/strompreise.html
13.
Ausfelder et al. (Hrsg.): Sektorkopplung - Untersuchungen und Überlegungen zur Entwicklung eines
integrierten Energiesystems, Schriftenreihe Energiesysteme der Zukunft, München 2017,
ISBN: 978-3-9817048-9-1.
https://energiesysteme-zukunft.de/publikationen/analyse/sektorkopplung/
14.
Fritz Vahrenholt, Ronald Tichy: 7.600 Milliarden fürs Klima, Tichys Einblick, 20.8.2019
https://www.tichyseinblick.de/daili-es-sentials/7-600-milliarden-fuers-klima/
15.
S. C. Wong, Elevated atmospheric partial pressure of CO
2
and plant growth, Oecologia (Berl.) 44,
pp. 68-74 (1979), https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00346400
16.
J. I. L. Morison, D. W. Lawlor, Interactions between increasing CO
2
concentration and temperature on
plant growth, Plant, Cell and Environment 22, pp. 659–682 (1999).
17.
Zaichun Zhu et al., Greening of the Earth and its drivers, Nature Climate Change 6, pp. 791–795
(2016), https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004
NASA 2016, CO2 is making Earth greener - for now,
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/
18.
CO
2
Coalition, established in 2015 for the purpose of educating thought leaders, policy makers, and
the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy
https://co2coalition.org
19.
Jay Lehr: The Climate Delusion, Acceptance speech given at ICCC 13 on July 25, 2019.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAmMatOT5Ac
Physics & Climate