Based on empirical data, the world will need more CO2 in the future, not less. Increasing CO2 increases plants water use efficiency and allows more crop production with less water. To feed everyone in the future, we will need higher CO2 levels. And, there is no real evidence that CO2 increases global temperatures (Some models, but they are someone's guess). Your government is promoting the exact opposite of what needs to be done. Your government is using this as a way to get you to submit to their desires and implement "Satans New World Order". I will debate anyone who is serious and has been studying the issue for at least a couple of decades. The University/industry/government complex is controlling this information the same way they have controlled the information on Covid-19, by removing those who speak out against their fraud. I have spoken out at my University and they removed me from my professorship. (At my age, who cares; lol)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (66)
sorted by:
Well, its already being done in greenhouses for many plants. And, of course its being done with C4 crops. C4 crops have a way to load CO2 so the concentration is higher where the active uptake sites gather C. This loading minimizes O2 competition for the sites that occurs in C3 plants. The key is that when stomates open C4 plants pump CO2, so it collects more CO2 per unit of water. When stomates open, transpiration occurs along a vapor pressure gradient -from moist cool in the soil to dry hot in the atmosphere thru the plant. (Desert plants have an even trickier system for gathering CO2. They open their stomates at night and store the CO2 in the leaves until the sun comes up!) Increasing CO2 levels has the same effect on C3 plants. I think the biggest opportunity for agriculture is to improve the number of crop varieties that have C4 and CAM (desert plants) photosynthedic pathways.
What I think is difficult to accept is that higher amount of CO2 is needed to feed the people. I would assume, without any subject knowledge, that the improvement in production efficiency would outpace population increase.
Another note regarding CO2 levels and food production. A lower amount of C02 would reduce food output, which in turn would make food production more expensive and would harm the very population/demography the green policy advocates want to "protect". If they are correct about CO2 and temperature, increased temperature would benefit the poorer populations. CO2 and water rise is a another topic. Usually the claim is that water rising above x cm/year would impose massive economic loss upon specific strata. However, the predictions is at worst 0,5 m increase in sealevel in 2050 or 1m in 2100. Hardly a massive problem. A dramatic reduction in food production would be a larger obstacle to overcome. Is the predicted lack of freshwater based upon increasing temperature or increasing population density? Is the predicted decrease in food ouput caused by increased temperature or increased production cost?
A lot of assumptions is usually made, unfortunately it might be the same in your field. I do not have enough competance to either argue for or against your position. Nonetheless, interesting thought. Thank you. I will think about it