I hate climate alarmism as much as the next guy, but this argument is poor. It doesn't help our side except making us look ignorant.
In general the carbon cycle would keep CO2 levels stable. Most CO2 the plants "breathed" is released back into the atmosphere when they die. Food would be CO2 neutral, except fertilizer manufacturing releases extra CO2. Therefore meat results in a lot of CO2 emission.
I have no doubt that this is a way to pay lab meat cronies/pump up their stock prices with a fat military contract. There are better ways to reduce CO2 than lab meat.
There are better ways to reduce CO2 than lab meat.
The US emits 15.32 tons of CO2 per capita. Therefore, migration into the US increases carbon emissions and deporting illegals decreases world-wide carbon emissions.
Central America is in the < 2 tons range.
Each person deported from the US to one of those countries is a global decrease of at least 10-14 tons of CO2 per person, per year.
Canada is 18.72 tons/person. India is 1.89 tons/person. If Canada cared actually cared about emissions, the solution is right there.
Sure. The amount of plant mass on earth could increase as a result, and lower the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere a bit, but a new equilibrium would be established pretty quickly.
There is a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, and more every day. There is no danger of running out or having the plants die from lack of it. Going "carbon negative" is a pipe dream of the greenies and would either take a spectacularly massive amount of green electricity or.......
They kill us all and make the survivors dirt poor. That's the real danger, not plants running out of CO2 to breathe.
If the earth's temperature is really rising, won't there will be a longer growing season in the northern latitudes and won't more arable land will be available in places that once were too cold or dry for agriculture?
To a point, yes. But there are multiple issues, like permafrost layers, soil composition, etc, that mean that while the temperatures and growing seasons will work out better, it might not end up as good for farming.
Fixable to a point, but difficult overall. Drier areas (now) might also get drier or at least not get more rainfall, that's harder to really say how it'll work out.
Physical space is another issue, as some of the more northern areas are in worse terrain and not farmable, vs the plains we use now (at least in the US).
If we reduce CO2, what will the plants breathe?
I hate climate alarmism as much as the next guy, but this argument is poor. It doesn't help our side except making us look ignorant.
In general the carbon cycle would keep CO2 levels stable. Most CO2 the plants "breathed" is released back into the atmosphere when they die. Food would be CO2 neutral, except fertilizer manufacturing releases extra CO2. Therefore meat results in a lot of CO2 emission.
I have no doubt that this is a way to pay lab meat cronies/pump up their stock prices with a fat military contract. There are better ways to reduce CO2 than lab meat.
The US emits 15.32 tons of CO2 per capita. Therefore, migration into the US increases carbon emissions and deporting illegals decreases world-wide carbon emissions.
Central America is in the < 2 tons range.
Each person deported from the US to one of those countries is a global decrease of at least 10-14 tons of CO2 per person, per year.
Canada is 18.72 tons/person. India is 1.89 tons/person. If Canada cared actually cared about emissions, the solution is right there.
But if you tAx TEh RiCH based on the expected carbon surplus, we can buy carbon credits to offset that and become carbon neutral.
Don't you have better plant growth with higher CO2 levels though?
Sure. The amount of plant mass on earth could increase as a result, and lower the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere a bit, but a new equilibrium would be established pretty quickly.
There is a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, and more every day. There is no danger of running out or having the plants die from lack of it. Going "carbon negative" is a pipe dream of the greenies and would either take a spectacularly massive amount of green electricity or.......
They kill us all and make the survivors dirt poor. That's the real danger, not plants running out of CO2 to breathe.
Yes you're right, I'm just saying that more plant mass on earth is better for us generally.
Plus, if they can normalize lab meat then it's easier to just get more and more people to eat whatever chemical slop they're calling "lab meat"
This would be a great question, if leftists thought that far ahead.
But they don't.
If the earth's temperature is really rising, won't there will be a longer growing season in the northern latitudes and won't more arable land will be available in places that once were too cold or dry for agriculture?
To a point, yes. But there are multiple issues, like permafrost layers, soil composition, etc, that mean that while the temperatures and growing seasons will work out better, it might not end up as good for farming.
Fixable to a point, but difficult overall. Drier areas (now) might also get drier or at least not get more rainfall, that's harder to really say how it'll work out.
Physical space is another issue, as some of the more northern areas are in worse terrain and not farmable, vs the plains we use now (at least in the US).