3 ms·

> "All plants grow faster with more CO₂, but lianas benefit even more." I have read other articles (by climate scientists) that say that the increase on CO₂ is

> "All plants grow faster with more CO₂, but lianas benefit even more." I have read other articles (by climate scientists) that say that the increase on CO₂ is not sufficient for this to be significant. > "We shouldn't intervene until we fully understand their ecological role" Given the dramatic damage he says it is doing in some areas, surely cutting them in at least those areas would make sense?

vasco 2y ago
> Given the dramatic damage he says it is doing in some areas, surely cutting them in at least those areas would make sense? You being personally convinced about something doesn't mean you can't be aware of your own limitations and want to be careful about implementing solutions too early to limit their impact of you're wrong. The difference is clear when you give an opinion about someone else's problems and how they should proceed vs when you have to decide about your own life. It's harder to implement change when you have to live with the consequences.
- graemep 2y ago
  Yes, but which is the lesser risk then? There seems to be a bias to do nothing rather than do something even if there are known benefits to doing something. There are definitely lots of consequences to lots of things we have done with regard to climate change and pollution. If we avoided everything with consequences the only action is do nothing. > The difference is clear when you give an opinion about someone else's problems The global environment is everyone's problem, surely?
  - vasco 2y ago
    > The global environment is everyone's problem, surely? That's my point, it falls in the "you have to live with it" category.
adrian_b 2y ago
The effect depends on the plant and on its environment. While more CO2 is good for plants, the associated changes in temperature and humidity can be bad and they can counterbalance the effect of increased CO2. There has been a recently published study, for which I cannot remember a link, which has evaluated the current effects of the climate change for 7 major plant crops. For 3 of them, including rice, increased CO2 has resulted in higher productions, but for other 4, including maize, the associated changes in air temperature and humidity has determined lower productions, despite the higher availability of CO2.
- graemep 2y ago
  Those are for specific crops. Presumably, if some crops become higher yielding (in a particular area) people will plant more of them so the next effect will be higher plant growth. Similarly, in nature, plants that benefit most will spread, so the net effect will be higher plant growth. SO overall we should have an increase in plant growth?

vasco 2y ago

> Given the dramatic damage he says it is doing in some areas, surely cutting them in at least those areas would make sense? You being personally convinced about something doesn't mean you can't be aware of your own limitations and want to be careful about implementing solutions too early to limit their impact of you're wrong. The difference is clear when you give an opinion about someone else's problems and how they should proceed vs when you have to decide about your own life. It's harder to implement change when you have to live with the consequences.

graemep 2y ago
Yes, but which is the lesser risk then? There seems to be a bias to do nothing rather than do something even if there are known benefits to doing something. There are definitely lots of consequences to lots of things we have done with regard to climate change and pollution. If we avoided everything with consequences the only action is do nothing. > The difference is clear when you give an opinion about someone else's problems The global environment is everyone's problem, surely?
- vasco 2y ago
  > The global environment is everyone's problem, surely? That's my point, it falls in the "you have to live with it" category.

adrian_b 2y ago

The effect depends on the plant and on its environment. While more CO2 is good for plants, the associated changes in temperature and humidity can be bad and they can counterbalance the effect of increased CO2. There has been a recently published study, for which I cannot remember a link, which has evaluated the current effects of the climate change for 7 major plant crops. For 3 of them, including rice, increased CO2 has resulted in higher productions, but for other 4, including maize, the associated changes in air temperature and humidity has determined lower productions, despite the higher availability of CO2.

graemep 2y ago
Those are for specific crops. Presumably, if some crops become higher yielding (in a particular area) people will plant more of them so the next effect will be higher plant growth. Similarly, in nature, plants that benefit most will spread, so the net effect will be higher plant growth. SO overall we should have an increase in plant growth?