Submitted 1 day ago by MousePotatoDoesStuff@piefed.social to memes@sopuli.xyz
https://media.piefed.social/posts/It/dE/ItdE2yWohcNVpJS.jpg
“CO₂ isn’t a pollutant” climate change deniers are missing the point, and hopefully this meme is simple enough for them to understand. I’d post it on Reddit too, but I’m trying to cut down on Reddit use.
Alt text:
Meme about Wreck-It Ralph (labeled “Fossil fuel emissions") overfeeding a pink rabbit (labeled “Plants") pancakes (labeled “C0₂")
“Uh, water is essential to all life, so, like, I think you’re really overreacting about this flood.”
The simple science is that plants do grow in heavier CO2 environments, sometimes very well. But they grow differently, which is a problem for food plants, because they don't produce what we want from them as food unless we also add heavy nutrients and water. In a greenhouse environment, this can increase production. In the outside, it's far more difficult to get good results.
So they aren't wrong, they just don't understand the bigger picture. Change one thing, other things change too, not always in the direction you want.
Also we are cutting down forests…
ironically eating meat is one of the biggest contributors of global warming
If CO2 was thick enough at ground level, where plants grow, we’d be feeling it. We don’t have low O2 sensors, we have high CO2 sensors. Humans can happily suffocate and not notice as long as they can expel breath.
Using a rabbit for this analogy may not have been the best choice.
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
Sure, if you let the plants grow at a pace that matches your co2 output.
(We’re not doing that)
anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
I calculated it a while back and we would need to cover entire the landmass of earth with old growth forrest every 20 years to offset ongoing emissions.
drath@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
How much more would we need to emit to capture all that, freeze it into a giant cube and fucking YEET that into space? No carbon - no problem.
Not a serious proposal, just curious
birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
I’m interested in your calculations, where…?
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
Meanwhile we are cutting the last of old growth.
shalafi@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Scientists figured we’d have to cover all of North America, tundra, desert, ALL of it, to offset 10-years of CO2 output. And then we’d have to do it again in every 10-years.
Why does it have to be old growth though? New growth is faster growing species and has more plants at the ground level. I would think a hectare of growing pine would capture more CO2 than a relatively static oak forest. ?
BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 1 day ago
And even then, when these plants die, they release all the carbon they captured. So you need to take that into account as well.
sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Not necessarily! We could theoretically bury that biomass deep underground where the pressure and heat eventually turn it into fossil fuels.
Not that it’s particularly likely, but it is technically possible!
VibeSurgeon@piefed.social 1 day ago
I mean, not quite, it all depends on what happens to them once they die
then_three_more@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Aren’t crops (which of course are plants) actually growing faster due to increased co2. Due to this they’re also not able to develop as much nutrients and vitamins etc
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
My understanding is that nutrition has got more to do with selective breeding, soil microbial ecosystems, and depletion of plant micronutrients - we focus on macronutrients (N-P-K) in fertilizer.