The ESG perspective: What’s going on with CO2?

MARK PATTON, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR 

Recently, Microsoft paused their carbon credit purchases. This is significant, because Microsoft has been the largest purchaser of carbon credits, with reports as high as 90% of the entire carbon market, as of 2025. Of course, the next day, to avoid erosion of the carbon credit market Microsoft is already so heavily invested in, they announced they are only slowing down their purchases, not stopping. 

Combine this with the reversal of the Endangerment Finding by the Trump administration for CO₂ and you begin to wonder what is going on. Is CO₂ not a concern, or not an issue anymore? Will carbon markets collapse?  

Well, let’s back up a bit. The Endangerment Finding for CO₂ was a determination that found that CO₂ posed a risk to human health and the environment, and this finding became the basis for regulating CO₂. Now, I’ve discussed this before, but this finding came from a working group that determined the Social Cost of Carbon using four different climate models. But this process was flawed. They left Carbon Fertilization off their models and, after some protest, added it to one of the four models used but then discounted it significantly, so they could get the result they wanted. But you will see they left out a lot more. 

Carbon Fertilization is the proven concept that plants absorb CO₂ as a food source and cause these plants to grow and yield more food. It is a finding that CO₂ has a positive impact beyond its negative one. NASA famously reported that the planet was greening because of CO₂, supporting the reality of Carbon Fertilization. 

So, the Endangerment Finding was always based on bad science, and the reversal is hopefully a return to real fact-based science. I’m not saying CO₂is not a greenhouse gas or that CO₂ isn’t contributing to global warming. What I’m saying is that it has been overstated and that climate models have become oversimplified while overexaggerating the impact of CO₂. 

Let’s go a little deeper here. Methane has a 120-time greater warming effect. The narrative is that methane degrades quickly, while CO₂ lasts much longer, and we discount methane, depending on the source, as 20-80 times more potent, but yet call CO₂ the bad guy, because it persists so much longer. So, we should see CO₂ levels climb, because it lasts so much longer than methane, right? 

We began global methane measurements in 1983 at 1645 ppb; in 2024, we had results of 1922. This is a 16.8% increase. If we take the same date range, CO₂ went from 407 ppm to 426 ppm, a 4.7% increase. So, how is it possible that methane that degrades so quickly is growing much faster than CO₂, which is supposed to persist? 

Part of this is because CO₂ is also being absorbed by plants and water, decreasing the amount of CO₂ in the environment. We ignore this, and that’s why climate models are so wrong. 

Let’s look at another effect—the natural oxidation of methane. Some recent studies have come up with some curious observations. During Covid, while businesses shut down, traffic dropped, and there was an expectation of a significant decrease in methane and CO₂, but that’s not what we found. While CO₂ emissions were reduced 5.4%, the levels in the atmosphere stayed about the same, with methane emissions increasing at a faster rate than we have seen in the previous decade, when we were expecting a decrease.  

What they reported is that atmospheric ozone also decreased. Why is this important? Ozone is formed in the atmosphere when emissions react with UV light and make ozone, which oxidizes methane and as the ozone degrades, makes hydroxyl radicals, which are even better at oxidizing methane and convert methane to CO₂ and water vapor.  

The earth has its own cleaning process. As pollution increases, ozone is formed, which degrades to hydroxyl radicals, and both oxidize methane readily. Tell me this doesn’t sound like Divine Design. What this all points to is a much more complex climate model than we are even considering. 

Let me add another variable here. Solar irradiation is also not considered in climate models, but we know when we see disruptions to the ozone layer, like the Atlantic anomaly or over the North Pole with the pole shift, we see climate impacts. When we see these disruptions, additional UV enters, representing much more energy, and this disrupts climate. Additionally, UVC, which is 100% blocked by the ozone layer, can degrade methane readily. The ozone layers block about 90% of all UV, but 100% of UVC. In general, UV with oxygen present and water vapor, which are all present in the atmosphere, can oxidize methane, but UVC is the strongest. So, solar irradiation is also playing a role here. 

I know I’m “nerding” out here, but bear with me. So, is this all a result of taking a very complex climate and reducing it to a simple formula that neglects the many processes at work, or is this an attempt to make CO₂ the boogie man? Let’s take a look at this a bit. 

CO₂ is considered to be primarily from oil and gas at about 74%, according to the EPA, while methane is only 35% from oil and gas. On the surface, methane is the real villain, but CO₂ became the target, and if I put my tin foil hat on, it looks like an attempt by the environmental lobby to target oil and gas, something they have never been shy about. 

But that’s really not the message here. The message is that we have a very complex climate with many processes all working together. Carbon Fertilization is absorbing CO₂, which reduces CO₂ while plants grow, allowing them to absorb more CO₂. While emission reacts with UV light, it’s largely blocked by the ozone layer to make ozone and hydroxyl radicals that convert methane to CO₂. Disruptions to the ozone layer allow even more UV light, which increases the degradation of methane to CO₂. Then add that water also absorbs CO₂ and when it cools, it absorbs more water. When it heats up, it absorbs less and releases some CO₂. Except for the water example, which is only partially represented in climate models, none of these other effects are represented. It’s time for new climate models and a return to real science and fact-driven science and an exit of politics and ideologies. Maybe we are seeing the beginning of this change, or at least I hope so.