Utah lawmaker: Our atmosphere needs more CO2... for the plants

Arguing that we need more carbon dioxide, not less, in the atmosphere, Rep. Jerry Anderson, R-Price, has proposed legislation that would limit the state’s ability to regulate emissions of the greenhouse gas.

"We are short of carbon dioxide for the needs of the plants," Anderson, a retired science teacher, told the committee overseeing environmental programs in the the state on Tuesday. "Concentrations reached 600 parts per million at the time of the dinosaurs and they did quite well. I think we could double the carbon dioxide and not have any adverse effects."

Source

“I’m glad we had some global warming so it didn’t get any colder than that,” he said.

See people against global warming is wrong, you need to think on the plants man they really like that CO2, its like they breathe the thing, so please pollute more so we get better vegetation

Anderson’s bill would prevent the establishment of state standards for carbon dioxide below atmospheric concentrations of 500 parts per million.

Yes lets go back to dinosaurs conditions they did well, its not like they became extinct or anything



lets go to the levels of CO2 where a super volcano was active and generated mass extinctions like the Siberian Traps, the trees will be huge, or not what you say fellow ATS?

I always like to think the anti-global warmist would support crack smoking if the pro-global warming people came out and said crack was bad.

Look, it really is a case of trying to make a better world.

Go look at China and tell me more CO2 is good.

Ill wait while who ever we send gets a hazmat suit and proper medical coverage for asthma on his return.


Really whats going to happen, We clean # up and the global warming people where wrong?

Oh damn, we cleaned this planet up for no reason.

reply to post by benrl


well china issue is not really CO2, their air got many more things and its more likely an acid cloud than air but the guy is right, a warmer place with more CO2 would help vegetation, but if you see a news like this one:

Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change, scientists say

It would appear there are more factors to consider and things are not as the good guy says, after all he just want to help the plants, and perhaps make a little profit in the process.

People could argue that this news is just propaganda but who really knows

The problem with the entire climate change issue, is that it is political in nature, scientific research takes a back seat. And the only causalty in this dance is the truth.

The sad fact is that both sides are correct. We do need to cut pollution, as rising temperatures will change the eco system, causing extinction of some species and allowing for the raise of others. At the same time, if we put a ban on things like carbon dioxide, and cut those, it can also have an equally devastating effect on the environment. There needs to be a balance and a means to not only protect and preserve, but also allow for the continued growth of the planet as a whole. And as much as we would not like to hear it, the solution lays in the pens of those who hold power, and in the people of the planet.

Yes the plants, we must save the plants.

How on Earth do these people get elected? It's obvious to me this guy's pushing an agenda for some industry that generates CO2.

Wouldn't it be great if politicians weren't allowed to take money from private businesses and corporations? What if the only money they were allowed to use came from individual donations or their own pocket books?

He's actually got a fair point...but it's going to go over about as well as Galileo demanding the Church accept Earth wasn't the center of the Universe. Wrong message..wrong time..and he won't be seeing future election victories would be my guess.

Idiocy on a stick. Ugh.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Yes the plants need human intervention because natural phenomena like volcanoes does not release CO2,I fail to see the correct reasoning

Indigent
reply to post by benrl

 

well china issue is not really CO2, their air got many more things and its more likely an acid cloud than air but the guy is right, a warmer place with more CO2 would help vegetation, but if you see a news like this one:

Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change, scientists say

It would appear there are more factors to consider and things are not as the good guy says, after all he just want to help the plants, and perhaps make a little profit in the process.

People could argue that this news is just propaganda but who really knows

Pfff

China's problem, is not regulating emissions by not having stricter environmental protection, which is the very crux of this issue.

People may hate Ca's emission laws, but growing up in L.A. in the 80's I remember days I couldn't go outside because it was bad.

People have to be willing to at least admit pollution is bad, anything less is retarded, theres no point in discussing when people can't even agree on that.

The growing wealth of China and India, means that we are about to see a HUGE increase in CO2 emissions, if we in the US can't get our crap in order on these things, what do you think those two countries are going to do to the environment.

Look at what India does already to the rivers there, china to, Imagine both with a boom that expands the urban sprawl like the Industrial revolution did for the US.

This issue needs to be addressed, even if global warming is fake, Pollution is not and its effects on health most certainly are real.

reply to post by Indigent


Sounds like that ex science teacher needs to go back to school if he thinks the only major difference in the atmosphere from the time of the dinosaurs till now is the co2 content.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I imagine the guy have an orchid garden he carefully attends but some are getting wilted and after he tried all else the only way he thinks can save them is giving more of what they breathe.

I prefer to imagine that, instead to think he is just an evil capitalist.

reply to post by Indigent

Yes lets go back to dinosaurs conditions they did well, its not like they became extinct or anything

It's not like the dinosaurs were wiped out by co2 or anything either… This is a nonsensical statement.

reply to post by benrl


thats why we are all on about CO2 for NOTHING
so they don't have to look at pollution for real

same old problem, reaction, solution...
only al gore got busted
carbon credit trading....Blood and Gore...
jeeez, how much do people need to see?

a math model where no matter what numbers you put in the result goes up
has it in reality?
nope
if humans have anything to fear its thier own CO 2pidity


oh look more speculation
www.nasa.gov...
no facts yet mind you just more models...from the folks that can't usually even get the weather right three days away...

sdcigarpig
The problem with the entire climate change issue, is that it is political in nature, scientific research takes a back seat. And the only causalty in this dance is the truth.

This is the most correct statement considering climate change, all of us on here are reading some other's research and forming an opinion on what sounds best to them. Maybe there wouldn't be as much CO2 in the air if we stopped cutting down all the forests. lets start there for environmental impact? Can anyone tell me why i am wrong? please?

reply to post by turboneon

Basic biology is what will tell you that you are wrong. All plant life, gets it nuetriants from the water, and air. Plants take in CO2, and through a process of photosensys convert it to sugars and release O2 back into the atmosphere. So cutting down trees would have a direct impact on the environment.

And according to some studies, having large forests is also good for the environment, as the roots of the trees go deep into the earth, and for those that live in flood prone areas, this can mean that the impact of say a flood would be reduced as those roots in the soil acts like a means for the water to sink into the earth, which in turn begins to move through and fill up the aquaferes of fresh water under the ground, that we tend to use.

reply to post by boncho


boncho love to the best

Except you should read a bit more on how CO2 makes the oceans acid and kill most of the aquatic life

Permian extinction

reply to post by Indigent

lets go to the levels of CO2 where a super volcano was active and generated mass extinctions like the Siberian_Traps, the trees will be huge, or not what you say fellow ATS?

I say we not assume too much nor speculate too far.
From your Wiki link;

This massive eruptive event spanned the Permian-Triassic boundary, about 250 million years ago, and is cited as a possible cause of the Permian-Triassic extinction event. One of the major questions is whether the Siberian Traps was directly responsible, or if it was itself caused by some other larger event, such as an asteroid impact.

What was the cause of this extinction event? Asteroid impact, Massive volcanic eruptions, something else or all of these things together? I wouldn’t be willing to blame it entirely on carbon dioxide.

reply to post by benrl

Look at what India does already to the rivers there, china to, Imagine both with a boom that expands the urban sprawl like the Industrial revolution did for the US.

The issue is with carbon dioxide not industrial pollutants. I don’t think anyone is arguing that pollution is a good thing.

reply to post by Devino


Yes i would say if an entire continent turns into mordor CO2 would be just a small part of the problem.

So why does my crappy op matters and not the opinion of the guy that want to save the trees?

It would be nice if you people talk a little bit about the guy in Utah and not the dinosaurs/china/...

A little campfire is good for the plants near the fire, it gives carbon to the trees and plants. There aren't any plants way up in the atmosphere. The emissions of the Jets are not even close to the trees. The super light super clean emissions of cars and from burning fuels go up. The soot binds to the carbon dioxide and lands on the ground and is slowly released to the trees.

I think that making things too clean is causing some of the problem and also concentrating this CO2 in an area overloads the ability of the plants to use the CO2.

So I have to say this guy is flawed in his perception. If there were more trees to tie up the CO2 it would be better. The older and bigger the trees, the better they work. Corn used to make gasohol does nothing because the carbon is again freed when the fuel is burned. I would say the best way to do things is to burn dead trees and cut some to thin out the woods so the other trees can get bigger and more efficient. The worst thing to do is clearcut an area. Leave the branches in the woods, this is food for the growing trees. The idea of using pellets for fuel being an eco-friendly practice is flawed, it is a waste of resources. Even if you take the cornstocks out of the field to make pellets, you sooner or later deplete the soils.

Seems like economics makes the rules for ecology.

At the rate we're chopping jungles and rainforests down and concreting over anything resembling a blade of grass, there won't be anything left to breathe in the CO2.

reply to post by doobydoll


Perhaps Monsanto will present a solution for that when the time comes