# Proof: Higher atmospheric CO2 is beneficial "plant food" with no net negative effects.

- **Generated:** 2026-03-28
- **Verdict:** DISPROVED
- **Audit trail:** [proof_audit.md](proof_audit.md) · [proof.py](proof.py)

---

## Key Findings

- **SC1 (plant food effect) — SUPPORTED:** 2 of 2 independent NASA sources confirm that rising CO2 has caused measurable plant greening (B1, B2). The "plant food" component of the claim has scientific support.
- **SC2 ("no net negative effects") — DISPROVED:** 3 of 3 independent government/intergovernmental sources (NOAA, NASA, IPCC) document major negative consequences of elevated CO2, falsifying the "no net negative effects" assertion (B3, B4, B5).
- **The SC2 disproof holds on fully verified evidence alone:** B4 (NASA, fully verified) documents "sea ice loss, accelerated sea level rise, and longer, more intense heat waves" now occurring — each constitutes a significant negative effect independent of B3 and B5.
- **Overall:** The compound claim is DISPROVED because SC2 is false. Even granting SC1, the claim requires *both* parts to hold simultaneously.

---

## Claim Interpretation

**Natural language claim:** Higher atmospheric CO2 is beneficial "plant food" with no net negative effects.

**Formal interpretation:** This is a compound claim requiring two sub-claims to hold simultaneously:

- **SC1:** Higher CO2 has a documented beneficial plant fertilization effect ("plant food" is real) — interpreted as ≥ 2 independent authoritative sources confirming the CO2 fertilization / greening effect.
- **SC2:** Higher CO2 has no net negative effects — interpreted as the absence of ≥ 3 authoritative sources documenting major negative consequences.

**Operator note:** SC2 uses the disproof direction: SC2 *fails* if ≥ 3 independent authoritative sources confirm significant negative effects exist. The full compound claim is DISPROVED if SC2 fails, regardless of SC1. The threshold of 3 for SC2 disproof requires convergence across independent institutions (NOAA, NASA, IPCC), not just a single dissenting source.

---

## Evidence Summary

| ID | Fact | Verified |
|----|------|----------|
| B1 | NASA Goddard: CO2 fertilization causes significant Earth greening (SC1) | Yes |
| B2 | NASA Earth Observatory: Extra CO2 stimulates plant growth in some ecosystems (SC1) | Yes |
| B3 | NOAA Ocean Service: Ocean absorbs ~30% of CO2; causes ocean acidification (SC2 disproof) | Partial (fragment match, 47%) |
| B4 | NASA Science: Sea ice loss, sea level rise, more intense heat waves occurring now (SC2 disproof) | Yes |
| B5 | IPCC SR1.5 Ch.3: 70–90% coral reef loss projected; unprecedented ocean chemistry changes (SC2 disproof) | Partial (fragment match, 50%) |
| A1 | SC1: Verified source count for CO2 plant fertilization effect | Computed: 2 confirmed sources ≥ threshold 2 — SC1 holds |
| A2 | SC2: Verified source count documenting major negative CO2 effects | Computed: 3 confirmed sources ≥ threshold 3 — SC2 falsified |

---

## Proof Logic

### Sub-claim 1: The "plant food" effect is real (SC1 — SUPPORTED)

Two independent NASA sources confirm that elevated CO2 causes measurable increases in plant growth:

**B1 (NASA Goddard, 2016 study):** "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." This study — involving 32 scientists from 24 institutions across 8 countries — estimated that "carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect."

**B2 (NASA Earth Observatory):** "On the other hand, extra carbon dioxide can stimulate plant growth in some ecosystems, allowing these plants to take additional carbon out of the atmosphere." However, B2 immediately notes: "This effect may be reduced when plant growth is limited by water, nitrogen, and temperature. This effect may also diminish as carbon dioxide increases to levels that become saturating for photosynthesis."

**Conclusion on SC1:** The CO2 plant fertilization effect is real and documented. SC1 is supported at threshold ≥ 2 confirmed sources.

### Sub-claim 2: "No net negative effects" (SC2 — DISPROVED)

Three independent government/intergovernmental sources document major negative effects of elevated atmospheric CO2, falsifying SC2:

**B3 (NOAA):** "The ocean absorbs about 30 percent of the CO2 that is released in the atmosphere." This absorption drives ocean acidification — a documented global harm to marine ecosystems. NOAA confirms that ocean acidification "can make building and maintaining shells and other calcium carbonate structures difficult for calcifying organisms such as oysters, clams, sea urchins, shallow water corals, deep sea corals, and calcareous plankton" and that "the entire food web may also be at risk."

**B4 (NASA, fully verified):** "Effects that scientists had long predicted would result from global climate change are now occurring, such as sea ice loss, accelerated sea level rise, and longer, more intense heat waves." These are ongoing, documented negative effects of elevated CO2 in the atmosphere. B4 is fully verified and independently sufficient to falsify SC2.

**B5 (IPCC SR1.5):** "the majority (70–90%) of warm water (tropical) coral reefs that exist today will disappear even if global warming is constrained to 1.5°C." This represents an irreversible, catastrophic ecosystem loss directly attributable to CO2-driven warming and acidification.

**A critical detail:** The primary SC1 source (B1, NASA Goddard) explicitly acknowledges both sides: while CO2 "can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change" causing "global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events." The discoverers of the greening effect explicitly reject the "no net negative effects" interpretation of their own findings.

**Conclusion on SC2:** Three independent authoritative sources from NOAA, NASA, and IPCC confirm major negative effects of elevated CO2. SC2 ("no net negative effects") is falsified. Even using only the fully verified B4 source (NASA), the documented negative effects (sea ice loss, sea level rise, extreme heat waves) are individually sufficient to disprove the "no net negative effects" assertion.

### Overall compound claim

The claim requires both SC1 AND SC2 to hold. SC1 is supported; SC2 is disproved. The compound claim is therefore **DISPROVED**.

---

## Counter-Evidence Search

**Does CO2 fertilization fully offset negative effects on agriculture?**
Reviewed IPCC SR1.5 and the NASA Goddard study. The NASA study explicitly states CO2 is "the chief culprit of climate change" causing warming, sea level rise, and severe weather. IPCC SR1.5 projects net reductions in yields of maize, rice, and wheat under even moderate warming scenarios. No credible scientific source claims fertilization offsets all agricultural harms.

**Do the authors of the NASA greening study endorse the "net benefit / no harm" reading?**
No. The NASA Goddard press release explicitly states: "While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change." The fertilization effect "diminishes over time" as plants acclimatize. The authors explicitly reject the framing used in this claim.

**Could "no net negative effects" be technically defensible if CO2 fertilization globally outweighs all harms?**
No major scientific body has reached this conclusion. The IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report (2023) states with "unequivocal" confidence that human-caused climate change is causing widespread adverse impacts. No IPCC report, NASA publication, or major scientific institution has concluded that CO2 fertilization benefits net-outweigh total harms.

**Does elevated CO2 improve food security via crop yields?**
Multiple peer-reviewed studies (Loladze 2014; Myers et al. 2014, *Nature*) document that elevated CO2 reduces protein, zinc, and iron concentrations in C3 staple crops (wheat, rice, legumes) — the "carbohydrate dilution effect." Even where biomass increases, nutritional density per calorie declines. The "plant food" framing ignores this nutritional quality trade-off.

---

## Conclusion

**Verdict: DISPROVED**

The compound claim has two parts. The first part — that CO2 acts as "plant food" with measurable fertilization effects — is genuinely supported by scientific evidence (SC1: 2 verified sources from NASA). However, the second part — "no net negative effects" — is decisively falsified by three independent government and intergovernmental sources (SC2: 3 confirmed disproof sources).

**The disproof does not depend on the partially-verified citations.** B4 (NASA Science, fully verified) alone documents sea ice loss, accelerated sea level rise, and intensifying heat waves as currently observed consequences of elevated CO2 — each individually constituting a major negative effect. B3 (NOAA, partial) and B5 (IPCC, partial) provide additional corroboration for the SC2 disproof.

The "plant food" framing, while capturing a real phenomenon, is selectively incomplete. It describes one benefit while omitting ocean acidification, ecosystem collapse, crop yield reductions, nutritional quality degradation, sea level rise, and extreme weather intensification — all documented by the same scientific institutions that confirm the fertilization effect.

---

*Generated by [proof-engine](https://github.com/yaniv-golan/proof-engine) v1.0.0 on 2026-03-28.*
