A ‘greening’ Earth is bad for plant-eating animals
American Thinker,
by
Jack Hellner
Original Article
Posted By: Hazymac,
1/1/2025 11:42:22 AM
More pure idiocy from green pushers spread by the complicit media, via Yahoo News:
Climate change is making plants less nutritious − that could already be hurting animals that are grazers
More than one-third of all animals on Earth, from beetles to cows to elephants, depend on plant-based diets. Plants are a low-calorie food source, so it can be challenging for animals to consume enough energy to meet their needs. Now climate change is reducing the nutritional value of some foods that plant eaters rely on.
Human activities are increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and raising global temperatures. As a result, many plants are growing faster across ecosystems worldwide.
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
chagrined 1/1/2025 11:52:14 AM (No. 1864706)
This pap should surprise no one at this point in time. CO2 is a pollutant according to these fools, and mankind's miniscule contribution of CO2 is the straw that is breaking the camel's back. Now this! Derisive words currently escape me concerning this clownery.
11 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
MickTurn 1/1/2025 11:53:28 AM (No. 1864709)
Our Hunter Gatherer ancestors would DISAGREE!
8 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Ida Lou Pino 1/1/2025 11:58:08 AM (No. 1864715)
This is leftist "logic" - - - -
Green activists hate greenery. Greenpeace hates greenery. We all should hate greenery - - because - - because - - we should just hate it - - that's why!
Let me know when you figure it out - - because I can't.
7 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
DVC 1/1/2025 12:39:41 PM (No. 1864742)
CO2 is GOOD for the green plants, good for the planet, good for animals. Their lies don't sell any more.
12 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
SweetPea3 1/1/2025 12:57:09 PM (No. 1864756)
Female and baby animals are the most negatively impacted. /s
6 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Venturer 1/1/2025 1:16:47 PM (No. 1864774)
Gee: Lets see Green plants are growing because of CO2, but it is less nutritious. So what? There is more of it so they just have to eat more. Don't the Green plants make Oxygen>More green plants more oxygen. which animals use to make CO2.
I didn't plan this it was planned millenniums before humans got here, but it seems to me to be working fine.
4 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
DVC 1/1/2025 1:34:29 PM (No. 1864789)
Re #6. Don't assume that because they SAY it is less nutritious that this is factual. I doubt it is true. Anything the climatistas say, I assume is another lie until proven otherwise.
8 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 1/1/2025 2:00:01 PM (No. 1864806)
While I am not an expert I have done some reading and am aware of some interesting information. First, plants in general reach peak growth efficiency when CO2 levels reach around 1000 PPM, 2.5 times the current levels. Further, plants are capable, over long spans of time (multiple generations), of modifying their structure to take advantage of extra CO2. These modifications allow them to, for example, survive drought conditions better.
Also, they pump CO2 into greenhouses to improve growth. If the resulting products were somehow defective due to higher CO2, wouldn't they be stupid to keep doing it? Yet they continue to do it.
Do you know that if CO2 dropped to 150 PPM, most plants would start dying off, followed by the animals? They cannot function with CO2 that low.
Then the question comes up, if higher CO2 plants are less nutritious, what is it they might lack? Most likely, minerals like potassium, magnesium, calcium, phosphorus, and sulfur. These are available in fertilizers and different soils need to have a boost of different things to get the best growth.
I would speculate that an article like this comes up with such a conclusion because of the concept of scarcity. That would expect that if plants grow twice as big there was only enough nutrients for the original size plant to begin with, the larger plants would only each have 1/2 the nutrients per area. That is a simplistic view of plant growth. Farmers are well aware of how to improve nutrients in soil and add fertilizers or rotate crops to balance things out. Plus there is nothing to prove that the needed nutrients aren't available in abundance to begin with.
Again, go back to the greenhouse example. To get the best growth with more CO2, the right amount of nutrients must also be made available. This is farming 101. I would guess that numerous studies have been on the best use of high CO2 environments.
6 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
DVC 1/1/2025 2:35:44 PM (No. 1864840)
Excellent points, #8. We need to have MORE CO2, it is NOT a pollutant but a wonderful plant growth accelerator. This needs to be taught in every single school in the country, the world.
6 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Kate318 1/1/2025 2:44:48 PM (No. 1864846)
May the plants and animals on Planet Earth forgive us for what humans do in the name of “protecting” them. If the climate change nonsense keeps up, “Animal Farm” can’t be that far away.
4 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Ladyknowsalot 1/1/2025 4:34:54 PM (No. 1864908)
"Splain that to me, Lucy!"
1 person likes this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
anniebc 1/1/2025 4:52:35 PM (No. 1864912)
Oh great, plastic food.
0 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
kono 1/1/2025 8:01:09 PM (No. 1864978)
Something else to try to persuade everybody to eat bugs?
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Hazymac"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)