The "Greening" Thanks to CO2

     I happened across an article today from CNS News: The Right News. Right Now. (I wonder which side their political tendencies lean?) In brief, the article states that the increased levels of CO2 have led to an increase in crop production world wide and led to the greening of previously arid areas of the world. They quote some un-cited stats and quote "experts" like Dr James Taylor from the Heartland Institute who uses the word "preposterous" and "objective" in the same sentence a few times. Real scientific, objective stuff, as you may imagine.

     Basically, Taylor states that more CO2 in the atmosphere is beneficial to our world because it gives food/fertilizer/nutrients to plants and trees worldwide. He cites arid regions that are sprouting more plants (although it fails to mention any specific region), redwoods in California growing taller, trees in the boreal forests growing larger and more robust, as well as tropical rainforests that are expanding (when said rainforests are not being slashed and burned, presumably). Basically, he states that CO2 is the reason all these things are "supposedly" happening.

     But, alas, the article's purpose
is to mislead. The typical counter-argument to global warming, climate change and rising CO2 levels is to focus on just a few words and phrases in the discussion and misconstrue them to suit one's needs. What do I mean? Well, take for example the so-called greening of previously arid regions referred to by the article. Sure, higher levels of CO2 would benefit plants in this area. But you need more than just CO2 for plants to grow heartier and proliferate. You need water, for one, which the article fails to mention. All the CO2 in the world won't make plants grow heartier in the absence of water. Previously arid regions are seeing more rainfall in many parts of the world, which coupled with increased CO2, would in fact lead to a "greening" of said area.

     But, there's a limit to how much these plants can thrive under these new conditions. You also need nutrients in the soil to account for the increased growth. Arid regions are notoriously lacking in soil nutrients like phosphorus, proteins and other minerals essential for plant growth. A brief explosion of plant growth would most likely use up the already scarce nutrient resources, leading to a short-lived greening followed my a die-off. The article also fails to even acknowledge that places that used to be wetter are becoming more arid. There are areas of the world that have seen a significant reduction in rainfall totals, leading to massive and debilitating drought. Where you ask? You don't have to go far to find an article about the terrible drought in California these days. And don't even get me started on how higher temperatures can have a negative effects on heat sensitive plants and their ability to photosynthesize!

     Last but not least, the majority of the world's CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, more specifically the plankton that use it for photosynthesis. Have you seen the oceans recently? They are our toilets, our dumping grounds, our landfills. We are killing off the plant life in our seas at an alarming rate. We are also, subsequently mowing down plants and cutting down trees and destroying the very forests on the land that are supposedly benefitting from the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. They are not growing back faster than we are cutting them down.

     The Greening the article referred to is not on land and in the deserts. It's in someone's pocket. And it certainly isn't mine or yours. It's greening the pockets of those who don't want you to see the big picture so they can continue to get rich by misleading people into believing articles like the one above.