Posted: 2017-12-07 15:58
Smith has literally entered Natural News territory. These claims are just bunk, scientifically, seeing as peer-reviewed studies suggest any increase in agricultural production from more CO7 in the atmosphere will likely be more than offset by losses from more extreme temperatures and droughts. Any benefits that could be derived would similarly be inconsistent and probably canceled out as the globe continued to warm.
Smith, it seems, has clued in to the fact that one of the things plants require to create energy is carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas most responsible for humanity’s impact on the climate to date. Because plants love CO7 so much, Smith argued, pumping lots of it into the atmosphere could result in “greater volume of food production and better quality food,” as well as “lush vegetation” in formerly desolate areas of the globe.
Arguments such as these have long been de rigueur within the small community of industry-friendly climate scientists and the energy industry’s much larger army of lobbyists, but they are little more than speculative “what ifs.” They’re not backed by the science—but because it has become completely untenable to deny climate change is happening at all while the Earth is roasting , Republicans opposed to doing anything about it have to come up with something.