At this point in our lives we've all heard it. Plants require carbon dioxide to live. Us humans require oxygen. As we breathe in oxygen, we release carbon dioxide, and as plants take in carbon dioxide, they release oxygen. As you can see, the relationship between plants and humans is extremely imperative for each species survival.
As time has progressed, despite the importance of carbon dioxide to our survival, there has been extensive research on the effects carbon dioxide has had on the environment. Global warming seems to be the biggest area of concern. Some effects that scientists have claimed that global warming will have on the environment is the loss of non-renewable fossil fuels, health issues, a loss in food production, and a loss of biodiversity.
Personally, I do not believe that the amount of carbon dioxide in the environment will have such negative effects on us. According to The Truth About Greenhouse Gases by William Harper, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 390 ppm. Harper states later on in his article that "atmospheric CO2 levels should be above 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5000 ppm to avoid harming people". The current ppm levels are much closer to the lowest amount required than it is to the highest amount. If carbon dioxide levels become excessive and reach levels closer to 5000 ppm, then there will be extreme repercussions to be concerned with.
"The message is clear that several factors must influence the earth's temperature, and that while CO2 is one of these factors, it is seldom the dominant one." (Harper)
Instead of spending such a large amount of time, energy, and money on attempting to lower the carbon dioxide levels in hopes of diminishing global warming, we could do so many more effective projects. We could use the money to help prevent to food crisis, we wouldn't have to change our lifestyles, and the plants may thrive even more.
This issue of CO2 emmissions seems to be a bigger deal than it should be according to that article which gave plenty of valid evidence supporting its opinion. And you are completely right when you say that money and time spent on this research might serve a better purpose if spent on more concerning issues. One thing to think about is that everything on both sides of the dilemma rely on predictions. We don't really know what will happen if we drastically lower or increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere. We can guess based on computer programs and data from past periods of high or low CO2 levels in Earth's history. But the reality is that the past conditions and biodiversity of the Earth is not the conditions and biodiversity of now, and we do not know exactly how increasing levels of CO2 will affect the Earth's current ecosystems. This being said, I tend to agree with what you said but just thought I'd throw something out there to think about.
ReplyDeleteI think that Harper gives us something to consider in this debate. Have we focused on the wrong parts of the global warming issue? Is this change in CO2 levels really a cause of our lifestyles or is it part of the earth's natural cycles? Should we try to work on more prominent issues like water distribution or pollution before we get too involved in the potentially more dynamic issue of the atmosphere?
ReplyDeleteSo along the same lines, do you think that we should immediately stop work on lowering CO2 levels or move more slowly toward other goals? Would you promote focus on GMO farming or organic farming to help with the food crisis?
I appreciate your last paragraph. I agree that too much attention is given to arguments over appropriate CO2 and carbon emissions, but I'm curious about what kind of other "more effective projects" we should be focusing our attention on?
ReplyDelete