3 ms·

It's not a slam dunk that more CO2 == good for plants. As per https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511 https://www

by abraae 8y ago

It's not a slam dunk that more CO2 == good for plants. As per https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511 https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrie... > As best scientists can tell, this is what happens: Rising CO2 revs up photosynthesis, the process that helps plants transform sunlight to food. This makes plants grow, but it also leads them to pack in more carbohydrates like glucose at the expense of other nutrients that we depend on, like protein, iron and zinc.

avar 8y ago
The GP is talking about a "greening effect" on the Earth due to CO^2, but the article you've linked to and this quote is talking about how the nutritional content of plants for human consumption might suffer with more CO^2. Unless you think that the only thing that's "good for plants" is their suitability for being eaten by humans this seems like an unrelated issue. The vast majority of the Earth's plant biomass isn't going to be eaten by humans. You're not going to nibble on the oak tree in your back yard, but increased CO^2 in the air will make it more efficient at sequestering carbon. It's not going to be some amazing increase in perceived growth rate. The CO^2 level indoors is often 2-3x what it is outside, and people already grow plants in those conditions.