Feb 20, 2025 10:19 PM
(This post was last modified: Feb 21, 2025 09:22 PM by C C.)
Is CO2 plant food? Why are we still talking about this?
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/is-co2...e-we-still
INTRO: Recent interviews with Trump administration officials have revived a persistent myth in climate change discussions: “CO2 is plant food”. This is one of those zombie climate-denial arguments that just never goes away because 1) it’s a simple argument and 2) it seems intuitive — after all, plants need carbon dioxide, so more of it must be good, right?
Yes, CO2 enhances photosynthesis. But crops don’t grow in a vacuum, they also need water, temperatures in a particular range, and farmers need predictable seasons. Climate change disrupts all of those.
The Earth is greening, but only partially due to enhanced CO2. The observed greening in India and China, for example, are mainly due to aggressive reforestation programs, farm subsidies, and irrigation projects designed to sustain high agricultural output — not rising CO2 levels.
If climate change aids agriculture anywhere, it’s at high latitudes, where it benefits few people. Meanwhile, the world’s major breadbaskets — places like the U.S. Midwest, India, and parts of Africa — are seeing more frequent heat waves, floods, and droughts. The reality is that climate change makes agriculture more difficult almost everywhere... (MORE - details)
Geoengineering is politically off-limits – could a Trump presidency change that?
https://theconversation.com/geoengineeri...hat-248589
EXCERPTS: Trump is not the most natural supporter of climate change interventions. [...] Extreme weather will become harder to ignore. Trump could of course downplay any link to climate change but there’s a chance this might trigger him to decide emergency action is required and demand to know more about climate engineering options.
After all, Trump is close to certain tech figures who like big technological solutions to global problems. [...] The most effective methods for cooling the planet involve making the Earth more reflective so that it absorbs less heat from the sun. One option, known as stratospheric aerosol injection, involves spraying sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere to mimic the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions.
Clouds could also be altered to become more reflective, an option known as marine cloud brightening. We can even make ice in the Arctic more reflective by thickening it during the winter months so that it lasts longer in the summer, reflecting the sun’s heat back into space.
These technologies sound rather fanciful. Some might find them scary. But with the devastation of hurricanes and wildfires, Trump could potentially instruct the US military to give aerosol injection a go...
[...] Alternatively, Trump might take the opposite path and say “this is just part of the natural cycle of weather”. Climate-change deniers or those who believe reducing emissions alone will work to hit the 1.5°C or even 2°C targets may be given a platform to convince us all that there is no need for geoengineering.
Maybe there is a middle ground. Trump could decide to support geoengineering research to help the insurance industry. If insurance companies will benefit by having fewer storms and fires, then this would be good for the US economy. So perhaps some expenditure on research right now may be a strategic investment.
Behind the scenes are deep discussions on geoengineering governance... (MORE - missing details)
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/is-co2...e-we-still
INTRO: Recent interviews with Trump administration officials have revived a persistent myth in climate change discussions: “CO2 is plant food”. This is one of those zombie climate-denial arguments that just never goes away because 1) it’s a simple argument and 2) it seems intuitive — after all, plants need carbon dioxide, so more of it must be good, right?
Yes, CO2 enhances photosynthesis. But crops don’t grow in a vacuum, they also need water, temperatures in a particular range, and farmers need predictable seasons. Climate change disrupts all of those.
The Earth is greening, but only partially due to enhanced CO2. The observed greening in India and China, for example, are mainly due to aggressive reforestation programs, farm subsidies, and irrigation projects designed to sustain high agricultural output — not rising CO2 levels.
If climate change aids agriculture anywhere, it’s at high latitudes, where it benefits few people. Meanwhile, the world’s major breadbaskets — places like the U.S. Midwest, India, and parts of Africa — are seeing more frequent heat waves, floods, and droughts. The reality is that climate change makes agriculture more difficult almost everywhere... (MORE - details)
Geoengineering is politically off-limits – could a Trump presidency change that?
https://theconversation.com/geoengineeri...hat-248589
EXCERPTS: Trump is not the most natural supporter of climate change interventions. [...] Extreme weather will become harder to ignore. Trump could of course downplay any link to climate change but there’s a chance this might trigger him to decide emergency action is required and demand to know more about climate engineering options.
After all, Trump is close to certain tech figures who like big technological solutions to global problems. [...] The most effective methods for cooling the planet involve making the Earth more reflective so that it absorbs less heat from the sun. One option, known as stratospheric aerosol injection, involves spraying sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere to mimic the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions.
Clouds could also be altered to become more reflective, an option known as marine cloud brightening. We can even make ice in the Arctic more reflective by thickening it during the winter months so that it lasts longer in the summer, reflecting the sun’s heat back into space.
These technologies sound rather fanciful. Some might find them scary. But with the devastation of hurricanes and wildfires, Trump could potentially instruct the US military to give aerosol injection a go...
[...] Alternatively, Trump might take the opposite path and say “this is just part of the natural cycle of weather”. Climate-change deniers or those who believe reducing emissions alone will work to hit the 1.5°C or even 2°C targets may be given a platform to convince us all that there is no need for geoengineering.
Maybe there is a middle ground. Trump could decide to support geoengineering research to help the insurance industry. If insurance companies will benefit by having fewer storms and fires, then this would be good for the US economy. So perhaps some expenditure on research right now may be a strategic investment.
Behind the scenes are deep discussions on geoengineering governance... (MORE - missing details)