CO2 is greening the planet, fueling a scientific debate

Global greening: the data dividing climate science

The planet is getting greener. Satellites have recorded a persistent increase in vegetation for four decades, and a current of analysis argues that the main driver is CO2. The thesis, published in journals such as Remote Sensing of Environment, clashes head-on with the climate emergency narrative.

CO2 fertilization: a measurable benefit

The cited studies speak of "persistent global greening" over the past four decades, attributed to carbon fertilization. For this school of thought, everything measurable about CO2 is positive, while negative effects rest on unproven assumptions. The science published in specialized journals would show something different from what spreads through newspapers and television.

The political emergency and the cost of the transition

Against the official narrative linking disasters such as the Valencia DANA (a severe flooding event) or the fires of 2025 and 2026 to climate change, it is argued that the solution of covering Spain in renewables does not tackle the underlying problem. And an uncomfortable figure emerges: in the United Kingdom, more than 200 fires caused by solar panels have been recorded in three years, 102 last year alone, and the rate is growing at twice the pace of installations.

The counterpoint: rural abandonment or CO2?

The alternative explanation for the greening is not CO2 but rural abandonment: migration to cities leaves fields and forests that are recolonized. The debate remains open, with measurable data on each side. What nobody disputes is that the planet has more vegetation, and that interpreting this phenomenon has become a political battle.

That is the core of the dispute: while some see green growth as proof of CO2's benefits, others consider it a side effect of depopulation. In between, data on temperature, fires and energy keep feeding a conversation that is far from over.