Someone decided to study plants that have grown for generations near high CO2 springs.
Normally these studies look at FACE experiments and then criticize those experiments because they are only single generation.
Guess what they found.?
In a new meta-analysis, Saban et al. took a different approach and assessed all of the data collected for plant response to high CO2 concentration from plants grown for multiple generations over many decades in naturally high CO2 springs. Such springs are found across the world – with 23 highlighted here- and many have been the focus of studies on the physiological responses of plants to rising CO2, similar to those undertaken in FACE experiment. Comparing these two approaches, plants subjected to higher CO2against plant lineages that have had time to acclimate, has never been done before.
High CO2 springs harbour a vast array of plant types and in contrast to FACE, provide critical insight into the decadal, long-term response of plants such as those likely to occur in future, where multiple generations ensure that time-travelling seed sources are no longer an issue. Remarkably, the analysis shows that many of the responses for spring plants are similar to those observed in FACE experiments. This gives us confidence that plants are likely to keep responding positively to rising CO2. They will not become acclimated and the increased global greening that is currently happening across the world, 80% of which is attributed to rising CO2 is likely to continue.
How do you stop a carbon tax increase? Riot. A six month reprieve.
I was listening the the CBC (Canadas left-wing state-subsidized media) and not once did they mention the actual cost of this carbon tax was going to be a jump from €55 to €88.
Canada’s carbon tax is 30$. France was going to increase their carbon tax to 132$.
Don’t be surprised if Canada’s will jump that high if Trudeau is re-elected.
After the recent riots in France at the margins of the ‘yellow vests’ movement, the carbon tax adopted under François Hollande is expected to be revised downwards. EURACTIV France reports.
Having been expected to attend COP24 in Poland on Monday 3 (December), French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe cancelled his visit and instead held an increasing number of meetings with French MPs and ministers.
This resulted in a decision to back down on the French carbon tax, which has been criticised by the ‘yellow vests’ since the movement started a month ago.
It seems that the increasing tension, demonstrations and violence, and particularly the support of the French population for the ‘yellow vests’ movement – which is still strong – are the reasons for this U-turn, which will take the form of a freeze on the tax increase scheduled for January 2019.
The tax was supposed to increase from €55 to €88 per tonne of CO2 emitted on this date.
It appears the UK has realized that biomass (imported wood pellets) produces more CO2 than coal.
“Recently, the UK government tightened its carbon intensity requirement for any biomass-burning power plants seeking future support from its Contracts for Difference subsidy program. This was a crucial first step, as my colleague and I described in detail here.
The new emission limit is now set at 29 kg of CO2 equivalent per MWh. This effectively rules out the use of imported wood pellets for electricity production for new UK biomass plants. In justifying the change, the UK government says that “continuing to apply the existing GHG [greenhouse gas] threshold would lead to GHG emissions [for biomass electricity] significantly above the projected UK grid average.”
Translation: burning wood pellets for electricity is bad for the climate and is not part of a credible solution to decarbonizing electricity grids. Coming from the world’s largest importer of biomass, and a country that spent over $1 billion last year alone subsidizing this industry, this is a big deal.
Unfortunately this is not retroactive and DRAX keeps burning massive amountsof imported wood pellets.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a big fan of wind/solar. I just think it is a giant con to think wood pellets are “carbon neutral”.
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
The CO2 Forest Accounting Loophole
- Emissions accounting helps determine whether or not nations are on target to achieve their voluntary Paris Agreement reduction goals. Ideally, the global community’s CO2 pledges, adjusted downward over time, would, taken together, help keep the world from heating up by 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 from a 1900 baseline.
- But scientists are raising the alarm that this goal may already be beyond reach. One reason: a carbon accounting loophole within UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines accepting the burning of wood pellets (biomass) as a carbon neutral replacement for coal — with wood now used in many European Union and United Kingdom power plants.
- Scientists warn, however, that their research shows that replacing coal with wood pellets in power plants is not carbon neutral. That’s partly because burning wood, which is celebrated by governments as a renewable and sustainable energy resource, is less efficient than coal burning, so it actually produces more CO2 emissions than coal.
- Also, while wood burning and tree replanting over hundreds of years will end up carbon neutral, that doesn’t help right now. Over a short timeframe, at a historical moment when we require aggressive greenhouse gas reductions, wood burning is adding to global emissions. Analysts say that this loophole needs to be closed, and soon, to avoid further climate chaos.
Where I live they are generating 800MW of power using biomass.
Canada is ramping up turning forests into wood pellets for Europe and Asia.
And generating a lot more CO2.
“Wood pellets are considered carbon neutral because as forests grow they can retrap carbon, but the designation has drawn criticism from environmentalist and academics who have questioned the equation.
John Sterman, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, published a paper earlier this year that argued burning pellets would release more carbon dioxide than coal in the short term because it was a less efficient source of energy.
The lag for when the carbon would potentially be reabsorbed to eventually make it carbon neutral is too long when emissions reduction is needed now, said Sterman in an interview.
“The next few decades, the rest of this century, this is the critical period,” said Sterman. “Biofuels, and especially wood pellets, actually worsen climate change over this period.”
There are also significant concerns about the reliability of the forest retrapping the carbon, since climate change is expected to increase the risks of forest fires and insect infestations, said Sterman.
“The EU has made this error, and accounting error. It’s just a false statement to say that biofuels are carbon neutral. They’re not neutral in the short run, and whether they’re neutral in the long run depends on the fate of the land.” “
It is interesting that the Daily Mail is admitting that wood pellets are filthier than coal.
The original quote was “global warming is producing larger trees and faster-growing forests.”
But by “global warming” they really mean CO2.
“Carbon dioxide’s logarithmic heating effect is weak at 100 ppm, tuckered out well and truly at 200 ppm and beyond 300 ppm – well never mind. We are now above 400 ppm from which it is a monotonic 0.1°C for each 100 ppm increase. That doesn’t explain anything and in turn leaves the Sun as the only possible causative agent for the Modern Warm Period.”