going green is NOT green

[Wylde Abandyn]

Plants produce oxygen ... humans exale CO2 ... plants need CO2 to grow ... humans need oxygen to LIVE ... reducing CO2 in the atmosphere will cause FEWER plants to grow ... NOT more plants to grow ... so, how is reducing CO2 in the atmosphere (which increases the "greehouse effect" - what grows in a greenhouse? plants!) ... a good thing? "Going Green" by reducing CO2 emissions WILL NOT create a GREENER planet ... it will create a BROWN planet ... basic biology doesn't CHANGE because some politicians and other influential people want to make a buck.

[Jack Z]

I think maybe the "green" is "going" from the pockets of the tax payers and into the pockets of climate change entrepreneurs, and Nobel prize winners.

[Bull]

Just curious, wouldn't there be a balance? Isn't it possible that there is a point where plants can't keep up, at that point we are just adding to the ozone layer and there in lies the problem.

[Wylde Abandyn]

Not according to biology ... but, feel free to "believe" whatever you want ... it's a free country ... God bless you, Bull

[Bull]

You to Wylde

[darroll]

All due respect Bull,
No.

[funesthememorious]

Bull is absolutely correct. Photosynthesis and respiration, one the reverse of the other, play an important role in the carbon cycle and are at equilibrium with one another. Carbon dioxide levels influence atmospheric temperature, as temperatures go up photosynthesis goes down in plant species which most benefit from the extra carbon dioxide.

Plants are not all alike, some plants already maximize the carbon dioxide available and will not measurably benefit from increased carbon dioxide. Others will benefit from the increased CO2 and could possibly ravage the ecosystem by overuse of the resources. Additionally, for many plant species, photorespiration occurs at high light intensities and temperatures and competes with photosynthesis limiting further increases in the rate of photosynthesis.

More of anything is not always better.