Blogs » A Constitutionalist & Believer in Natural Law » Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Emissions

Subscribe


Like many Americans I cannot understand the direction the government is taking to control carbon emissions. It appears the government believes that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide can be controlled by regulation of emissions, and the only solution is to reduce carbon emissions to the 1990 levels.

It is very difficult to understand how reduction of “human created” carbon emissions will make any substantial effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Most data I have seen indicates that reduction of emissions to the 1990 levels will affect atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by only 0.007 %. This is not what I would call an effective solution for the amount of money that will come out of each American citizens pocket.

And most of us understand that not all carbon dioxide is bad.

For over 100 years, nurserymen have been adding carbon dioxide to their greenhouses to raise the yields of vegetables, flowers, and ornamental plants. And for decades, it has been well known among botanists, biochemists, agriculturalists, and foresters that a shortage of carbon dioxide is the most common limiting factor preventing photosynthesis from proceeding more efficiently.

Flowers, trees, and food crops thrive on carbon dioxide, and the more they get of it, the more they grow. Carbon dioxide is the basic raw material that plants use in photosynthesis to convert solar energy into food, fiber, and other forms of biomass. Voluminous scientific evidence shows that if CO2 were to rise above its current ambient level of 360 parts per million, most plants would grow faster and larger because of more efficient photosynthesis and a reduction in water loss. There would also be many other benefits for plants, among them greater resistance to temperature extremes and other forms of stress, better growth at low light intensities, improved root/top ratios, less injury from air pollutants, and more nutrients in the soil as a result of more extensive nitrogen fixation.

Many years ago, Dr. Sylvan H. Wittwer, an Agriculturist, said “ that global warming is good for the human race, because it helps increase food production.”

If the global governments desire to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, one would think they would call for halting the deforestation of the planet and reduction of construction that destroys vegetation. Also, would it not be reasonable to have a major program to increase vegetation worldwide? If humans are the problem, I don’t see a push for global reduction of the birthrates and production of non-essential products.

Global warming due to carbon emissions appears to ignore the fact that during the time the data for global warming theory was collected, the sun’s solar storms (sun spots) increased and warmed the other planets in our solar system.

Also, the reductions of the Antarctica ice sheet appear to ignore volcanoes in the area (on land and under the ocean).

I don’t know all the facts, but it appears to me more “cause and affect studies” need to be done. And all possible solutions considered determining the most effective solution for the money before we set our direction on a single solution—government control of carbon emissions.