The problem is, there aren't any benefits of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations - unless one is looking forward to drilling for oil in the arctic, or has contracts to move the world's naval ports to higher ground...RegGuheert wrote:While the WSJ article did a poor job in it's attempts to disprove the dangers of carbon dioxide it did point out some interesting benefits of increased carbon dioxide concentrations.
Most plants will grow more total mass in a higher CO2 environment, for example, but the mass is in the stalk and not the seeds. In the real world, more CO2 means less productive harvests (10% lower seed yields for each 1°C increase), higher water demand (though in a world of more frequent flood/drought cycles), higher rates of weed growth, and reduced effectiveness of herbacides.
The "CO2 is plant food" crock has been debunked so many times already...
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/05/10/wal ... seriously/
http://www.climatecentral.org/library/f ... good_thing
The results of these experiments have shown that the crops do not thrive as well in this environment. Plants do need CO2, but they also need water, nitrogen, and other nutrients. Increase one of these without increasing the others and there’s a limit to how much the plants will benefit. Some do not grow much more at all. Others, like wheat, grow bigger but end up with less nitrogen. As a result, insects end up eating more to get the nitrogen they need. The nutritional value of food plants would be similarly reduced for other animals — including humans.
There's no silver lining here at all.