Canadian debunks Carbon Tax with simple math. Trees clean up far more carbon than everyone is producing.
(files.catbox.moe)
"The more you know!"
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (64)
sorted by:
There is an upper limit of CO2 -> plant life. If there is too much, many plant species will suffer.
Different events do change things. You're wrong about that.
Many plant species will suffer? LOL tell me, have you been the equator? Do you see a dearth of plant life there? Plants need CO2, sunlight, warmth, soil, and water. If they have those, they grow. CO2 is spread pretty evenly across the planet. Where there is no plant life it's either too cold, too dry, or both. And that's determined by geography and their distance from the poles.
There's also a set amount of water on this planet. Heat it up all you want, all you'll get is more rain, and thus, more plant life in more places drinking up the CO2.
Get a grip. CO2 isn't a problem. And warmer temperatures would be a good thing for everybody, but since CO2 doesn't affect that, it's a non-issue either way. Our planet is what it is. It's distance from the sun is what it is, and our ability to affect an of it on a macro-scale is nill.
You said the CO2 is distributed evenly across the planet (it’s not, btw), so why would going to the equator change anything
Different plants require different conditions to thrive, hence why different areas have different plant life. There are many species of plants that do not survive as well with too much CO2
Oh my God. It's a gas. It's always moving, so yes, it's PRETTY even across the planet. The equator doesn't have any more or any less CO2 on average than the rest of the planet. That's not why plant life is so rich there. It's rich there because they have tons of direct sunlight, it's warm, and it's wet. The direct sunlight and warmth are a result of being on the fucking equator, and the wet is due to its geography. Drive to southern california sometime. You'll pass Vegas which is a dry desert, and in a few minutes you'll head over a mountain range that drops into California, where shit grows pretty much no matter what you do. Why? The clouds that form over the ocean hit those mountains, compress, drop rain all over southern california, and have very little left by the time they make it over the mountain range.
CO2 has nothing to do with anything except for the fact that without it, there would be no plants. But we have it, so there ARE plants.
Why is this hard?
I agree. That's why I was confused when the comment before seemed to use plant life on the equator as evidence that plants are always going to be fine with more CO2:
I already understand that plants use CO2 in the photosynthesis process to make glucose. However, what I am saying, and what evidence and observations have shown, is that in conditions with too much CO2, many plant species suffer.
A little reading for you:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/dont-plants-do-better-environments-very-high-co2
LOL I'm sorry. That article...you found that...compelling?
I'm quite certain you didn't read it given that you replied within a minute of me sending the link, so I'm not sure how you were able to pass judgement.
If you have actual data to support what you've said, I'm happy to read it, but it seems that you're just clinging to your belief without caring about facts.
One more:
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/12/more-co2-in-the-atmosphere-hurts-key-plants-and-crops-more-than-it-helps/
LOL. Follow the money, pal. Your science isn't science. Use your brain.
Unfortunately my brain, like yours, doesn't have full intricate knowledge of how CO2 levels affect plant life. That's why I read about plants to better understand the process and find research and data that gives a more complete picture.
Are you saying that the only reason you believe what you're saying is because your brain says so?