Slashdot Mirror
Does More Carbon Dioxide Mean Increased Crop Water Productivity? (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader points us to an Ars Technica report: For the most part, we think of rising levels of carbon dioxide as an environmental problem. But atmospheric CO2 can also boost agricultural productivity by helping plants grow. How do these potential issues balance out? In an investigation recently published in Nature Climate Change, scientists have looked into the global implications of carbon dioxide's ability to enhance agricultural productivity. Increased levels of CO2 can enhance photosynthesis and reduce leaf-level transpiration, the process by which some of the water that plants draw from the ground gets released back into the atmosphere. These changes can reduce growing seasons and water loss. The result could be an increase in what's called "crop water productivity," i.e. the amount of food produced for each unit of water expended. If elevated CO2 levels increase crop yield and reduce water consumption at large scales, this could help ensure water and food security despite the climate disruptions. By combining data from a massive network of field experiments and global crop models, the scientists claimed that depending on the crop type, global crop water productivity will increase by 10 to 27 percent by the 2080s. Arid regions exhibited large increases that were based on crop type.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G...
If there's one thing we should know by now, it's that when leftists support something, it's usually the opposite that's true in reality. Leftists in general have a bad tendency to ignore hidden costs/benefits and economic realities in favor of supposed short-term or absolute gains that don't actually exist.
For example, leftists have long stated that nuclear power is too dangerous and environmentally-unsafe. Yet in reality it's one of the safest and least-harmful sources of energy per Joule. We also get far more energy back per unit of investment in it than we do from hydro, solar or wind power.
Another example is minimum wage, especially when the rate is artificially high. Leftists claim this makes the poor better off, when all of the evidence shows it just promotes less hiring and faster automation of such jobs.
Yet another example is vehicle carbon emission standards. Leftists set them at unattainable levels, and then these leftists are surprised when vehicle manufacturers have to find workarounds for these unrealistic standards.
So if leftists claim that increased carbon dioxide levels are a "bad" thing, then I'm not at all surprised if increased levels actually have a bigger benefit than any costs associated with increased levels. The benefit just isn't immediately obvious, so leftists don't see it.
Yes, the plants that evolved in and were well adapted for those times did quite well in that high CO2 and temperature environment. Guess which are the key words in that sentence.