J.C. Moore Online

Current events from a science perspective.

If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants. … Sir Isaac Newton

Biased Editors: The editors of journals published by major science organizations are chosen for their expertise in the area and for their fairness. However, any organization may publish a journal and claim their articles are peer-reviewed.  For example, a recent op Ed article in the Tulsa World claimed “Climate predictions must be science-backed“. That’s certainly true, but the author claimed his opinion was backed by a “a peer-reviewed article based on NOAA  data which proves that CO2 may not be the cause of global warming.”  However, no peer reviewed article reaching that conclusion could be found. When I contacted the author for his source, he referred me to an article by Ferenc Miskolczi published in Energy and Environment. Though Miskolczi’s article is based on NOAA’s data, it finds that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not change its spectroscopic properties – a conclusion violating the laws of physics. Miskolczi’s article was criticized by van Dorland and Forster, who wrote: “Miskolczi (2010) theorizes that atmospheric CO2 increases cannot be a cause of global warming. We show his theory to be incorrect both in its application of radiation theory and from direct atmospheric observations.” How did such a paper get published?

The editor of a journal is almost completely responsible for seeing that articles are properly reviewed and for deciding if they should be published. Sourcewatch says that Energy and Environment is a peer-reviewed social science journal published by Multi-Science and the editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, who is described as a reader in geography. Many climate change skeptics such as Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Roger Pielke Jr., Willie Soon, and  Steve McIntyre publish articles there that would not be accepted in major journals. Sourcewatch says the editor admits in an article published online that “the journal I edit has tried to keep this debate [climate scepticism] alive”. She also states “I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway … But isn’t that the right of the editor?”

Not really, if you want to claim to be a peer reviewed science journal.

 No one knows for sure why the solar panel manufacturing company, Solyndra, went bankrupt or what it means, but Congress is now investigating the matter. Though it will be useful to know what went wrong, bankruptcies in these tough economic times are not unusual. It is not clear why Congress is investigating the matter, but if the investigation is used for political purposes, it may delay our development of renewable energy resources. This could further hurt our economy and actually cause the loss of jobs.

In spite of the fact that the Solyndra bankruptcy may have cost 1000 jobs, that is a small amount compared to the hundred thousand plus workers who now work in the solar energy business in United States. Solar energy is one of the fastest growing industries and the graph above from this article estimates that the use of solar energy will increase fivefold by 2020. If the United States does not invest in the production of solar panels, it is almost certain that other countries will. China has set aside $34 billion to be invested in the production of solar panels. The $500 million in loan guarantees to Solyndra is rather small compared to that amount.

 Unfortunately, the US investment in solar energy may be derailed by  Congress.  In spite of the other problems facing our nation, Congress has now launched a Congressional investigation into the Solyndra bankruptcy. It would seem that the investigation is politically motivated with the goal of embarrassing the Obama administration and derailing our efforts to reduce our dependency on fossil fuel. The Department of Energy has made a number of loan guarantees for investments in green energy projects and this is the only one which has had a serious problem. A number of large and savvy investors put over $1 billion into the Solyndra, so it cannot be claimed that it was was a bad investment from the beginning or that the company was suppoted entirely by the Department of Energy. Also, the political ramifications are not quite clear, as this timeline for the loan approval process for Solyndra shows it started in 2005 under the Bush administration.

(c) 2011 J.C. Moore

“Pictures of the polar region from 1979 and 2003 clearly show that about 30% of the Arctic  ice has melted. This has greatly affected the way of life of the native Inuit who live and hunt on the Polar ice.  While some may adapt, their way of life and culture, which sustained them for centuries, will be destroyed.”

Although arguments still rage about whether the Arctic sea ice is disappearing, the disappearance is a fact of life for those who live near the Arctic Ocean.   The photos clearly show that the Arctic Sea ice is disappearing. A recent TulsaWorld article described how the disappearance of the Arctic sea ice has affected the lives of the native Inuit people in Greenland. Ice which used to be 2 meters thick in the winter, now grows only a few centimeters thick, far too thin to allow dogsleds to go to the nearest town, 50 miles away across the bay. They can no longer venture onto the ice to hunt for seals or walrus, a mainstay of their diet,  nor can they go out on the ice to fish. The Polar bears they sometimes hunt have no fat, as the bears cannot swim to the ice packs to hunt, and they sometimes prowl the villages looking for food.

Drilling for oil has picked up in the area as the ices disappears, but so far little oil has been found. Exploration continues, and if oil is eventually found, it carries the possibility of  economic development. But it also carries  the possibility that an oil spill, almost impossible to clean up in the icy  environment, would destroy much of the ocean life the natives now depend on for food. The sad thing is that they are being forced to change a way of life that sustained them for centuries. While some may adapt, their way of life and culture will be destroyed, and many will likely end up among the poor and unemployed.

(c) 2011 J.C. Moore

Sen. Jim Inhofe, the Senator from Oklahoma who never met an oil company executive he didn’t like, often proclaims that “Global warming is a hoax.” He often uses his Senate position on the Environment and Public Works Committee to attack climate science and to promote the interests of oil companies. He is upset that the Polar bear was put on the threatened species list, which protects the Polar bear’s habitat. Recently, Senator Inhofe sent a letter to Mary Kendall, the acting inspector general at the U.S. Department of Interior, pushing for further investigation of Dr. Charles Monnett, who Sen. Inhofe blames for the Polar bear being put on the threatened species list, although that is not the case.  It is clear what Sen. Inhofe  was thinking when he proclaimed, “As a result, critical habitat for the Polar bear was designated, which added additional layers of onerous regulations to oil and gas development in 187,000 square miles of land in Alaska.”

The September 2004 issue of National Geographic has pictures of the Polar region taken in 1979 and 2003, which shows that over that period, the extent of the polar sea ice had declined 30%. Polar bears, whose hunting grounds are the sea ice, now have to swim many miles to reach the ice – when in the past they could simply walk onto it. Dr. Monnett, who is studying the Polar bear population, counted four Polar bears who had drowned because they were caught in a storm trying to swim to the sea ice to hunt. He reported that incident in a paper on the declining habitat of the Polar bear, which was published in a peer-reviewed journal. However his survey report only reported on the drowning of three bears, because only three were in the survey area. That is a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy, however, it led to a controversy about him inflating the number of bears in his research article.

Though that happened five years ago, the Interior Department has been put under political pressure to investigate the matter and they are doing so. As Sen. Inhofe wrote in his letter, “As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), I am committed to ensuring that scientific integrity is upheld in the federal decision-making processes”. If he really means that, perhaps he should wait for the investigation, which is hopefully being done by unbiased scientists under proper procedures, to be completed before jumping to conclusions.

The Polar bear has become a symbol of all we may lose by failing to address our pollution problems adequately. The charges against Dr. Monnett are a politically motivated witch-hunt designed to punish scientists who disagree with Sen. Inhofe’s views on global warming. The polar bears were put on the threatened species list, not because of Dr. Monnett’s work, but because their habitat is clearly declining. As their habitat disappears, so will the Polar bear. It is something man should think about – as our habitat is deteriorating, also.

(c) 2011 J.C. Moore

The quality of the scenic Illinois River in Oklahoma is threatened by pollution from Arkansas’ poultry industry. A lawsuit to stop the pollution seemed certain to win, but it may be derailed by a huge influx of money into the recent Oklahoma elections.

A writer in India, Pabitra Mukhopadhyay, wrote an excellent article (1) explaining how arsenic in some wells in India were poisoning those who drank from them. He asked that I write an article explaining the chemistry of arsenic and how it might get into the groundwater. (2) A comment on that article suggested another possible source that I missed. Roxarsone, which has arsenic as the active ingredient, is often used to treat parasites in poultry and poses a risk to the environment. (3) The arsenic eventually ends up in the chicken droppings and, if disposed of improperly, in water supplies. That is probably not the source of the arsenic in India, but it may have implications for a lawsuit about the water quality of the Illinois River in Oklahoma.

The Illinois River begins in the Ozark Mountains in Northwestern Arkansas and flows through the scenic hills of Northeastern Oklahoma. It is a scenic river because of its sparkling clear water and the steep bluffs, rock formations, and large old trees along its banks. It is a favorite for water sports, fishing, camping, and canoeing and is considered a valuable resource for Northeastern Oklahoma. A dam built across the river forms Tenkiller Lake, one of the clearest and deepest lakes in Oklahoma and the water supply for many Oklahoma towns. Both the river and the lake have beauty and economic value to the state of Oklahoma and great efforts have been taken to ensure that the quality of the water remains high. This has caused contention with the state of Arkansas that has had a profound affect on the politics of Oklahoma.

Lawsuits: As the population of  Northwestern Arkansas has grown, the amount of pollution entering the river has also grown, particularly the nutrients  that causes algae growth and degradation of the river. High levels of nutriets and warm summer temperatures favor the growth of  blue-green algae, a type which is toxic.  In 1977, Oklahoma formed the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission to see that the Rivers in Oklahoma retain their scenic and economic value. The Commission tried negotiating with the cities and businesses in Arkansas to reduce their pollution. Some progress was made but the amount of phosphate and nitrate entering the river continued to grow. Finally, a lawsuit was filed in 1986 to stop upstream sources from polluting the river as it flows into Oklahoma. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In a landmark ruling in Arkansas v. Oklahoma (1992), the Supreme court upheld Oklahoma’s water quality standards and ruled that the water quality standards of the downstream state must be implemented by the upstream state. (4) This established a very important principle as almost everyone lives downstream from someone.

After the 1992 ruling, the Scenic River Commission was successful in negotiating with the point sources, mostly upstream businesses and municipalities, to reduce pollution entering the river. However, the amount of pollution in the river continued to grow, mostly from non-point sources related to agricultural use. Northwestern Arkansas has become one of the largest poultry producing areas in United States. The litter from the industry has been disposed of by spreading it on farmland, and nitrates and phosphates from it eventually finds its way into the water and into Illinois River. Oklahoma has not been able to negotiate with the chicken industry to reduce the amount of plant nutrients entering the river as the poultry industry says that the pollution is from many other sources. Finally, Drew Edmondson, the Attorney General  for the state of Oklahoma filed a lawsuit against the poultry industry to settle the matter. It appears that the evidence and the case law is on the side of Oklahoma, but the case seems to hinge upon establishing whether the poultry industry can be cited as a major source of the pollution.

Arsenic: This is where the arsenic enters into the story. If Roxarsone were used by the poultry industry in Arkansas, then surely some of the arsenic would end up in the water along with the plant nutrients. If arsenic were found in the river then that would be a clear indication that the source was the poultry industry. I sent a request to the Oklahoma Department of Water Quality asking if the water had been tested for arsenic. Here is the reply:

“You are correct in that arsenic compounds are sometimes added to chicken feeds, and as such, have the potential to show up in streams, rivers, lakes, and groundwater in watersheds where chicken litter has been spread on the land surface.

Unfortunately, the poultry lawsuit that you referred to has not been resolved. It is my understanding that they did sample for arsenic as part of the suit, but that data is not readily available. This data collection was not completed by a state agency, so we don’t really have access to it. However, even if I had the data, I probably wouldn’t be able to share it with you until such a time as the lawsuit has resolved.”

Oklahoma Politics: Drew Edmondson, the Atty. Gen. of Oklahoma who filed the lawsuit, resigned last year to run for governor. He lost in the Democratic primary, partly because the poultry industry contributed heavily to his Democratic opponent and led a campaign to paint him as “anti-business”. The poultry industry then donated generously to the Republican candidates as they considered them to be friendlier toward their interests. The Republican candidates won the races for governor and attorney general.  Scott Pruitt, the new Attorney General, who received $15,000 in donations from the poultry industry, said he planned to review the case. The closing arguments in the poultry lawsuit were made before he took office, but it remains to be seen how actively he will defend the case or if he will find a reason to derail it. The new Governor, Mary Fallin, also plans to review the poultry lawsuit and she has proposed slashing the budget of the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission and consolidating it with the Oklahoma Conservation Commission. These, they say, are just budgetary decisions and have nothing to do with the poultry company donations.  It remains to be seen how avidly they will pursue environmental issues in the state.

(1) http://water.thinkaboutit.eu/think5/post/the_water_of_death/

(2) http://jcmooreonline.com/2011/01/31/arsenic-and-the-water-of-death/

(3) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070409115746.htm

(4) http://www.illinoisriver.org/CEDocuments/Downloads_GetFile.aspx?id=121203&fd=0

(C) 2011 J.C. Moore

V  Share This

This year the contest was carried out on three websites and the results were combined.  Your votes have been tabulated to determine  the person who has most affected the environment through word or deed.

The 2010 Environmental Hall of Fame winner is RealClimate.org. As Physicist Retired said in his nomination, “This consortium of climate scientists has developed a comprehensive collection of data and analysis open to the public, with materials and discussions at basic, intermediate, and advanced levels of understanding. It is one of the most effective tools we currently have to combat – with real facts – the ongoing claims made by deniers.” The site will receive the Most Noble Prize in Environmental Science, a heartfelt thank you, and a recommendation from the sites where this will be posted. Arnold Schwarzenegger and John Kerry  were tied for second place, and should receive, as Dowser put it, “Thanks, for standing firm. May God bless you!”

The Environmental Hall of Shame recipients are the Koch Brothers. They could use the publicity as they have been secretly funding candidates who oppose environmental regulations through their Americans for Prosperity Organization. They also clandestinely fund a number of think tanks that produce white papers, written by scientists with compromised ethics, that dispute the scientific research on climate change. They will receive the “Ignoble Prize in Environmental Science” and in the spirit of Oz, we will petition the Wizard to give them a social conscience.

Second place goes to Jane Lubchenco. As one blogger put it, ” I nominate her as a key player in the cover up of the death and destruction of the Gulf of Mexico, and in the vilification of those Marine Scientists who have concluded that there is a huge amount of oil left in the Gulf.”  Her nominators were certainly the most creative in proposing prizes, and their names have been omitted, just in case. The proposed awards included: “The golden Tar Ball award . Yes , a big trophy cup over flowing with tar balls.”  ”A picture of ten moon’s hanging over the side of an oil stained shrimp boat , with a For Sale sign on the shrimp boat.” “The old oil from every thing you will change the oil in this coming year. Cars, boats, motorcycles, ATVs, snowmobiles whatever sits in your garage or drive way. Think of it as a new form of recycling. Mail it to her.” Finally, someone wished to combine Jane’s award with Tony Hayward’s: “An all expense paid yacht trip for the two across the Gulf at the height of the spill, with an eternal flame lighting the bow.”

Hall of Fame Nominations and Percentage of Votes :

RealClimate.org – For providing facts to counter the propaganda by climate change deniers. (45%)

Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger – For helping defeat Proposition 23, an effort to gut California’s environmental laws and heavily funded by Texas oilmen. (27%)

Senator John Kerry – For his efforts to usher a Cap-and -Trade bill through the .S. Senate. (27%)

China – For making real efforts to develop alternate energy sources. (0%)

Hall of Shame Nominations and Percentage of Votes :

The Koch Brothers, owners of Koch Oil – For slowing progress on a sound energy policy by funding climate change deniers. (46%)

Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Head of NOAA – For her role in the Gulf oil spill, being too friendly toward the oil companies she was to regulate, and damage to the fishing industry. (38%)

Tony Hayward, ex-chairman of BP – For decisions leading up to the oil spill and for saying, “I want my life back.” (8%)

China – For surpassing the U.S as the number one country in pollution emissions. (8%)

Remember, check www.realclimate.org for the facts on climate science. And, keep in mind those who you wish to nominate for the 2011 Awards,  which  will be held next December.

Pabitra Mukhopadhyay has written an excellent article focusing attention on a serious environmental problem, that of arsenic in drinking water. Some areas of the U.S. have high arsenic levels in groundwater, but they are in less populated regions that have been able to find other sources for drinking water. However, many of the tube well drilled in Bangladesh and West Bengal, the adjoining Indian state, bring water to the surface that is highly contaminated with arsenic. The problem is serious as it was not discovered for a long time, and many people have been sickened or died from arsenic poisoning. Many more have been exposed to levels that will cause further health problems. Exposure at even low levels may cause cancer later as arsenic is a potent carcinogen. While Pabitra’s article dealt with the arsenic situation in general, this is an account of the physical and chemical processes related to arsenic contamination in ground water.

Arsenic is a reactive metalloid that is rarely found uncombined in nature. There are at least 50 minerals that have arsenic as a component. Most of these occur in areas that have had volcanic activity in the past. Weathering breaks down the minerals and streams pick up the arsenic compounds and carry them along. Evaporation, particularly in desert areas, will concentrate the arsenic compounds and the arsenic concentration may become very high in pools and shallow lakes. In many areas, the minerals eventually becomes covered with sediments so that they do not affect surface waters. However, water in aquifers still may come into contact with the minerals and leach out the arsenic compounds. Wells drilled into those aquifers will bring arsenic to the surface and the arsenic levels in the water may be too high for safe drinking water.

Human activities such as mining brings arsenic minerals to the surface, and leaching from mine tailings contaminates surface waters and shallow aquifers. Mobilization of arsenic in the sedimentary aquifers has been attributed to changes in the geochemical environment due to agricultural irrigation. In deeper wells, elevated arsenic concentrations are associated with compaction caused by groundwater withdrawals. A more recent concern is that our increasing use of coal may lead to increased levels of arsenic in groundwater. Coal contains an average amount of about 14.5 parts per million (ppm). That is a trace amount but since we burn about 4.5 billion tons of coal each year, coal mining brings about 67,000 tons of arsenic to the surface each year. When coal is burned, the arsenic ends up mostly in the coal ash, which is then disposed of in landfills, cements, and even by agricultural use. Once in the environment, some of the arsenic ultimately finds its way into the groundwater.

Arsenic in water is in the form of either As(V) compounds, called arsenates, or As(III) compounds, called arsenites. As(III) species are more toxic than As(V) species. However, one form may be converted into the other by chemical reactions depending on the environment. Oxidation converts As(III) to As(V) and reduction reactions convert As(V) to As(III). Water tests do not discriminate between the forms of arsenic and water standards usually have a standard for the total arsenic level of no more than 10 parts per billion, though some areas have even stricter standards. For comparison, the standard for cyanide in drinking water is around 200 ppb, so arsenic is about 20 times more toxic than cyanide. Also, arsenic is bioaccumulated and a carcinogen and the chances of poisoning or cancer goes up as the total exposure over time.

Toxicity: Arsenates are chemically similar to phosphates, and their toxic effect is expressed by interfering with reactions involving phosphates. Arsenate toxicity occurs when it replaces phosphate in the oxidative phosphorylation processes. This leads to mitochondrial impairment and inhibition of glycolytic energy metabolism, which causes cell damage and muscular weakness. Many biological systems carry out reducing reactions that convert As(V) to the more toxic As(III). As(III) is more reactive and forms strong bonds with functional groups such as the thiolates of cysteine and the imidazolium nitrogens of histidines. Arsenic toxicity depends on its chemical form and some plants and animals accumulate arsenic as relatively nontoxic organoarsenic molecules. Plants grown using water high in arsenic may not themselves be toxic.

Arsenate is predominant in water containing high levels of dissolved oxygen, while As(III) species occur under more reducing conditions such as found in deeper wells and anaerobic environments. The distribution of arsenite-oxidizing bacteria in upper layers and arsenate-reducing bacteria in lower depths of the sediments  impact the type of arsenic released into nearby tubewell groundwater.

Removal: Metal arsenites are much more soluble than the corresponding metal arsenates. Arsenates are more likely to be removed from water by being adsorbed by solid phases, such as sediments and soils. As(V) compounds exist in water in ionized forms that may be removed by precipitation with many metal ion, principally iron ions. In the pH ranges found in drinking water, As(III) exist as H3AsO3 which does not ionize enough to combine with metal ions, so As(III) is hard to remove by normal precipitation methods.

To overcome this problem, a very innovative and cost effective arsenic removal technology has been devised at Jadavpur University by Dr. Bhaskar Sengupta, and his colleagues. The method, subterranean arsenic removal (SAR), uses aerated groundwater that is recharged back into the aquifer to create an oxidation zone. The oxidation zone created by the aerated water boosts the activity of the arsenic-oxidizing microorganisms and oxidizes As(III) to As(V), which is then precipitated by the iron ions present in the water. No chemicals are used and the method has a very long operational life. This method shows great promise in making the water well contaminated with arsenic safer to drink.

(C)  2011 J.C. Moore

V   Share this.

The concentration of CO2 in the air is increasing rapidly due to our use of fossil fuels. Since plants require CO2, it would seem that the CO2 increase would be good for plants. However, that is a great simplification as the increased CO2 levels may not be good for most plants or for mankind.

CO2: In 1900, Arvid Hgbom found that factories were emitting about the same amount of CO2 as all the world’s volcanoes. This worried some people – but they were told not to worry, the plants and oceans would soon take up any excess. However, that has not been the case. We have destroyed many of the forests that take up CO2. Our factories and other activities now are emitting thirty billion tons of CO2 each year, around 200 times as much CO2 as all the world’s volcanoes. The CO2 dissolves in water to form carbonic acid, which has made the oceans 20% more acidic in the last century. This has damaged the coral and phytoplankton that take up CO2. Also, since CO2 is less soluble in the more acidic waters, the oceans are losing their ability to take up the excess CO2. Measurements by Charles Keeling of atmospheric CO2 levels have shown that the plants and the oceans are not taking up the CO2 nearly as fast as we are producing it. The concentration of CO2 in the air has increased rapidly over the last century, from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 385 ppm, a 38% increase. It would seem that one bright spot might be that the higher CO2 level would be good for plant growth. However, that may not be the case.

Historical Data shows that the concentration of CO2 in the air has varied widely over the Earth’s history, from over 7000 ppm in the Paleozoic era to a low of 180 ppm during ice ages. Ice core studies show that during the last four ice ages, the CO2 concentration was about 180 ppm during the cold periods and rose to about 280 ppm during the warmer interglacial periods. Warmer temperatures occur at the same times as the higher CO2 levels, so it is difficult to sort out the effect on plants caused by CO2 changes from those caused by temperature changes. Ancient plants that grew at higher temperatures and CO2 levels during the Paleozoic Era adapted to the drop in CO2 level and temperatures near the end of that era by developing leaves. Ancient leaved species, such as Ginko and Magnolia, when exposed to higher levels of CO2, change their leaf structures. Other plants have adapted by changing the altitude at which they grow. For the last 6000 years, we have been in an interglacial period. The Earth’s temperature has been relatively stable and the CO2 concentration has been about 280 ppm, except for the last century.

Plant Growth: According to Dr. Surendra Singh, a biologist with a background in botany, modern plants have adapted to the 280 million ppm CO2 concentration that has existed over the last thousands of years. There is no reason to believe that the increasing CO2 concentration would be better for plants as CO2 is seldom the limiting agent in plant growth and seed production. Plants also require water, nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, sunlight, and trace elements. Over-fertilizing, over-watering, or putting a shade plant in bright sun will harm the plant. More is not always better, and the increasing the CO2 levels might harm plants that are not adapted to higher CO2 levels.

Greenhouses: Commercial greenhouses have found that adding CO2 helps plants grow better. Some people claim that that proves CO2 stimulates plant growth, but that is not necessarily true. In an enclosed greenhouse, the plants quickly deplete the supply of CO2 if more is not made available. That may also be the case with hydroponic gardeners, who claim better production at higher CO2 levels. Specific crops may do better at the higher levels of CO2 – if all the other nutrients are supplied at an optimum level and plenty of water is available. That is not possible for plants in the outdoors. We do fertilize many crops, but doing so depletes the soil of other nutrients and there is an energy cost in producing and spreading the fertilizers.

Experiments: It is difficult to do outdoor experiments on the effect of CO2 levels on crop growth, but a few have been done. One experiment found that wheat grown at higher CO2 levels has more leaf mass and more kernels; however, the kernels are smaller and have less nitrogen, making them less valuable as a food source. In another experiment, higher CO2 levels in wheat used for grazing correlated with lower nitrogen in the leaves, making the crop less suitable for grazing. Agriculture experts are saying that the result of increasing CO2 levels coupled with increasing temperatures will lower crop yields or quality. That has been found to be true in rice production, and rice is a staple for half the world. In an inadvertent experiment, we have found that some invasive species, such as Kudzu, are well adapted to the increasing temperatures and CO2 levels. They have prospered and are expanding their range northward.

Certainly, plants need CO2, but to say more CO2 will make all plants grow better is a great supposition and oversimplification. The Earth’s atmospheric CO2 level is now 385 ppm, possibly higher than it has been in the last 20 million years, and it is increasing every year. By pouring more CO2 into the air each year, we are conducting a great experiment with unknown results. What will happen if the production from agricultural plants decreases significantly?

(C) 2011  J.C. Moore

V  Share this