# Environmental extremism collides with reality **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [July 2, 2016, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/environmental-extremism-collides-with-reality/758909 "2016-07-02T05:28:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/environmental-extremism-collides-with-reality/758909/1 "2016-07-02T05:28:28Z")
Germany has been trying to shut down all coal-fired power plants. Large sections of the German populace and government had come to believe the idiocy of carbon dioxide being called a “pollutant.” (Never mind that it’s absolutely necessary for plant growth, as we all know.) Well, their plan has run into the brick wall called “reality.” > [@](#): > > Germany has abandoned plans to set out a timetable to exit coal-fired power production and scrapped C02 emissions reduction goals for individual sectors, according to the latest draft of an environment ministry document seen by Reuters on Wednesday. [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-environment-idUSKCN0ZF1MM](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-environment-idUSKCN0ZF1MM) ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/environmental-extremism-collides-with-reality/758909/2 "2016-07-02T05:32:14Z")
Do you think there’s not enough CO2 in the world already? I hear plants are not exactly in short supply. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/environmental-extremism-collides-with-reality/758909/3 "2016-07-02T05:39:20Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > Large sections of the German populace and government had come to believe the idiocy of carbon dioxide being called a “pollutant.” (Never mind that it’s absolutely necessary for plant growth, as we all know.) This is a mind-bogglingly stupid statement. Try breathing large concentrations of carbon dioxide and you’ll find out what kind of a pollutant it is. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/environmental-extremism-collides-with-reality/758909/4 "2016-07-02T05:44:28Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > Well, their plan has run into the brick wall called “reality.” This is rather like crowing about someone deciding to discontinue treatment for cancer because they can’t afford it. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/environmental-extremism-collides-with-reality/758909/5 "2016-07-02T06:30:37Z")
Hey, **Flyer** , let me introduce you to some actual reality. In 2006, when Ontario [demolished the Lakeview Power Plant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakeview_Generating_Station), a gigantic 8-boiler 4-stack coal-fired plant, its destruction in a controlled demolition was the spectacular beginning of a concerted program to completely phase out coal power. In 2014, the last coal plant burned the last of its coal, making Ontario completely free of coal power generation. In 2015, legislation was passed [making it illegal to ever again burn coal to generate electricity](https://news.ontario.ca/ene/en/2015/11/ontario-permanently-bans-coal-fired-electricity-generation.html). Ontario’s 14 million residents now get reliable electric power from nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar. I guess those plants that need CO2 so badly are going to have do without, huh? Turns out, CO2 is the single largest contributor to anthropogenic climate change, and constant denials on Fox News don’t actually change the incontrovertible science and the serious dangers we face. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/environmental-extremism-collides-with-reality/758909/6 "2016-07-02T11:15:12Z")
The OP seems to be implying that if humans stop burnibg fossil fuels, all the plants will die. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/environmental-extremism-collides-with-reality/758909/7 "2016-07-02T12:34:01Z")
Perhaps they should have built some nuclear power plants to replace the coal-fired ones? ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/environmental-extremism-collides-with-reality/758909/8 "2016-07-02T12:53:36Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Hey, **Flyer** , let me introduce you to some actual reality. In 2006, when Ontario [demolished the Lakeview Power Plant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakeview_Generating_Station), a gigantic 8-boiler 4-stack coal-fired plant, its destruction in a controlled demolition was the spectacular beginning of a concerted program to completely phase out coal power. In 2014, the last coal plant burned the last of its coal, making Ontario completely free of coal power generation. In 2015, legislation was passed [making it illegal to ever again burn coal to generate electricity](https://news.ontario.ca/ene/en/2015/11/ontario-permanently-bans-coal-fired-electricity-generation.html). > > Ontario’s 14 million residents now get reliable electric power from nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar. I guess those plants that need CO2 so badly are going to have do without, huh? Turns out, CO2 is the single largest contributor to anthropogenic climate change, and constant denials on Fox News don’t actually change the incontrovertible science and the serious dangers we face. Too bad Germany is also getting rid of nuclear power in the wake of Fukushima. ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/environmental-extremism-collides-with-reality/758909/9 "2016-07-02T13:33:47Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > Do you think there’s not enough CO2 in the world already? I hear plants are not exactly in short supply. Actually, they are. Deserts are huge and expanding. Even in the USA, only about a quarter of originally forested land remains, and in Europe less than that. Of course, CO2 deficiency is not the reason for that. It’s lack of water combined with poor human management. But generally, it would be a great advantage to humanity if most of the world could be revegetated, and that would require sufficient CO2 to support the grenerey. But I don’t know enough about this cycle to have a valid opinion on whether man-made CO2 would be a helpful or necessary contributor to the re-greening of the planet. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/environmental-extremism-collides-with-reality/758909/10 "2016-07-02T14:29:37Z")
jtur88 writes: \> . . . Even in the USA, only about a quarter of originally forested land remains . . . The amount of forested land in the U.S. hasn’t changed very much since about 1907, but if it’s changed at all, it’s grown slightly: > **[Deforestation in the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States)** > > In the United States, deforestation was an ongoing process until recently. Between 2010 and 2020, the US forests increased 0.03% annually, according to FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).\[a\] > Native Americans cleared millions of acres of forest for many reasons, including hunting, farming, berry production, and building materials. Prior to the arrival of European-Americans, about one half of the United States land area was forest, about 1,023,000,000 acres (4,140,000 k... > **[Get Essential U.S. Forest Facts on Forestland](https://www.thoughtco.com/us-forest-facts-on-forestland-1343034)** > > Here is a U.S. Forest Facts report of the latest USFS FIA Forestry Trend Data in the United States. > **[More Trees Than There Were 100 Years Ago? It's True!](https://www.treehugger.com/more-trees-than-there-were-years-ago-its-true-4864115)** > > In the U.S., there are more trees than there were 100 years ago, according to the FAO. Chuck Leavell explains why. > **[Rates of Deforestation & Reforestation in the U.S.](https://education.seattlepi.com/rates-deforestation-reforestation-us-3804.html)** > > Rates of Deforestation & Reforestation in the U.S.. Deforestation is forest loss through urban sprawl, land clearing for agriculture, wildfire, disease or timber harvest. The United States went through a period of intense deforestation between... Also, note that the amount of forested land in the U.S. is now about three-quarters of what it was in 1492 and there is no more crop land in the U.S. now than in the 1920’s. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/environmental-extremism-collides-with-reality/758909/11 "2016-07-02T14:57:06Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > This is a mind-bogglingly stupid statement. Try breathing large concentrations of carbon dioxide and you’ll find out what kind of a pollutant it is. EVERYTHING is harmful in large enough quantities. By your logic, we should declare purified water to be a pollutant. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/environmental-extremism-collides-with-reality/758909/12 "2016-07-02T15:04:02Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > EVERYTHING is harmful in large enough quantities. By your logic, we should declare purified water to be a pollutant. And we’ve reached the level of “large enough quantities” with CO2 ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/environmental-extremism-collides-with-reality/758909/13 "2016-07-02T15:59:18Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > Actually, they are. Deserts are huge and expanding. Even in the USA, only about a quarter of originally forested land remains, and in Europe less than that. > > Of course, CO2 deficiency is not the reason for that. It’s lack of water combined with poor human management. But generally, it would be a great advantage to humanity if most of the world could be revegetated, and that would require sufficient CO2 to support the grenerey. But I don’t know enough about this cycle to have a valid opinion on whether man-made CO2 would be a helpful or necessary contributor to the re-greening of the planet. Think! When the world was heavily forested, was humanity generating CO2? I suppose some plants might do better with a slightly higher concentration, but that’s about it. There’s plenty of it around. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/environmental-extremism-collides-with-reality/758909/14 "2016-07-02T16:40:08Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > EVERYTHING is harmful in large enough quantities. By your logic, we should declare purified water to be a pollutant. We’ve already unequivocally reached the point where higher levels of CO2 will be detrimental to human interests. Increased levels of CO2 can stimulate plant growth, but that is offset because CO2 isn’t the only thing they need. Higher temperatures produce higher levels of plant respiration, which _increases_ CO2, and ultimately can decrease photosynthesis, which takes up CO2. So higher temperatures may produce a positive feedback to increase atmospheric CO2 even further. Higher temperatures also cause increased evapotranspiration, which increase plants’ need for water. At the same time, it changes weather patterns so that many regions are expected to receive reduced rainfall, further limiting plant growth. ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/environmental-extremism-collides-with-reality/758909/15 "2016-07-02T18:27:37Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > jtur88 writes: > > \> . . . Even in the USA, only about a quarter of originally forested land remains . . . > > The amount of forested land in the U.S. hasn’t changed very much since about 1907, but if it’s changed at all, it’s grown slightly: > Also, note that the amount of forested land in the U.S. is now about three-quarters of what it was in 1492 and there is no more crop land in the U.S. now than in the 1920’s. > . [http://sites.psu.edu/rcldennis/wp-content/uploads/sites/721/2012/10/Old-Growth-Forests-in-US-1024x542.png](http://sites.psu.edu/rcldennis/wp-content/uploads/sites/721/2012/10/Old-Growth-Forests-in-US-1024x542.png) As you can see on any satellite view, replacement forest is very patchy, covering nowhere near the area of the original forest. https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.0918751,-86.7384614&z=10&output=embed&dg=ntvb ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/environmental-extremism-collides-with-reality/758909/16 "2016-07-02T18:43:07Z")
That only says that there are less old-growth forests. Why is that important? A tree is a tree. How many trees have there been over the history of the U.S.?: > **[More Trees Than There Were 100 Years Ago? It's True!](https://www.treehugger.com/more-trees-than-there-were-years-ago-its-true-4864115)** > > In the U.S., there are more trees than there were 100 years ago, according to the FAO. Chuck Leavell explains why. > **[Humans Have Eliminated Half the World's Trees](https://gizmodo.com/humans-have-eliminated-half-the-worlds-trees-1728295234)** > > Human beings are having an overwhelming impact on Earth’s ecosystems, whether we’re pouring plastic into the ocean or filling the skies with carbon. But it’s not just modern society that’s to blame — our environmental legacy stretches way back into... There are more trees in the U.S. now than a hundred years ago. There are over 3 trillion trees in the world. Trees are disappearing in the tropics, but they are increasing in number in the temperate zone, which includes the U.S. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/environmental-extremism-collides-with-reality/758909/17 "2016-07-02T18:53:36Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > There are more trees in the U.S. now than a hundred years ago. There are over 3 trillion trees in the world. Trees are disappearing in the tropics, but they are increasing in number in the temperate zone, which includes the U.S. I see that kind of quote all the time. I guess people are unaware that 100 years ago we had a very low number of trees. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/environmental-extremism-collides-with-reality/758909/18 "2016-07-02T19:01:23Z")
That’s true. I was replying to the notion that you could get from jtur88’s posts that currently the number of trees in the U.S. are decreasing. That’s not true. If anything, the U.S. is being very slowly reforested. There are real problems of deforestation, but it’s going on in the tropics and not in the temperate regions of the world. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/environmental-extremism-collides-with-reality/758909/19 "2016-07-02T19:24:29Z")
> [@jz78817](#): > > Too bad Germany is also getting rid of nuclear power in the wake of Fukushima. I think it’s an ill-advised decision that’s going to make it harder to achieve their emissions targets – some might say impossible. But one needs to keep in mind that the setback that the OP is crowing about is relative to Germany being one of the most aggressively committed nations to emissions reductions – their 2020 target was twice as aggressive as that of the EU overall, which in turn was a far greater reduction than that proposed by the US: Germany is pioneering an epochal transformation it calls the _energiewende_—an energy revolution that scientists say all nations must one day complete if a climate disaster is to be averted. Among large industrial nations, Germany is a leader. Last year about 27 percent of its electricity came from renewable sources such as wind and solar power, three times what it got a decade ago and more than twice what the United States gets today. The change accelerated after the 2011 meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant, which led Chancellor Angela Merkel to declare that Germany would shut all 17 of its own reactors by 2022. Nine have been switched off so far, and renewables have more than picked up the slack. … Germany, the world’s fourth largest economy, has promised some of the most aggressive emission cuts—by 2020, a 40 percent cut from 1990 levels, and by 2050, at least 80 percent. > **[National Geographic Magazine](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/)** > > National Geographic stories take you on a journey that’s always enlightening, often surprising, and unfailingly fascinating. > [@jtur88](#): > > Actually, they are. Deserts are huge and expanding. Even in the USA, only about a quarter of originally forested land remains, and in Europe less than that. > > Of course, CO2 deficiency is not the reason for that. It’s lack of water combined with poor human management. But generally, it would be a great advantage to humanity if most of the world could be revegetated, and that would require sufficient CO2 to support the grenerey. But I don’t know enough about this cycle to have a valid opinion on whether man-made CO2 would be a helpful or necessary contributor to the re-greening of the planet. There are many things wrong with those statements, beginning with the fact that I think you misinterpreted **friedo** ’s comment. Given the context of the conversation, I think what he meant was “plants are not exactly in short supply _of CO2_”. Which is, in any event, a true statement. The first clue is that the world had a lot more vegetation hundreds of years ago when CO2 levels had been stable for thousands of years at less than three quarters of what they are now. Deforestation in itself is a causative factor in climate change, contributing around 10-12% to atmospheric CO2 accumulation. And in addition to what’s already been said, studies on how plants respond to CO2 enrichment show that the effect is limited by the fact that increased growth quickly runs up against other constraints like soil nutrients. And studies that show potential increased crop yields due to CO2 enrichment and warmer weather and longer growing seasons also conclude that these will be limited to a narrow band of temperature increase in higher latitudes, beyond which they become negative, that they will only benefit certain crops and could be disastrous for others, and will not occur at all in most of the world. Among the challenges are sufficiently rapid adaptation to changes in local climate, the migration of non-indigenous pests and plant diseases, and weather extremes. In tropical regions like Africa, where populations are the most vulnerable, crop yields and water supplies are already under stress. So the answer to the question is no, CO2 is not helpful to regreening the planet. In fact its effects are distinctly negative just about everywhere you look. The lack of water you mention is one of them; droughts in some areas and flooding in others are all part of a systemic pattern of weather extremes and permanent changes to regional weather that characterize climate change.