When I started this blog, I didn’t feel the need to prove the existence of human-induced climate change or the devastating consequences that could ensue. I’m fortunate to live in a country that doesn’t have a heavily-funded climate denial industry, and while our leaders do very little about climate change, at least they publicly acknowledge it’s a threat to our way of life. So I’ve focused most of my blogging efforts on finding solutions to the problem, until today…
#WakeUp, @FarmersJournal et al...
| This morning, I woke up to an article in the Farmer’s Journal touting the “beneficial effects” of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), on crops as stated by a "scholar". This isn’t the first time I’ve heard that simplistic argument thrown around as an excuse to “burn, baby, burn” but what disturbs me about this article in particular is: |  Irresponsible, sensationalist journalism care of farmersjournal.ie |
1. The article’s primary source of information is an electrical engineer with no expertise in plant physiology or publications in climate science, who is affiliated with a known climate-denial think tank, which NASA scientist James Hansen describes as “one link in a devious manipulation of public opinion [regarding climate change]”. The journalist makes no effort to interview a relevant expert in the field of plant physiology or crop production and takes an electrical engineer’s advice on crop productivity as the headline. Forgetting about the article’s undoing of the hard fought battle to alleviate public confusion on climate science, it’s also shoddy, sensationalist journalism that is less than what I’d expect from a reputable publication.
IFA Chairman, Harold Kingston, appearing with Cara Augustenborg and Fr. Tim Bartlett on Joe Duffy's Spirit Level (Oct. 2015) 2. The article featured in an Irish publication with an agricultural audience, the most sensitive industry to the impacts and threats of climate change and therefore an audience who cannot afford to be hood-winked by half truths.
Irish agriculture has progressed some way on the road to addressing climate change – Only a couple of weeks ago, I was pleasantly surprised when IFA chairman, Harold Kingston, joined me on RTE’s Spirit Level and explained how he personally was working to convince farmers to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
We’re finally making a bit of progress in climate action in Ireland, but with a stroke of the pen, a journalist can undo it all by telling farmer’s “This climate change business will be great for crop production”. If only it were that simple…
Irish agriculture has progressed some way on the road to addressing climate change – Only a couple of weeks ago, I was pleasantly surprised when IFA chairman, Harold Kingston, joined me on RTE’s Spirit Level and explained how he personally was working to convince farmers to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
We’re finally making a bit of progress in climate action in Ireland, but with a stroke of the pen, a journalist can undo it all by telling farmer’s “This climate change business will be great for crop production”. If only it were that simple…
Are carbon dioxide emissions good for crop production?
The simple science
This “CO2 emissions are good for plants” argument is getting a bit of traction lately from the climate denial side. They’ve lost the battles denying the existence of climate change and arguing that it’s not human induced, so now they’re grasping at the “it’s actually good for us” argument. It’s time for a “reality drop”. To all the journalists who are tempted to buy in to the latest climate denial argument for the sake of sensationalism, here’s the simple science the climate deniers are not telling you:
| 1. Carbon dioxide is not the only factor affecting plant growth. Any primary school student can tell you that plants take in carbon dioxide and that contributes to plant growth (photosynthesis), but plants (like animals) are complex organisms and it takes a lot more than just carbon dioxide to make them grow. Resources like nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, water and optimum temperatures are also important factors in plant growth. |  The essential needs of plants (Univ of Waikato) |
In fact, once a plant reaches its “fill” or saturation point of any given resource, it’s the other resources become more important in encouraging plant growth. There’s already enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for plants to use, so carbon dioxide is not the resource limiting plant growth. In fact, too high a concentration of CO2 causes photosynthesis to decrease in certain plants and can reduce the nutritional quality of some important food staples, such as wheat.
| 2. Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations makes crops more vulnerable. As a result of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, the other resources plants depend on can be negatively impacted. For example, temperature is affected by CO2 as our atmosphere “thickens” from continued greenhouse gas emissions and, like an insulating blanket, warms our planet. Temperature could rise to a point that some food crops can no longer survive – Crops thrive in a very narrow temperature window so even a shift of a few degrees could threaten their survival. |  Soybeans grown at elevated CO2 attract many more adult Japanese beetles than plants grown at current atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Photo Credit: Evan Delucia |
Carbon dioxide can also increase growth of the weeds and pests, which threaten our food crops. A 2008 experiment demonstrated that plants grown in a higher CO2 environment can be far more susceptible to pests as their defenses are weakened.
| 3. Disruption to the world’s water cycle is a significant threat to crop production, outweighing any benefit of rising CO2 emissions. The Earth’s average temperature is predicted to rise 1.6ºC based on all the greenhouse gases we’ve already pumped into our atmosphere, having risen by 0.8ºC already since the Industrial Revolution. Many scientists believe any warming beyond 1.5ºC is dangerous, and current emission reduction commitments to the United Nations present a best case scenario of reaching 2.7ºC warming by 2100, well beyond safe limits. |  serc.carlton.edu |
This global warming causes increased evaporation of water from soil and the ocean into the atmosphere, leading to more extreme periods of drought in some places and much heavier flooding and storms in others, along with a decrease in the available land for food production. Plants that grow more due to increased CO2 concentrations also need more water. The projected disruptions to our hydrologic cycle have grave consequences for crop production, which rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations only exacerbate.
The moral imperative to end the confusion
 warp8.com | I’d rather be doing anything else than writing a blog to take down another stupid climate denier argument, but then I think about how little time we have left to take the big actions to prevent climate destabilisation and feel I have a moral obligation to address the things that compromise such action. I’d like to believe journalists are also aware of the critical time pressure we’re under with respect to climate action and that they would use their influential positions to help foster solutions. |
I’m not saying that any peer-reviewed research that disproves climate change related science should be censored. Far from it – I am an avid reader of all climate change literature and would be utterly relieved by any good science that could tell me it’s not going to be as bad as we fear. But, note that the report cited in this Farmer’s Journal article and several other media publications is NOT peer-reviewed, meaning it has not stood up to any questioning of its methodology or data analysis and has ignored any peer-reviewed science that contradicts its arguments. If you browse the links I’ve included above, you’ll see the report’s arguments were disproven in peer-reviewed literature based on long-term, experimental studies more than three years ago. If you’re not going to limit yourself to quoting peer-reviewed scientists, why not at least ask a farmer how much climate change is impacting his crop productivity instead? He/she probably has better evidence than an electrical engineer working for a notorious climate sceptic think tank…
While I’m ranting, can I also ask journalists to please look at the qualifications of your “experts” and "scholars" before you claim everything they say as gospel? Speaking as someone with a doctorate, I can assure you that an extra 4-6 years in university does not make us experts on everything. We all have our niche, which is usually so small that it’s relatively useless in the grand scheme of things – In my case, I did my doctoral research at Teagasc on nutrient uptake in grassland so I have some understanding of plant physiology, though there are several Irish scientists with a far greater understanding who I would happily refer any journalist onto for a definitive view on this subject. Next time you interview a professor/doctor of anything, I urge you to have a look at what their Ph.D. is actually in. If you’re quoting an electrical engineer, mathematician, physicist or even a meteorologist on how plants grow, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
Please - stop wasting time confusing the public for the sake of a controversial headline because there is simply no more time left to waste.
While I’m ranting, can I also ask journalists to please look at the qualifications of your “experts” and "scholars" before you claim everything they say as gospel? Speaking as someone with a doctorate, I can assure you that an extra 4-6 years in university does not make us experts on everything. We all have our niche, which is usually so small that it’s relatively useless in the grand scheme of things – In my case, I did my doctoral research at Teagasc on nutrient uptake in grassland so I have some understanding of plant physiology, though there are several Irish scientists with a far greater understanding who I would happily refer any journalist onto for a definitive view on this subject. Next time you interview a professor/doctor of anything, I urge you to have a look at what their Ph.D. is actually in. If you’re quoting an electrical engineer, mathematician, physicist or even a meteorologist on how plants grow, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
Please - stop wasting time confusing the public for the sake of a controversial headline because there is simply no more time left to waste.
There are better stories to tell
| In small ways, segments of Irish agriculture are making progress in addressing greenhouse gas emissions – Farmers are exploring options to produce renewable electricity; many are aware of their carbon footprint and want to diversify into emissions offsetting schemes; and the unprofitability and volatility of emissions-intensive beef and dairy are causing some to rethink their investments in those sectors. |  akuoinvestments.com |
There are lots of great stories the Farmer’s Journal could feature with respect to Irish agriculture and climate change that could expedite climate solutions. – Wasting anymore precious and limited time creating confusion is irresponsible. It’s time for the Farmer’s Journal, and any paper that prioritises sensationalist articles over real news, to re-examine their obligation to inform the public on the climate crisis.
Even if you’re not a journalist, but agree with my premise that we need to hasten the conversation toward climate solutions, you too can influence this by contacting papers such as the Farmer’s Journal and journalists who promote climate denial tactics and urge them to re-evaluate their motivations in light of an impending climate crisis.
It’s time for journalists to join us, and start fighting the good fight.
#WakeUp
-Cara
#WakeUp
-Cara
Blog Update 15/10/2015: An emailed response from the Digital Editor of Irish Farmer's Journal is here.
RSS Feed