Saturday, May 23, 2009

So, if CO2 is a pollutant right, how come...

UPDATE: Brentbo says he's been trying to research the benefits or otherwise of increased levels of carbon dioxide for plants, and while "there's nothing at the IPCC, there's a wealth of info at web sites maintained by marijuana growers, who seem to be generally much less doctrinaire in their thinking about CO2."

...this is being promoted to the owners of greenhouses?

It's the Johnson CO2 generator.

"Improve plant quality - Increase production"

"Carbon dioxide is one of the essential ingredients in green plant growth, and is a primary environmental factor in greenhouses. CO2 enrichment at 2, 3 or 4 times natural concentration will cause plants to grow faster and improve plant quality.

"Modern growers are becoming increasingly aware of the value of CO2. Particularly now that most greenhouses are purposely shutting out CO2 to conserve energy."

"Normally there are approximately 300 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere; when this level is increased to over 1 ,000 ppm, results are higher production and better plant quality."

Okay, a "pollutant" that makes plants grow better?

Funny kind of "pollutant."

In fact, doesn't really sound like a pollutant at all, does it?

If there was one sure indicator that the climate change debate had become totally disconnected from reality it was when a trace gas in the atmosphere, still only measured in a few hundredths of one percent, and which is absolutely essential to life on Earth - let's get this straight, no CO2 = no plants = no life, is described as "pollution."

This is just complete and utter madness.

And is it any wonder that satellite measurements over the last 30 years have shown that the Earth is getting greener, or that more tropical rain forest is regrowing every year than is being cut down?

What, surely I'm kidding about the regrowing rain forest stuff?


Here's the article from The New York Times.

Here, and in other tropical countries around the world, small holdings like Ms. Ortega de Wing’s — and much larger swaths of farmland — are reverting to nature, as people abandon their land and move to the cities in search of better livings.

These new “secondary” forests are emerging in Latin America, Asia and other tropical regions at such a fast pace that the trend has set off a serious debate about whether saving primeval rain forest — an iconic environmental cause — may be less urgent than once thought. By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster.

“There is far more forest here than there was 30 years ago,” said Ms. Ortega de Wing, 64, who remembers fields of mango trees and banana plants.

And no, this isn't to say that everything is just fine and dandy and we should stop caring for the environment generally or the Amazonian rain forest in particular.

While I think there is an element of just refusing to believe that everything isn't going to hell in a hand basket on the part of green doom mongers, there is a valid point that much of the regrown forest is poor in terms of species diversity.

For now. But it wont stay that way. While we can cringe at the particular use of the notion that "life will find a way" used in Jurassic Park, it's true. Given time, nature does find a way to recover and restore. And it is happening right under our noses!

It's only haplessly naive greenies who, typically of the white urban middle classes, view nature as some kind of gigantic museum exhibit that needs to be preserved just as it is for all time.

But nature is anything but static and unchanging. A fact that greenies just don't ever seem to be able to get.

Everything takes time though. We should be concerned still about too much rain forest being cleared too quickly.

Jeez though, ironic or what that one of the reasons that so much is being cleared at the moment is all thanks to those selfsame greenies? Who over hyped climate change through the burning of fossil fuels to buggery and insisted on the greater use of biofuels? Haven't those chickens come home to roost! Oil palm plantation anyone?

However, things are not as bad as donation seeking green shysters try to make out. That's just a marketing ploy to try and frighten you into giving them money so they can have their multinational organisations with flash headquarters and lots of high profile and very well paid jobs.

Like the WWF representative on Madagascar - wow, what a great job, eh? - who gave the makers of the film Mine Your Own Business the typical spin about how poor people are happier from his luxury beach side home (with yacht, but the kids out of the way at boarding school in South Africa). Of course he knows better than they do what's best for them. After all, they'd only spend any extra money on jeans and beer according to him.

Fucking self-centred arrogant tosser.

Many thanks to commenter Brentbo for the link to the CO2 generator

Posted via email from Garth's posterous


Brentbo said...

I've tried to research the benefits of increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. While there's nothing at the IPCC, there's a wealth of info at web sites maintained by marijuana growers, who seem to be generally much less doctrinaire in their thinking about CO2.

Garth Godsman said...

Hilarious. I'm going to pinch that line from you!

Carbon Credits said...

FYI, this would produce about the same amount of CO2 as is created by burning one gallon of gas every two weeks to one month depending on how the pressure was set. Any environmentally significant amount of CO2 would kill every living creature in an enclosed area, including plants. The average household gas appliance produces several orders of magnitude more CO2 which is vented instead of trapped.

CO2 production from small appliances is hype. The same people who worry about this sort of thing drive cars all the time which produce enormous quantities of CO2 in comparison.