Passage of the Day: Dr. Robert Balling on the Real Nature of CO2
At TCS Daily, Balling takes the position that carbon dioxide should not be considered a pollutant. Well of course (bold is mine):
Plants all over the planet evolved when atmospheric CO2 levels were very much higher than what we have today. Literally thousands of biological experiments show that when atmospheric CO2 levels increase, plants grow faster, bigger, more resistant to any number of stresses, and far more water-use efficient. In many ways, plants must feel like they are going home to a world in which they evolved with CO2 levels up to ten times what we have today. In order to make CO2 more sinister, claims are made that ragweed and poison ivy will grow more vigorously in the future, and indeed they will. But so will every tree in the forest, grasses in our rangelands, and every agricultural crop.
There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and holding everything else constant, elevated CO2 will act to warm the Earth. But as we see in the CO2 story, the levels of this gas have fluctuated enormously over the history of the Earth, and the ecosystems of the planet have evolved to cope with these variations. To suddenly label CO2 as a “pollutant” is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. The Supreme Court ruling will be interesting, but Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant.
Many of the experiments regarding CO2 and plants have been made by marijuana growers. Chunks of dry ice, spritzing with soda water, or beer fermenting in the grow room, are reportedly enough to make a difference, but there are very sophisticated delivery systems available for the serious indoor cultivator.
Comment by triticale — July 18, 2006 @ 11:00 pm
#1, and your point is…? Difference in what? (sorry for the density if it should be obvious)
Comment by TBlumer — July 18, 2006 @ 11:15 pm
Tom,
This article cautions us to avoid labeling CO2 as a pollutant, but does not dispute that the greenhouse effect is happening and that CO2 does cause it. The variations of CO2 throughout time have fluctuated throughout time, but these fluctuations were via natural causes. I wouldn’t call this a defeat for the enviros.
Comment by Kevin irwin — July 19, 2006 @ 7:27 am
Kevin, this particular post doesn’t talk about enviro defeats or victories. But if the Supremes DON’T consider CO2 a pollutant, it WILL be a defeat for the enviros who want to use its classifcation as a premise for Kyoto-like restrictions.
I did have in the back of my mind the 17000 scientists who signed a petition declaring that “that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever”:
http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm
Comment by TBlumer — July 19, 2006 @ 10:21 am
Sorry, I’ll clarify my previous comment. Marijuana growers, who tend to track yield, find that even small amounts of CO2, in conjunction with sufficient light water and nutrients, stimulate both vegetative growth and budding. I’ve not seen assertions that it affects potency or effect, which, along with flavor are determined by genetics and nutrients.
Comment by triticale — July 20, 2006 @ 8:54 am
#5, Got it. Should have known where you were going with dry ice, but forgot that it’s CO2.
So we should celebrate a worldwide CO2 uptick, not prevent it, eh?
Comment by TBlumer — July 20, 2006 @ 10:33 am