Protecting wildlife for our children's future
National Wildlife Federation logo Photos of wildlife

« Countdown Names Rep. Barton Tonight's "Worst Person" | Main | A 'Land'mark Victory for Conservation! »

Bookmark and Share

Rep. Shimkus: Too LITTLE Global Warming Pollution?

Here's another clip from Wednesday's House Energy & Commerce Committee hearing on climate change adaptation. Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) had an odd exchange with British aristocrat and famed global warming denier Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley:



Their basic argument was this: Plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis ... so if we limit our man-made carbon dioxide emissions, won't we kill all the plants?

Do Shimkus and Monckton think plants only came along after humans learned how to start burning fossil fuels? In reality, it's quite the opposite -- since we started getting really good at burning carbon-based fossil fuels, forests have started getting really good at catching fire.

And to back up all this nonsense about global warming pollution being great for plants, they cite the Cambrian period? A time when there were no land plants? That's your shining example? Come on. Lord Monckton may be the darling of the denier crowd, but he wouldn't stand a chance on "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?"

One other note about the Cambrian -- sea levels were 30 to 90 meters higher than they are today. Not exactly a comforting reference at a hearing about the possible impacts of climate change.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341ca02253ef01156e73e5fd970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rep. Shimkus: Too LITTLE Global Warming Pollution?:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It's true that land plants had not yet evolved during the Cambrian era. They first evolved during the Silurian era, when CO2 levels were, as in the Cambrian era, 16 times higher than today. Such a high level of CO2 in the atmosphere was almost certainly a precondition for their evolution.

In Ward & Brownlee's "The Life and Death of Planet Earth: How the New Science of Astrobiology Charts the Ultimate Fate of Our World", it is stated that the long term trend is for Earth to lose its CO2. Whatever humans do, within half a billion years, CO2 levels will drop below the level at which plant photosynthesis can take place, and all plant life will die.

The role CO2 plays in the climate is a very important question. However, it is wrong to describe CO2 as a pollutant, in the same sense that, say radioactive waste, lead in petrol or raw sewage is.

Wow. Someone needs to explain to Shimkus that we're not plants. A world in which there are loads of plants and our all our coastal cities are flooded doesn't sound that great to me.

I am not sure that Shimkus is especially clueful, but ...

First, stick to the science.

Plants are made up mainly of carbon compounds. Most of that carbon comes from CO2 extracted from the air. Not surprisingly, there are very well known experiments that show plants grow better with higher levels of CO2 in the air.

In a very real sense, CO2 is indeed plant food!

Also, I did not hear anyone in the video clip say that limiting man-made CO2 emissions would kill plants (as Miles suggests). Strictly speaking, everything said in the video clip is correct.

Which makes the article on this site by "Miles" slightly less clueful than the exchange in the video. :)

I love that you put my name in scare quotes! Let me tell you something, "Miles" ... if that is your real name! Good times.

well people are stupid we get mad for animals being on roads and in our yards but we keep gettin in their way so they can ours

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In.


© 1996- National Wildlife Federation | 11100 Wildlife Center Dr, Reston VA 20190 | 800-822-9919
Contact Us | Jobs at NWF | Link to NWF | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use