*[Enwl-eng] Is Extra CO2 Good/Food for Plants?

Mon Aug 11 22:13:34 MSK 2025

Друзья, день добрый!
Очень советую ознакомиться с этой статьей Анастасии Макарьевой, посвященной 
инициативам Администрации США доказать, что изменение климата всем на 
пользу.
Предупреждаю - автопереводчик справляется с переводом в лучшем случае на 3 с 
минусом.

Будьте внимательны, сверяйтесь с оригиналом.

В качестве примера:
For example, the most severe U.S. temperature extremes are said to have 
occurred during the Dust Bowl.
Например, самый суровый в США говорят, что во время работы пылесборника 
имели место экстремальные температуры.

Успехов,
Свет

От: Anastassia Makarieva <bioticregulation at substack.com>
Date: пн, 11 авг. 2025 г. в 16:18
Subject: Is Extra CO2 Good/Food for Plants?

Reflections on the latest DOE climate report: If we shrugged off 
anthropocentrism, we would see that CO₂-enhanced growth is not proof of a 
thriving biosphere, but a sign of its fever.
͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏      
͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     
 ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏    
  ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏   
   ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏  
    ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏ 
     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏ 
     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏ 
     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏ 
     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏ 
     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏ 
     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏ 
     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏ 
     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏ 
     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏ 
     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏ 
     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏ 
     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏     ͏ 
     ͏     ͏     

     Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

      Is Extra CO2 Good/Food for Plants?
      Reflections on the latest DOE climate report: If we shrugged off 
anthropocentrism, we would see that CO₂-enhanced growth is not proof of a 
thriving biosphere, but a sign of its fever.
                        Anastassia Makarieva

                        Aug 11

                 READ IN APP

      Heated Atmosphere

      Two noteworthy documents are now stirring debate in the international 
climate community: the latest DOE climate report by Drs. J. Christy, J. 
Curry, S. Koonin, R. McKitrick, and R. Spencer, and another, less publicized 
but equally provocative and disruptive, paper by Drs. R. Lindzen and W. 
Happer.

      In brief, both: (a) spotlight discrepancies between global climate 
models and actual observations, especially in tropospheric temperature 
trends (see my discussion of why this matters in my first ever substack 
post); (b) challenge the methods used to attribute extreme weather events to 
global climate change; and (c) argue that when records are extended to the 
early 20th century, current temperature extremes lose their exceptional 
status — implying that climate change is not the primary driver of some 
recent extremes. For example, the most severe U.S. temperature extremes are 
said to have occurred during the Dust Bowl.

      Above all, however, both reports — though authored mainly by 
physicists (and one economist) — devote substantial attention to a central 
claim: that additional CO₂ benefits the biosphere, making plants grow 
faster, larger, and more water-efficient, thereby increasing agricultural 
productivity. That is the claim we will examine in depth today.

      First, a disclaimer. These reports inevitably provoke strong 
reactions, and I respect those feelings. From my own experience, despite, or 
thanks to, modern advances in industrial agricultural output, many people 
today consume nutrient-poor diets (a point also noted in the DOE report, 
which I discuss further below) and may lack the nutrients needed for 
emotional balance — all the more so in a world where bad news dominates. Yet 
if one can set aside the emotional heat, these reports offer an intellectual 
feast: a rare opportunity to see an unusually wide spectrum of 
interpretations of the same climate data. Given the high-level nature of 
this mainstream critique, the mainstream will have to respond — revealing 
which points can be defended and which will prove more fragile.

      As an initial, detailed public response, I recommend the document from 
Professor Michael MacCracken, which directly addresses the paper by Lindzen 
and Happer. It is available for all to read and judge for themselves.

      Ecological astigmatism
      While these documents cover a wide range of physical interpretations 
of climate phenomena, they all share what I would call ecological 
astigmatism — a distorted view of nature in which any increase in growth is 
mistaken for genuine health: the more, the better. I see ecological 
astigmatism not as the flaw of a few papers, or a limitation of physicists 
compared to biologists, but as a chronic condition of modern civilization — 
a distortion of vision that blinds us to life’s complexity. It spares almost 
no one, not even those who consider themselves ecological thinkers, and 
overcoming it requires conscious effort. (I recommend reading “How Do We 
Know the Truth” by Professor Chuck Pezeshki.)

      To see why this perspective is misleading, let’s start from an 
economic parallel. Many people know that GDP (gross domestic product) is not 
a measure of collective well-being, and its growth does not necessarily mean 
society is progressing in any meaningful way. As Nate Hagens pointed out in 
“The 10 Core Myths Still Taught in Business Schools”, GDP simply tallies any 
activity measured in money. If an environmental disaster destroys a city, 
rebuilding it will add to GDP — and if extra work is needed, GDP growth will 
even be recorded as a result of the disaster. (Conversely, as Ugo Bardi 
notes, GDP as a measure of monetary exchange can rise while actual economic 
activity, measured by energy consumption, declines.)

      A more natural example: imagine an anthill where ants live in quiet, 
orderly rhythm. Now picture someone jabbing a stick into their home. 
Suddenly, activity surges — workers rush to repair the damage, guards swarm 
to confront the intruder. It’s a burst of energy and movement, but hardly a 
sign of improved ant prosperity. It’s a stress response.

      Similarly, a rise in biological activity at the ecosystem level is not 
automatically a marker of ecological health; it can be a symptom of strain. 
Which brings us to “CO₂ fertilization.”

      If we can’t entirely shed our human frame of reference, think of Earth’s 
biosphere as a giant production line. Each year, plants and algae 
manufacture about 100 gigatons of organic carbon — roughly a trillion tons 
of fresh green biomass. Yet the atmospheric carbon reservoir is relatively 
small: only about 800 gigatons as CO₂. Almost all of that annual output is 
quickly consumed by bacteria, fungi and animals, which return the carbon to 
the atmosphere. This tight production–consumption loop kept preindustrial 
CO₂ levels stable; even a small, lasting imbalance would have sent them 
rising or falling.

      We have now subjected the biosphere to a vast experiment — injecting 
enormous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning fossil 
fuels at a rate equal to about one-tenth of what the biosphere synthesizes 
each year. How did the biosphere respond? Global carbon budget assessments 
tell us: it began producing extra organic carbon — carbon that, crucially, 
nobody consumed! (Think about it: the biospheric production line has ramped 
up output, but no one has claimed the surplus. How should we interpret that? 
What does it mean?)

      As a result, a biotic sink for anthropogenic carbon formed, so 
atmospheric CO₂ now accumulates not at 10 GtC per year as we burn fossils, 
but at a significantly lower rate. I’ve covered these processes in detail in 
two earlier posts, which I invite you to read:

      New Global Carbon Data Revives the "Missing Sink" Problem
      Nature is trying to fix our mess—it’s time to recognize its power

      Here, it’s enough to note that many people — including the DOE report 
authors — take this as evidence that “CO₂ fertilization” has made the 
biosphere bigger. Dr. Craig Idso, for instance, illustrates his point with 
photos showing plants grown under elevated CO₂ concentrations becoming 
larger (see below).

      But a recent study by Bar-On et al. (2024) in Science — unmentioned in 
the DOE climate report — shows that global plant biomass has not increased 
over the past thirty years. This means something else is happening on a 
planetary scale: plants don’t grow bigger but are producing extra material 
that the rest of the biosphere does not consume, so it accumulates 
somewhere — likely in soils or in dissolved form in the ocean.

      This fits perfectly with the biotic regulation concept: the biosphere 
treats excess atmospheric CO₂ as a disturbance and works to restore its 
optimal, lower concentration by removing it. Think of it as the biosphere’s 
fever — the same physiological response your own body triggers when 
threatened by toxins from harmful bacteria or viruses. Metabolic rates rise 
as the body fights to re-establish balance. Fever is not a sign of health; 
it is a sign of life under stress. The same is true for our biosphere — it 
is alive, and it is struggling. And yet we call it “CO₂ fertilization.”

      Guess what happens if the body is never allowed to recover, but is 
continually reinfected and forced to sustain a fever for a long time?

      Plant obesity?
      Now, let’s keep bending our brains away from the “more is better” 
mindset and look at these photos from Lindzen and Happer (2025) meant to 
send a positive message about CO₂ being good for plants.

      In the image above, a plant grows larger and larger as carbon dioxide 
levels rise. This looks like a good thing.

      In the image below, four human bodies show a similar progression — but 
the largest is clearly obese, a condition linked to higher risks of numerous 
health problems. Bigger isn’t always better.

      We often assume that ecosystems are limited by nutrients, which must 
sometimes arrive through extraordinary means — like the carcasses of dead 
salmon or dust blown across the Atlantic from the Sahara. (This is, 
incidentally, another anthropocentric idea, mimicking international trade, 
something that does not truly exist in nature.) But “more nutrients” doesn’t 
automatically mean “more success.” Plants that grow unusually large in 
nutrient-rich areas are not necessarily better off when it comes to 
long-term resilience. For example, Shuli Chen and colleagues found that in 
the Amazon, the trees most resilient to drought are the slower-growing 
species rooted in the less fertile soils.

      Even if we neglect how the biosphere is doing but focus on our own 
short-term needs, relying on fast-growing plants that churn out poorly 
digestible extra biomass does little to improve our nutrition. The DOE 
report authors did acknowledge this — it is well known that our food has 
been losing nutritional value. While it still delivers (often poorly 
digestible) calories, it increasingly fails to provide the full spectrum of 
nutrients needed for a healthy body and mind to reach their full potential. 
The authors, however, brushed this aside, suggesting that depleted food can 
simply be “fortified” with vitamins. (They likewise dismissed concerns that 
prolonged exposure to elevated CO₂ levels might be harmful to human health 
and cognition (see, e.g., U. Bardi, P. Bierwirth, K.-W. Huang, and J. 
McIntyre 2025), arguing that acute effects have only been observed at 
concentrations much higher than current ambient levels. But chronic exposure 
is not the same as acute.)

      Regarding the vitamins, indeed, the food supplement market is booming, 
but biologically active nutrient forms — unlike conventional synthetic 
vitamins — are not cheap, they are very costly. If we tally the effort and 
resources required to manufacture the “vitamins” now missing from our food, 
any supposed agricultural gains from “CO₂ fertilization” could easily 
vanish.

      That said, I have long maintained that with our current population 
numbers, providing healthy food for everyone is likely impossible without 
destroying all remaining tropical forests. Any large-scale shift from 
industrial agriculture — with its maximized yields — to more natural, 
ecosystem-based farming will inevitably reduce productivity and raise global 
food prices. In nature, “better” is not “more”: when you respect natural 
laws, you must leave more for the ecosystem itself, and that portion is 
subtracted from your own yield. Paradoxically, today’s industrial 
agriculture — while delivering mostly poor but cheap calories and poisoning 
the soil — also partially, and temporarily, shields tropical forests by 
reducing the economic incentive to burn them for cropland. We live in an 
entangled world where good and evil walk hand in hand.

      Outlook
      I don’t have a clear-cut conclusion today. It is hard to live when the 
world feels saturated with bad news. One can either embrace the art of 
grieving or retreat into rationalization. The DOE climate report can be read 
as an attempt to counterbalance the doom-laden narratives of climate science 
by suggesting that things are not quite as dire as they are portrayed.

      One of its strongest implicit arguments is that if we were to 
aggressively cut off fossil fuel supply tomorrow, billions of people would 
die. The debate here is not about whether climate change is harmful, but 
whether we can act aggressively without unleashing immense human suffering. 
Our civilization, like an addict, is deeply dependent on fossil fuels, and 
any abrupt withdrawal would bring severe pain. As fossil fuels naturally 
phase out due to their declining EROI, that pain might be less acute. 
Although I’m not certain. These are complicated matters.

      But I do find some arguments naive — for example, claims that 
California is “going renewable” while importing $100+ billion worth of goods 
from China. China is not going renewable; it is expanding all forms of 
energy consumption, including coal — and in 2024, its coal demand reached a 
new all-time high. One could say California is going green at the expense of 
China going black.

      I often think of a banner found all across Russian railways: 
“Remember! It is not possible to immediately stop the train!”. Once a train 
is thundering down the tracks, momentum rules — and sometimes it’s already 
too late to jump clear. In the same way, our fossil-fuel momentum carries us 
forward whether we like it or not. With all the uncertainties in play, I 
want to share the DOE report authors’ hope that the ongoing accumulation of 
CO₂ will not prove fatal for the biosphere as we know it (and I am thinking 
of the coral reefs in the first place, which the DOE report authors 
mistakenly claim to have been rebounding.)

      Regardless of CO₂ accumulation, the Earth’s biosphere is gravely 
ailing under our direct assaults — logging, burning, and chemical poisoning. 
This reality is ignored (or exapátisiologized) by the climate mainstream, by 
their opponents, and, historically, by our civilization as a whole.

      The chances that we could wipe out all life on Earth are small. 
Finding harmony with the biosphere is, above all, a matter of our own 
survival and continued progress as a thinking species. It seems that once 
our urbanized civilization reached a certain level of detachment from the 
natural world, we rapidly lost the capacity to process complex ideas. The 
greatest discoveries in science were made when people lived on the brink 
between urban and natural life — already enjoying the comfort of the former 
but still exposed to the complexity of the latter. This was also the time 
when classical music flourished.

      I do not know whether a civilization truly in harmony with the 
biosphere is possible, but I want, at the very least, to raise my voice in 
its favor.

      Upgrade to paid

      You're currently a free subscriber to Biotic Regulation and Biotic 
Pump. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
      Upgrade to paid

                              Like
                        Comment
                        Restack

      © 2025 Anastassia Makarieva
      548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104
      Unsubscribe

-- 
Вы получили это сообщение, поскольку подписаны на группу "Региональная 
платформа по водным вопросам Центральной Азии и др регионов".

От: Svet Zabelin <svetfrog at gmail.com>
Date: пн, 11 авг. 2025 г. в 18:32
Subject: Fwd: Is Extra CO2 Good/Food for Plants?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.enwl.net.ru/pipermail/enwl-eng/attachments/20250811/fd5098e3/attachment-0001.html>