In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

[AndyH]

But it is disingenuous to lay this all at the doorstep of big business. People won't go out today and buy a tank of gas, flip on their air conditioner, get on an airplane, or buy a cart full of cheap stuff from China at Walmart with the intent of protecting XOM profits.

Agreed - they aren't necessarily consciously intending to do that, yet the outcome is the same.

Nobody is forcing anyone to do those things, they do so of free will, because the dollars they spend on those things bring more value to them than other things they could do, and frankly because it's a way of life we have all come to enjoy. Most of the denial comes from the consumers who don't want to give up the things that carbon enables.

Nobody is forcing them, certainly, yet combined with most consumer's unconscious actions, there is a very active campaign that intentionally masks some information consumers would use to adjust their behavior - like the...gentlemen... that wrote the article at the head of this thread, and folks at Heartland, for two examples.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=7921
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4559

[jackal]

Most of the denial comes from the consumers who don't want to give up the things that carbon enables.

+1. That's why it's important that Change must come from us (the consumers) first. The choices we make (buying sometimes much more expensive alternatives) will dictate the direction in the future.

[AndyH]

RegGuheert - I found this article on CO2 and crop yields:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledg ... n-13254108" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It suggests that there may be increased yields, but to get the higher yield, the plants would require more water, heat, and fertilizer. It also says that they would be more susceptible to insects, and would be less nutritious.

So I believe that a higher yield is possible under elevated CO2 conditions, but CO2 is not the only factor.

Thanks for the link! That's a good survey, but unfortunately it talks about mechanisms and does not quantify the effects on yield.

This more recent survey, Quantifying field-scale effects of elevated carbon dioxide concentration on crops (the third paper in the list I provided previously) is a full meta-analysis of the FACE research published through November 2011 and it makes predictions for overall yield for a wide range of crops including wheat, barley, rice, soy-bean, potato, sugar beet, cotton, maize and sorghum. The conclusion was a yield improvement of 17% for C3 plants and 7% for C4 plants, with an overall yield improvement of 16% since the vast majority of species (and also research) are C3. There was a reduction of evapotranspiration of about 5%, meaning a high CO2 level can help to compensate for lower availability of water for crop growth while still providing more yield. Interestingly, while biomass increases were significantly affected by the availability of nitrogen, the same growth in yield was observed for crops grown in fertile soil as was observed for crops grown in low-nitrogen environments.

You're still cherrypicking Reg - one CANNOT say CO2 is good in a complex system without evaluating ALL effects of the CO2. All you're doing is fixating on the one effect you like and ignoring the rest.

Yet again:

http://www.climaite.dk/publ_documents/m ... _paper.pdf

This experiment brought in only three variables - increased CO2, increased heating, and drought.

Recent findings indicate that the interactions among CO2, temperature and water can be substantial, and that the combined effects on teh biological systems of several factors may not be predicted from experiments with one or a few factors. Therefore realistic multifactorial experiments involving a larger set of main factors are needed.

[LTLFTcomposite]

Last fall a bunch of us went to see a Warren Miller video (Flow State?). After two hours of watching a bunch of guys fly to every corner of the globe, drive around in 4WD SUVs, and jump out of helicopters, they broke into a segment about how some glacier is receding or whatnot. This was accompanied by a lecture about how we all need to be worried and do something (unspecified) about it if we want to protect our world and preserve the future of winter sports.

[Stoaty]

But it is disingenuous to lay this all at the doorstep of big business. People won't go out today and buy a tank of gas, flip on their air conditioner, get on an airplane, or buy a cart full of cheap stuff from China at Walmart with the intent of protecting XOM profits. Nobody is forcing anyone to do those things

The problem is that we need policies in place that help to guide people in the right direction, by making it more costly to use fossil fuels (carbon tax, cap and trade, increased gasoline tax) and removing the supports for fossil fuels (various subsidies). We need to provide more support for renewable energy. Unfortunately, some powerful lobbyists combined with foot dragging senators and representatives are blocking these important steps.

[RegGuheert]

You're still cherrypicking Reg - one CANNOT say CO2 is good in a complex system without evaluating ALL effects of the CO2. All you're doing is fixating on the one effect you like and ignoring the rest.

Cherry-picking? Hardly. That was a survey of 53 papers used to perform a meta-analyisis.

The link you just provided was certainly cherry-picking, however. We do a LOT of gardening around here. I'll tell you it is not hard to kill a plant by restricting its water supply. But note that from the meta-analysis paper I just provided, the higher CO2 concentration provides more yield with less water.

Here is a nice antidote to your cherry-picked study:

Here is a study from nearby here which does not suffer from the problems of unsteady CO2 concentrations found in FACE studies: Characterization of an urban-rural CO2/temperature gradient and associated changes in initial plant productivity during secondary succession. The bottom line is that an increase of 21% in CO2 ratio combined with an increase in temperature of a couple degrees Celsius resulted in an increase of biomass of 115%.

[RegGuheert]

Unfortunately, some powerful lobbyists combined with foot dragging senators and representatives are blocking these important steps.

I'll say it's worse here in VA. Our government is creating NEW legislation which benefits gasoline consumers while punishing those who choose to limit gasoline consumption by adopting new technologies.

[LTLFTcomposite]

This is wandering further OT, but perhaps some of this can be blamed on coffee, soda, and doritos. Gas prices are an odd duck. In the big picture of most people's personal finance, gasoline really isn't that big a deal, in fact it's what, like 20% of TCO of a car? I pay wayyy more just for insurance than for fuel even on the gas car. So why is it a big deal? For one thing it's emotional, the price has spiked from time to time, and people see it as an assault on their God-given right to personal transportation. As such it makes for a political leverage point. But also look how it is sold... at convenience stores. The retailer makes practically nothing on it, on the hopes that 24% of us will come in the store and buy a red bull or something. So the signs post the gas price in big numbers for all to see, and as we drive past and see it's up or down a dime, it gets magnified in our minds out of proportion. Anyone who suggests an additional tax is immediately trounced on.

[apvbguy]

The problem is that we need policies in place that help to guide people in the right direction, by making it more costly to use fossil fuels (carbon tax, cap and trade, increased gasoline tax) and removing the supports for fossil fuels (various subsidies). We need to provide more support for renewable energy. Unfortunately, some powerful lobbyists combined with foot dragging senators and representatives are blocking these important steps.

I don't think that it is wise to add more taxes to oil consumption in order to alter people's behavior, it will cause some usage to go down but at what cost? until there is a VIABLE alternative to burning fossil fuel for power generation, heating, cooling, transportation, fertilizers, plastics and many other products all the taxes will do is increase costs of living. regardless of the reasons for our dependence of oil taxing it's usage without alternatives won't change things.

[apvbguy]

Anyone who suggests an additional tax is immediately trounced on.

we can become like europe, fuel there is around $8+ per gallon, now that isn't only because their fuel is more expensive,it is because the governments their fund the varying flavors of socialism with fuel taxes.
The US could end it's deficit issues if it taxed fuel consumption like it is taxed in europe.