Source: © 2006 NDSU Ag Communications
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: carbon dioxide is good for plants, and therefore it doesn’t count as pollution. That’s not a joke. It’s one of the 50 most commonly used arguments against taking action to reduce warming pollution in our atmosphere.
It’s true that plants need carbon to survive, and that many plants grow more quickly when they are exposed to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide. But now we’re pumping billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year — 9.5 billion tons in 2009 alone. Could there be unintended consequences to all this extra plant food? Early signs point to yes.
For example, new research from China suggests that wheat and rice grown in a high-carbon environment take up more cadmium from the soil. Cadmium is a toxic heavy metal that can harm our kidneys and bones. The U.S. Global Change Research Program reports that some crops grow larger when they are exposed to more carbon, but that they have a lower nutritional content than their low-carbon counterparts. And it turns out that crops aren’t the only plants that can benefit from extra carbon. Hikers, gardeners and hunters who have experienced an oozing poison ivy rash may not want to hear that the plant tends to get larger and produce a more toxic form of its itch-inducing chemical when carbon is high.
The main problem with the good-for-plants argument, however, is that it misses the bigger picture of what carbon does by warming the planet. We told you last week about how warming is contributing to the devastation of pine forests in Canada and the U.S. And the same ground-level ozone that’s bad for human health reduces the yield of important crops like soybeans and cotton.
When I was a kid, my mom used to say something like this: one bunny in a room is cute, but a thousand bunnies in a room would be creepy.
And 9.5 billion tons a year of “bunnies”? Well that just doesn’t sound good at all.
RLSasse
August 5th
I can agree with the climate change, but in the larger picture I see that the world is not constant it changes and has for a very long time. How can anyone say that this event is not simply a natural change. We just made a change in our clocks world wide to correct for the motion of the earth. Prove that in the very short amount of time that we have been able to record data that we can say with any direct reality that the world should stay as it is, it never has that I know of. I also conclude that I am not the authority just a observer as this world changes. Being subjective sometimes sucks because we have to look at all sides, even if it is the opposite of what we agree with.
Sunwyn Ravenwood
August 5th
Carbon dioxide reacts with moisture in the air to create a mild acid which dissolves limestone. The more CO2 the more acid. So a lot of buildings will be dissolving in the next century and a lot more sinkholes will be opening up, in addition to all the other interesting effects of increased CO2. Maybe we should have a program of digging up limestone, pulverizing it and dropping it into lakes to counteract increasing acidity.
Jay
August 5th
What new, clean and powerful liquid fuel can be made from any carbon “feedstock” including gases such as methane and CO2?
If you think this sounds better than 9.5 billion tons a year of bunnies, read on!
Gary Peresta
August 6th
Having made a career out of studying increased atmospheric CO2′s effects on plants and ecosystems…I stay away from value judgements like ‘good’ and ‘bad’. But if there’s one thing I wish I could convince lay people it’s that the RATE of the changes we’re undergoing is truly unprecedented and the effects at ecosystem levels are unpredictable and like irreversable
Ani Starr Roig
August 7th
Increased CO2 does help some plants but what also needs to increase is the amount of water and fertilizer. With the increase in global temps the areas of severe drought are increasing, can’t grow decent crops in those areas. There is more moisture in the air though but it seems to much rain in the short period its been happening also has a way of destroying crops. So I guess the best way to answer. Is to say be careful what you wish for.
madhavi sood
August 8th
Your article is very informative. I agree, but about global steps to check other pollutants from Factories, Power Plants & vehicles like smoke and polluting gases like Nitrogen dioxide, Sulphur dioxide & other heavy metals from entering the atmosphere & causing more harm in the depletion of the ozone layer ? Are enough norms & checks in place for each manufacturing plant / unit in place ? So that a balance is maintained. We cannot simply blame the plants & crops for it. Best Regards, Madhavi Mohandas Sood
Steve Cohn
August 8th
The argument that “CO2 is good for plants ……” misses the point is so many ways but consider : Humans need sunlight to survive, in fact I take vitamin D supliments to augment what I get from the Sun because I’m inside so much. Does this mean I could be healther if I lived on Mercury’s day side?
Rajashekar
August 9th
its a good informative article, anyhow we cant escape from the result also!!!
Russell Joyce
August 9th
I have always thought in terms of Gaia, the interweave of life on the planet. Cause and Effects acting on the natural selection processes have been at work over millions of years to give us what we have today and now we the cause are seeing effects of our actions.
When there is change in any system by any means there will be chaos!
FERRY SANI
August 16th
Good information and useful .. Let us together hand in hand to protect our earth. we in Indonesia have started one way in which communities engage in saving the rainforest by giving out incentive so that anyone can take part here that is through carbon trading.