A western Kansas lawmaker this week repeated an argument making the rounds among Holcomb coal-fired plant supporters: Carbon dioxide is good for crops. Now the warming deniers are actually promoting it as a farm program?
“One of the really good things about CO2 is that plants perform better under stress (drought, etc.) with increased levels of CO2,†said Rep. Larry Powell, R-Garden City, in discounting the impact of this greenhouse gas.
It’s a misleading argument at best. A recent study by the Bush-funded Climate Change Science Program found that the buildup of carbon dioxide in North America is at levels three time beyond what plants can usefully absorb. What’s more, plants need water to survive, too, and global warming-induced drought could dry up water supplies in some areas.
Another recent study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that while carbon dioxide increases may help tree and plant growth in some northern temperate regions, any benefit would be more than offset by ground-level ozone, another greenhouse gas that hurts plants, especially in cropland regions.
Ozone buildup in the atmosphere could cut global crop production by 40 percent and decrease crop values by 12 percent by 2100, according to the study, which concludes that the “overall economic consequences will be considerable.â€
All in all, global warming is a bad bet for saving the farm.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
47 Comments
The same week Karl Rove tries to claim it was the Democrats who forced George WMD Bush to invade Iraq, we get this tidbit of b.s. from the coal barons: “Pollution is *good* for you!”
Gee Randy…
Could you show you complete bias anymore by calling them the “warming deniers?”
This blog is quickly becoming more and more worthless by the day.
It is bad enough having to deal with the liberal trolls here, but then to have to put up with the bias in threads from the Editors too?
Warming denier is accurate, they’re denying the scientific consensus about global warming. What’s wrong with that Nathan? Oh wait, you’re the guy who thinks the planet is 6,000 years old and think radioactive decay is a lie created by Satan.
Why does something said by Larry Powell (R- Garden City) about coal plants being good for farmin’ mean anything? This guy has a PHD in science? He’s a politician for crikes sake.
Using his convoluted logic concerning CO2 and growing, all one has to do is look at the polluted rivers and streams in the state. They’re polluted because of the overuse of fertilizers and pesticides used bu farmers for some many years.
Farmers were told more is better by the chemical people, which, of course, had nothing to do with profits, and what the result is water pollution. Now, we got some elected official conning people with CO2. How about the mercury, et al, that those same “good for the crops” coal plants produce and feed those same fields?
Gimme a break, Larry Powell (R- Garden City), coal plants are the last thing western Kansas needs.
Only a Republican thinks air pollution is “good for farmers”. Just like they think lead toys are good for children and endless wars are good for the country.
Well, you know how confused the global warming deniers are… oneminute CO2 has NO effects… now CO2 emissions are real, and they help agriculture!!
“Well, you know how confused the global warming deniers are… oneminute CO2 has NO effects… now CO2 emissions are real, and they help agriculture!!”
The next thing they’ll be saying is that clean air is bad for you because it doesn’t allow your body to build up resistance to chemical pollutants!
A recent study by the Bush-funded Climate Change Science Program found that the buildup of carbon dioxide in North America is at levels three time beyond what plants can usefully absorb.
They why do pot growers use co2 chambers. b.s. b.s. b.s.
“When you believe in nothing you can believe in anything!”, OMG I see evidence of that more and more.No offense to our friends of the bar, but I often have accused them of thinking that facts are simply there to support a subjective reality. It would seem the same goes for those in the argument about Global warming, CO2 is food for planets. In return they produce O2, that has been part of the argument against the cutting of the trees in the Amazon. We need trees and plants for our very existence, but as Randy pointed out there is more needed then “plant food”. It use to be that anyone with a basic knowledge knew that you could not get a plant to grow simply by filling a pot with a fertilizer. The plant needed soil and water to grow along with SOME fertilizer. But then comes along subjective reality, “its part of it so it must be a good thing!”.To much water can poison you, too much food can cause health problems, to much sun can cause skin cancer. If we forget balance in favor of one part then there is no balance.
Here in the state of Kansas, the critical element is our underground aquifer water supply. It must be protected.
Why get our drinking water supply from our SURFACE RIVERS when they are generally polluted with salt and agricultural chemicals?
Well, I’ve got leave to meet my nephew at the Riverside Cafe for breakfast.
I wonder if this idiot has ever heard of the idea of a LIMITING NUTRIENT!
It doesn’t matter. The “consensus” states that global warming is irreversible. Whether or not copious amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere helps or hurts crops, there is not stopping global destruction.
However, we gab away on the WEblog and listen to politicians’ rhetoric and scientist’s pontification on the topic for the next few decades. That will help. At least we are doing something. Ha!
If the “consensus” is correct, Lets freeze all CO2 emission now!
Are all the global warming alarmists ready for that?
Yawn….
Hey, Powell. Here is some CO2. Breathe it. Oh, yes, be sure to provide your children and grandchildren a whole lot of the stuff to breath. But then, I forgot as a Kansas legislator you have got enough money from the coal guys to move to the clean moutain air of Colorado.
No.
The plant is not wanted.
The plant is not needed.
The citizens of Kansas are not required to donate their water and allow the poisoning of their air for a plant they do not want or need. Business answers to people. People do not answer to business.
The plant will not be built.
science and consesus
Two words that rarely go together.
Global warming propagandists threaten funding for anyone who disagrees with them.
Morever, there are several shades and degrees to the doubt many of us have.
In the final analysis, even IF the world is getting warmer, you have not proven man caused it. That warming was caused by the sun and other, natural forces.
However, even if you claim Man caused the warming, you have not proven what percentage was caused by man or that it will be harmful enough to justify the draconian green mandates that have been proposed.
Furthermore, you have not proven that, even if EVERY mandate yet proposed, by any government official, were adopted, that you would change global temperatures by even a single degree, over the next 50 years.
Finally, there is NO indication that the world will do what the greens want. If the developed world cuts back on carbon based fuels, we will just make the price of coal and oil cheaper, meaning the rest of the world will use more, meaning NO NET CHANGE IN CARBON USE.
One other point: Are we willing to go to war over carbon treaties?
If not, nothing we agree to will be followed by the rest of the world.
Econ — Science and concensus go together like a hand in a glove, everywhere but in Rush Limbaugh’s mind, even without half his brain tied behind his back…
Concensus is a VERY REAL part of the scientific method… but its not the same concensus as you would think of in Congress, or in a think tank situation…
Limbaugh has told this lie so much that people have started to believe him, instead of Facts!
The greatest resource of untapped energy is conservation of the energy we already use.
Conservation is in!
Chas
“Consensus” on this issue, means forcing the skeptics to shut up by cutting off their funding.
If you guys had the science locked up, such threats would not be necessary.
Well, then, we shalll have to agree to disagree!!
How are our European friends doing on Global Warming?
The United Kingdom slightly larger than the state of Oregon has shown that the overall number of cars on UK roads has increased by 1.8% compared with 2004, rising from 25,754,000 to 26,208,000.
Overall, there are 32,897,000 vehicles registered for use on UK roads including cars, vans, taxis,
buses and trucks.
The UK is second only to Germany in European new car registrations.
Since 1990, the number of diesel trucks in Germany has doubled.
Doesn’t appear that the Europeans are being environmentally friendly to me. :)
That could be scary, Kansas, given the cost of their Petrol in Europe compared to our outrageous $3/gallon here…
Arent those Europeans paying something like $1.60/Litre???
That is really amazing the amount of cars in the UK. I have always admired their subway and train systems. along with Germany. you can’t seem to walk 1000 ft without running into a set of train tracks..
Bush-funded? I just covered the parliamentary procedures from start to finish. Nowhere did I see this term. Now I see Federally Funded, but not bush funded. I really love it when city slickers try to speak about agricultural issues. They don’t know a plow from a disk. but they think they are authorities. Very entertaining.
Uh oh, Paul is going on about another global scientist conspiracy theory. Everyone grab your tin foil hat.
What is really amazing is the number of registered vehicles in the U.S.243,023,485, or slightly less than one vehicle per person.
In the U.K., the figure is more like one vehicle per two persons.
There are about 61 million people living in the U.K.
In the rest of europe, it appears there is roughly one car for two people.
Half of the automobiles in Europe are highly efficient, low emmission diesels.
Kansas, Europe pretty much drives on diesel. Another added bonus is that the sales of biodiesel in Germany is dramatically increasing because it’s cheaper. Germany is also a huge investor in wind and solar power. Germany is one of the countries in Europe with the most reductions in emissions.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/eu-greenhouse-gas-emissions-decrease-in-2005
As usual Kansas just makes stuff up.
“Gee Randy…
Could you show you complete bias anymore by calling them the “warming deniers?”
This blog is quickly becoming more and more worthless by the day.
It is bad enough having to deal with the liberal trolls here, but then to have to put up with the bias in threads from the Editors too?”
Posted by: Nathan | December 01, 2007 at 01:45 AM
Nathan, you ARE a “warming denier”.
You make ad hominem attacks against Randy, and others here.
You cannot refute the science showing that human-added greenhouse gases cause global warming.
You cannot explain the observed warming during the past few decades with natural factors. For example solar activity has DECREASED.
Science is about the science, not the scientists.
If plants can utilize a little heavy metals; just imagine what you could do if you gave them enormous amounts of heavy metals!
Kansas should consult with Al Gore. He might get another Peace Prize for Saving the Kansas citizens from Carbon Dioxide Poisioning. My John Deere may suffocate on too much CO2. Would have to apply for a bigger Government Farm Subsidy to put in another Corn crop so we can waste more water on irrigation for the Corn crop for the Ethanol Plants.
Actually, Phantom, certain plants (notably ‘brassica’) CAN be used to absorb and concentrate heavy metals. This can be used to remediate contaminated soils and might even be useful for collecting economic amounts of the metals involved.
Thanks, Ben for that information; it saved me googling to see if my recollection that there were such plants was correct. Are there not also some microbes that can serve these functions, too?
Like JR. I, from time to time, walk to the store to get some groceries; now, I’m a wimp, and don’t go on “shank’s mare” when it’s bitterly cold, etc., but the 3 mile round trip isn’t all that bad. Saves some money for gas at the very least.
Build from the inside out? Good thought. I’ve often mused that the existence of relatively cheap energy sources (oil, coal) that allowed the explosion in our economy through industrialization would someday be our downfall as the same were depleted, due to such things as urban sprawl, connected to the infrastructure built to accommodate the same, which also seems to encourage it.
However, it now seems to me that the depletion of water resources might leap frog the issue of carbon based energy sources as the big crisis with which we, as humans, will by necessity contend.
Musings off; everyone have a good remainder of the weekend.
Actually it’s funny to watch the local chuckleheads talk about what I post.
Having actually lived in Germany and jogged on the diesel-fume-filled streets of Germany, I can tell you it is not pleasant.
But hey, whatever the local chuckleheads want to believe.
‘Germany will ban unclean diesels from city centers starting in January’http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/10/26/germany-will-ban-unclean-diesels-from-city-centers-starting-in-j/
VT – that also means that one should be careful eating anything of genus Brassica since it can be high in such toxins if they are present in the soil on which they are grown.
the first sentence in the diesel link is: From January 1st, Germany is banning diesel vehicles without Diesel Particullate Filters (DPF) to enter city centers. In other words, they are just fine with efficient diesels.Isn’t it amazing how things are always left out?
Diesels use less fuel per mile than equivalent gasoline vehicles. Also, the European vehicles – gas OR diesel – are more efficient than US vehicles.
Door King,
Sorry… I should’ve noted that Germany’s ban applies ONLY to diesels without particullate filters, not all diesels.
Diesel fuel is, over the life of the car, is $2000 cheaper than Gas, and $3000 cheaper than 85/15. The newer diesel engines are way more efficient than gas, cleaner than gas and produce more power and mileage.
Diesel engines can also be made to run on both regular diesel and biodiesel, making them able to run on renewable fuels. A hybrid using both electric and diesel would be a major stop-gap in weening ourselves off gas. At least until a true hydrogen car can be developed, along with the delivery system.
The newer diesel engines are way more efficient than gas:
I don’t know if that is true; what is true is that diesel fuel has more calories per unit than gasoline or E-85.
You can also inject hydrogen, propane, natural gas or practically any fuel into diesel as it is being burnt in the combustion chamber and double power, while cutting emmisions 90 percent according to some.
Because of the higher compression a diesel engine gets more miles per carbon than a gasoline engine.
With a few modifactions a diesal engine can run on old kitchen oil.
Google “Willie Nelson Bio-Diesel”
I watched a documentary on used cooking oil as a diesel substitute for cars. It was a cross country race, and I think it was sponsored by Willie Nelson.
They said the worst thing about used cooking oil as fuel is that the exhaust smells like french fries! heheheheheeh….
Has anyone taken note of the price of soybeans lately? They are at record high. Corn oil and soybean oil create the same problems as ethanol with irrigation wasting water and the processing plants using huge amounts of water.
Everything has a price.
BTW, isnt Larry Powell from Kalvesta, not Garden City? Maybe the same district, but I think he resides outside Kalvesta.
What I meant to type was since trace metals are beneficial for plant growth at minute levels, then imagine how they would grow with abundant supply of trace metals (it would be toxic to most vegetation).