No, more CO₂ won't help us grow more food

The world looks very different when you understand statistics. Go to brilliant.org/... to get started for free!
Contrary to what you might think, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is actually bad news for growing food. In this video I talk about why more CO2 means a warmer planet, a drier planet, and less food. But more than that, food that actually contains fewer nutrients...
REFERENCES
(1) ourworldindata...
(2) e.g. ourworldindata...
(3) www.dailysigna...
(4) www.ipcc.ch/re...
(5) pubmed.ncbi.nl...
(6) e360.yale.edu/...
(7) www.nature.com...
(8) www.smithsonia...
(9) sci-hub.wf/10....
(10) www.politico.c...
(11) www.nature.com...
(12) pubmed.ncbi.nl...
(13) apps.who.int/i...
(14) www.ncbi.nlm.n...
(15) ehp.niehs.nih....
You can support the channel by becoming a patron at / simonoxfphys
Check out my website! www.simonoxfph...
--------- II ---------
My twitter - / simonoxfphys
My facebook - / youtubesimon
My insta - / simonoxfphys
My goodreads - / simonoxfphys
--------- II ---------
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com
Edited by Luke Negus
Video essay about the effects of climate change on agriculture, how climate change will hurt food production, including how climate change will make food less nutritious. More CO2 means more photosynthesis, but more CO2 also means a warmer planet, which means less food, and food lacking in protein. In this video - similar to videos from SciShow, Crash Course, ClimateTown, Our Changing Climate, Veritasium, and Smarter Every Day - I talk about how global warming will impact how much food we can grow.
Huge thanks to my supporters on Patreon: Jimmy Lee, Simon Stelling, Gabriele Siino, Bjorn Bakker, Ieuan Williams, Candace H, Tom Malcolm, Marcus Bosshard, Andrew Knop, Shab Kumar, Brady Johnston, Liat Khitman, Jesper Norsted, Kent & Krista Halloran, Rapssack, Kevin O'Connor, Timo Kerremans, Thines Ganeshamoorthy, Ashley Wilkins, Michael Parmenter, Samuel Baumgartner, Dan Sherman, ST0RMW1NG 1, Adrian Sand, Morten Engsvang, Josh Schiager, Farsight101, K.L, poundedjam, fourthdwarf, Daan Sneep, Felix Freiberger, Chris Field, Robert Connell, ChemMentat, Kolbrandr, , Sebastain Graf, Dan Nelson, Shane O'Brien, Alex, Fujia Li, Will Tolley, Cody VanZandt, Jesper Koed, Jonathan Craske, Albrecht Striffler, Igor Francetic, Jack Troup, SexyCaveman , Sean Richards, Kedar , Omar Miranda, Alastair Fortune, bitreign33 , Mat Allen, Anne Smith, Rafaela Corrêa Pereira, Colin J. Brown, Princess Andromeda, Mach_D, BenDent, Thusto , Andy Hartley, Lachlan Woods, Dan Hanvey, Simon Donkers, Kodzo , James Bridges, Liam , Wendover Productions, Kendra Johnson.

[@kingofthend]

As a plant biologist, thank you for this video. People who make this point know litterally only one thing about plants and have no idea of all the other factors in play here. It's the most undercomplex argument one can make.

[@pattheplanter]

But there will be loads of bamboo shoots and kudzu for everybody! Sarcasm aside, it does seem that a little knowledge among the general public does make this more difficult to educate people about. My biology teacher told us that at A level we would learn which O level facts were lies. Then at degree level we would learn which A level facts were lies.

[@idraote]

Frankly, the man in the street shouldn't be blamed for making this argument. It has a degree of apparent logic. It's science education (or education full stop) that should be levelled up, I think.

[@Praisethesunson]

I've heard plants crave something called Brawndo

[@DanielSMatthews]

Here is some science for you contemplate, during the covid response induced economic slowdowns the drop in CO2 production activities by humans did no show up as a proportional signal in the rate of CO2 rise in the Earth's atmosphere as recorded in the Keeling Curve data set. People who can't explain why that is the case should stop pretending that they understand anything at all about what is happening with our planet's atmosphere. Keep in mind that the UN is the source of both conflicting datasets, therefore there is no easy option available from a dismissal of either fact, you do actually have to make an honest effort to explain why they are at odds with each other.

[@melusine826]

Exactly! I was stunned when my grandpa (organic and in organic chemist university lecturer for decades, helped set up first computer labs all over south East Asia, wrote a chemistry text book and taught dozens of phd students around the world. ) sure he was 90, but he was still making money on the stock market with code he wrote himself in like the 90s. Smart man right? Well - he announced in his 90th birthday speech that we need MORE co2 ... to grow more food to feed the increasing population 🤦‍♀️🤷‍♀️

[@bengrean1412]

The world would be a better place if we had politicians that are actually informed about the topics they reside over. Botany being a key topic

[@mh1593]

The world would be a better place without politicians.

[@charlestrudel8308]

@@mh1593 Depends, some CEO have more power than politician right now, rendering true free market impossible.

[@tonybennett4159]

@@charlestrudel8308 That may be so, but the ignorance on display from some of our representatives is mind boggling and severely depressing.

[@charlestrudel8308]

@@tonybennett4159 well, it may even be on purpose because of lobbyism.

[@tristanridley1601]

Many politicians of the past would do this crazy thing where they sought the expertise and insight of experts in their fields. You just needed a liberal education so you could comprehend what you were being told. And we elected people like that because the public had the same broad education.

[@lordgigenshtain]

as an agricultural technician i am grateful you made a video about agriculture Simon. in my career its just prevention and adapting agriculture. also fun fact at 40-45C chlorophyll annihilates due to heat.

[@MrNicoJac]

Does that mean a ~1 week heat wave of 40°C would essentially kill off entire fields of crops??

[@JaySmith91]

That reminds me of algae death in corals due to rising temperature. Coupled with the current hypothesis that chlorophyll was once a symbiotic relationship between two lifeforms, it sounds kind of analogous. Do the green parts bleach?

[@elaiej]

What kind of adaptation? More C4 plants?

[@tristanridley1601]

That fact sounds incredibly not fun...

[@DanielSMatthews]

@@JaySmith91 Algae in coral doesn't die, the coral evict it so that they are able to host other varieties that are more productive in the current conditions. It is an entirely normal process, a very impressive adaptation to the need to have different genes for different conditions. Research in Australia has proven this to be the case to the extent that they can induce bleaching then introduce specifically selected algae genetic lines to match the conditions on different parts of the great barrier reef. Stop getting your "science" from Disney, read what the CSIRO et al. have actually achieved.

[@debbiehenri345]

Very interesting. I've been arguing with people that extra CO2 'won't' provide more food for years - and it's amazing how stubborn people with this belief can be. For my part - a gardener - one of the most troubling aspects is the fact that extra CO2 will make plants lusher, growing faster and taller. Unfortunately, this lusher growth makes them more susceptible to damage in extreme weather: they dry up faster in droughts, they break and wither more easily in high winds, they can be more easily battered by heavy rains. Even worse, all those lusher and softer leaves make them much more prone to pest and disease. Insect attacks are featuring 'more frequently' in the news over the past few years - locusts, for instance - something we in the West seldom heard about before. On a personal note, I've noticed the recent emergence of several plant diseases and the massive increase in a particular kind of weevil affecting my garden. The weevil used to stick to wild raspberries as its host plant, feeding on it all the summer. So it never used to be a problem in the past. However, it's now including several other valuable fruit-producing trees and shrubs in the garden, species which it never bothered last year. I spend hours picking them off by hand - as I don't want to use chemical sprays. However, farmers won't do that. They'll spray crops with even more chemical pesticides, which requires more industrial processes to produce, producing much more CO2 in the making. How many more times have we got to learn that all chemical sprays do have an eventual effect on the human body?

[@QT5656]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the drop in human infertility is related to pesticides and herbicides, e.g. Atrazine is nasty stuff. Nevermind, I guess they make millions for a very small number of people 🙄

[@jonathanodude6660]

it does depend on whats in the spray and how it works. for example, blocking or antagonising a critical enzyme that doesnt exist in humans. also if the spray is based on a natural product, it should be broken down by bacteria and such, though natural sprays are highly likely to develop resistance towards them in their targets which is why theyre often avoided afaik.

[@jeffbenton6183]

@@jonathanodude6660 Agreed, but one of the OP's 2 main points still stands - more reliance on chemicals means more heavy industry, which means more CO2

[@jonathanodude6660]

@@jeffbenton6183 this is unavoidable until weve developed a renewable economy. but its true for everything in general. i think we should be retooling everything for their eventual future power sources, but simply stopping things while we wait for those power sources to be ready isnt going to help them come about any faster. its about investment, so losing money to failed crops and reduced output from less food being available to be eaten will definitely be a drain on the resources we need to fund it.

[@funky555]

Its so frustrating, most of this has been known for ages but people just wont accept it and will continue to plug their pollution machienes in. Its so painful how slow the change is happening because of money.

[@mh1593]

by "people" you mean governments and business leaders. so, certain people...

[@CarFreeSegnitz]

@@mh1593 “certain people” Lots of people in single-occupancy-vehicles. Even as gas prices go through the roof they stubbornly drive everywhere. And they vote for politicians who promise to reduce gas prices. Just a matter of time for politicians to overtly subsidize gas at the pump.

[@sebucwerd]

Did you type this on a computer that took 4 barrels of oil to produce?

[@CarFreeSegnitz]

@@sebucwerd “Did you type this on a computer that took 4 barrels of oil to produce?” I see this argumentation periodically and don’t really understand it. On first blush it seems to say that critics are hypocritical of some aspect of the world because they benefit from that aspect. Further it suggests that critique is not allowed, the status quo must win out. No changes should happen because that’s how it’s always been done. Computers take a great deal of energy, materials and know-how to make. They used to take vastly more of all three back in Turing’s day with vacuum tubes. Like someone saying “vacuum tubes are wasteful… here’s a transistor” someone ought to be allowed to say “we use oil badly… here’s alternative energy…etc”. To suggest any change anyone needs to point out the downside of the old and how a change would be better.

[@mh1593]

@@CarFreeSegnitz yes but to encourage social change you need leadership from politicians / governments and/or businesses, that was what I was refering to by "cerain people". We can all complain about all the other people/ourselves but system wide changes can't be made without leaders - just look at BLM - it is a mass movement of citizens for a valid cause but it's soooo slow in the changes being reached; because it's bottom up rather than top down.

[@enag7]

As someone who used to farm way up north, specifically in the tiny north-western dot in Canada on the wheat production map, I'm happy to see it addressed that just moving north isn't a simple solution. While we did have the soil required, the droughts in large forested areas nearby have been causing fires and the reduced sunlight from the smoke blowing over has lost the area at least 1 week of growth each year. This put a lot more pressure on our already short growing season of mid May to mid October and farmers were regularly not finishing harvests in time. Those that were finishing often were taking crops off before they had fully matured resulting in low protein counts. Ultimately my family quit farming in 2019 in part due to the weather related changes causing constant strain.

[@DanielSMatthews]

LOL, perhaps you should have studied agriculture in Australia then, they are far more productive and under much more difficult conditions. Ultimately your family quit because they were incompetent.

[@ulrichspencer]

@@DanielSMatthews Or maybe people are allowed to change jobs when under the constant, looming stress of possible crop failure and bankruptcy? Also, care to quantify what "under much more difficult conditions" means? Not everything in life needs to be a dick-measuring contest.

[@beskamir5977]

I've entertained the idea of moving to some cheap land in Grande Prairie and setting up a food forest. I'm assuming that's where you lived based on your description? Although the cold winters (around -40c), and now learning from you that the forest fires have that big of an effect on sunlight, make it seem a lot less doable. I'd feel really limited in terms of what could be grown there. I guess where I live now (Calgary) isn't particularly great either, we get around -35c extremes, the smoke can be pretty bad too for a few days, and now there's even a historic drought happening.

[@brianedwards7142]

@@DanielSMatthews But we can put in more crops per year than they can, genius.

[@MPostma72]

@@DanielSMatthews Maybe you should look up their relative position to the equator, numb-numb.

[@lucas29476]

props for comparing numbers properly: 230 million -> 8000 million, using the same multiple (million), instead of switching to billion. Right at the beginning 00:10

[@RustyWalker]

Plants close their stomata when its warmer to prevent water loss so there isn't a straightforward relationship between increasing CO2 and increasing plant growth. Add that fact about total nutrient and energy availability decreasing as plants produce more sugar. That impacts how many we need to be healthy, but also being eaten by pests, who also need more of them to survive. Besides droughts, severe weather can wipe out food crops very quickly. Folate deficiency can increase the risk of miscarriages.

[@Jay_Johnson]

Also the enzyme that catalyses carbon fixation in most plants is much less efficient at high temperatures.

[@mtn1793]

I started wondering if there was a relationship between the giant size of dinosaurs and their need to process more food to get appropriate nutrition?

[@Dragrath1]

@@mtn1793 You may be onto something since I believe I have read something related to this in particular the nutrient quality of plants back the was much lower not only because of the temperature conditions but also for ecological reasons in regards to flora having been adapted to cope with lower nutrient availabilities

[@bazoo513]

So, in short: more CO2 does mean more productive photosynthesis _under ideal conditions_ but the problem is that virtually every other factor influencing yields will change for the worse. Not to mention decreased nutritious value of fast photosynthesizing plants. In slow changing systems like biocenoses, the best change is usually no change.

[@idraote]

Loved this video: the repercussions of global warming you speak about are less immediately evident to the layman and it's good that science communicators finally begin talking about it.

[@ddhqj2023]

Problem is that the average layman has deliberately closed their mind to science and experts. History will show this to be the age where humans turned back to tossed chicken bones and what they learn from grifters and charlatans.

[@antronx7]

Dear denialists, whether plants like more CO2 is irrelevant if climate is so wrecked that there is nowhere to grow them.

[@TyrianHaze]

Get back to me when they can predict the climate.

[@namenloss730]

lower nutrition means physically weaker yes, but more importantly: intellectually stunted. We can make up for "physically weaker" with modern means, but not intellectually stunted.

[@elliottprats1910]

The amount of farmland being used to grow crops not for human consumption is a bigger issue. I worked in Iowa (Sept-Dec19’) and was shocked that ALL the corn grown south of I-80 wasn’t edible and was grow for either animal feed or ethanol. If we can waste that much land to grow non edible corn then food shortages must not be an issue, and if it is its mostly a self induced problem

[@tristanridley1601]

That's true in North America and will give us a huge buffer if we switch to vegetarian diets. That's why we have as long as he describes. But a LOT of the world mostly grows food for humans.

[@garethbaus5471]

The ethanol crops also become animal feed, it is actually a fairly high grade source of protein since most of the carbohydrates were converted into ethenol and extracted for other uses.

[@ddhqj2023]

Oxford University did a study a few years ago that found that if 75% of the global arable farmland were re-wilded, the remaining 25% would be enough to feed the world population on a plants only diet. That is how inefficient meat production is. And doesn't even address the issue of wasted/polluted/used water for meat vs. plant foods production.

[@forestknowledge]

The nutrition collapse is like not discussed nearly enough

[@mrunning10]

Simon is a BRILLIANT (Atmospheric) Physicist but the end EFFECT is for an Earth or Environmental Scientist. Simon tells the the physical characteristics forecast from the models, the Earth Scientist takes them, and then estimates what the planet's ecology will be in the various regions of the planet, then stands back and exclaims "Oh Shit."

[@MiguelGarcia-xx7we]

Thank you for this video. Food getting less and less nutritious will definitely be a huge problem in the next decades. Could you please do a video on the impact that the health of soil has on its ability to store CO2?

[@romanpolanski4928]

Commercial growers inject CO2 into their greenhouses. Presumably then, their produce is deficient in minerals and nutrients.

[@Anonymous-df8it]

Also, wouldn't it affect everything alive, making other animals sicker and less nutritious for carnivores/omnivores, meaning that you can't just change food sources?

[@nBasedAce]

Don't forget about the fact that once temperatures reach a certain level plants will start to emit more carbon dioxide than they take in causing a positive feedback loop that will increase global temperatures by a great deal.

[@MrNicoJac]

Can you please elaborate on this? :)

[@pyroman2918]

@@MrNicoJac The Amazon rain forest will die, releasing huge amounts of greenhouse gasses, causing further warming. The same is true for arctic permafrost. Once these ecosystems start releasing a lot of greenhouse gases, it will trigger a feedback loop.

[@MrNicoJac]

@@pyroman2918 Ah... Rick said "plants" So my brain thought he meant all individual plants, not certain ecosystems/climate zones Thanks for the clarification! ^^

[@JM-zg2jg]

The notion of a co2 feedback loop is absurd. Try to stick to facts. We don’t need more nonsense obfuscating things. If the loop you propose were possible, the Earth would have been in it before we even had a chance to evolve.

[@pyroman2918]

@@JM-zg2jg The feedback loop isn't infinite, eventually it will stop, but it will amplify the human caused warming. This isn't something that I made up, it is written in the IPCC reports, go read them.

[@lordrindfleisch1584]

I saw this brilliant comment in the comment section of a PragerU video. "Life has existed with 10 times higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere". Well yes mister Conservative, but not current life and certainly not humans. And you are correct Simon, the Last Jedi sucks

[@annoloki]

Yep, thing is, there was no fungus capable of breaking down wood for 60 million years after the first trees evolved... so, trees that didn't burn, were buried, becoming coal etc. Once fungus evolved the ability to break down wood, that period of massive carbon removal ended. Now, dead trees mostly rot or burn, returning the carbon to the atmosphere. And we've been returning the carbon from the 60 million year window to the atmosphere too. This puts us back to the time before trees evolved.

[@SylvainDuford]

And you didn't mention the risks of frequent and widespread crop failures from temperature extremes, floods, etc. If we get such crop failures in two major food producing regions at the same time, we're in trouble. More so now that Russia and Ukraine are out of the loop.

[@dson001]

Thankyou for this video. Have found lately alot of people spruiking the "greening" of the planet thing, and this is a perfect response.

[@whatabouttheearth]

Yeah, I've noticed that even though the "greening" schtick is several years old, lately it seems that more regular anthropogenic climate change deniers are promoting it.

[@stephenjacks8196]

Except polar temps rise faster than equator, and the 4°C polar temp rise is melting permafrost releasing more CO2 and Methane than humans produce. Even at zero human CO2, we have pushed Earth's Carbon cycle beyond Earth's ability to correct it if we stop polluting.

[@davidbarry6900]

7:27 Zinc deficiency is also linked to lower male fertility. Increasing grain content in diets and decreasing zinc content in diets are part of the pattern of declining male fertility, although probably not the only factor.

[@QT5656]

Zinc is crucial for the immune system too.

[@theodorekaczynski2138]

That's also related to phthalates and pseudo endocrine in plastics. Just look at the rate of transgender men in South American countries that get their water mostly by plastic bottles.

[@lyrimetacurl0]

Magnesium is also arguably better for male fertility (why pumpkin seeds are the number 2 best food for male fertility after dark chocolate) and that competes with zinc.

[@Gigano]

Terrifying really, but also good to know these effects are avoidable. Thanks for this one!

[@MrNicoJac]

How exactly are they avoidable?

[@ajaysinghrathore1940]

@@MrNicoJac if we keep working to reduce carbon emissions then these effects would be far less worse than what they're projected to be.

[@MrNicoJac]

@@ajaysinghrathore1940 Are you hopeful we'll reach carbon net negative before it's too late? I'm not very hopeful, especially after this video. (it seems like the costs will increasingly increase, while people will get dumber and distracted by more immediate concerns, and I think the financial markets' focus on short-term maximum gains will be too big of an obstacle - but I'd _love_ to be proven wrong)

[@assortedmountainlife]

Avoidable for humans in 1800.

[@iantaakalla8180]

It was also technically avoidable in 1970. Now it is basically unavoidable given that we will never even bother to reverse any projects until catastrophic effects happen.

[@Lochness19]

I think the decline in the nutritiousness of plants has less to do with varieties, or CO2, and more to do with modern farming practices that deplete soils of minerals and of micro-organisms that are essential for creating symbiotic relationships with plants that provide them with nutrients. Read up on what people like Dr Elaine Ingram have to say on the matter.

[@GeigerFarm]

It do go down 😂😂👌. Thanks for this explanation. We have been producing “junk” calories for years… The soil interactions are very complex and I am not sure we have a perfect understanding of the interactions yet, but you are heading in the right direction. The natural patterns are changing and most likely not in a sustainable direction. Thanks for the clear explanation.

[@btudrus]

More CO2 in the atmosphere won't provide more food - I agree. But if you have a thriving biosphere, CO2 will not harm to the climate. The problem is that we are causing massive desertification of our planet - mainly by plant agriculture. What we have to do is to stop eating plants and put large stock of ruminants on the land and use these to regenerate the soil. Healthy soil is the key to prevent desertification / climate change. Not some carbon counting or nonsense like that...

[@TyrianHaze]

Sorry bud, ruminants produce methane, which means the climate cult wants to kill them all.

[@paddywan]

Thanks! I always hate when people use this agrument! For me it is like saying that humans need water, so we should just always be submerged in water. The more, the better, right 😜 Love from Sweden!

[@AlicedeTerre]

oh that's a good one

[@lillliil9430]

I like to think it's like saying more research on CC will convince "skeptics", it doesn't help if they don't read it. Övertygar inte så många tyvärr..

[@ThermaL-ty7bw]

no , it just means that humans need to DRINK water , ''need water''

[@paddywan]

@@ThermaL-ty7bw Yeah that is true. Thanks for pionting it out. I guess I didn't really think it trough. So maybe more like "since we need water we should just drink 14 litres a day". Or what do you think?

[@myownsite]

Has the cognitive effects of growing up in a high co2 concentration been studied? It sure does have an acute effect in badly ventilated rooms, but long term exposure to ~420+ ppm could surely also matter?

[@annoloki]

We breathe faster

[@myownsite]

@@annoloki interesting logic

[@aynonymos]

Plants are very high maintenance, or at least the ones we eat are.

[@comitatocentrale2022]

I study organic vegetable production and regarding crops being less nutrient dense, in our course of soil fertility we studied how cultivated soil around the world having every year less organic matter because of practices like tilling and keeping the soil barren, isn't able to provide nutrients in the correct amounts. This is not only caused by the decrease of soil organic matter but also by the decrease of the soil biota which is the mediator that plants use to absorb nutrients. But it was very interesting to discover a new interpretation of the problem

[@MyKharli]

Just add on artic sea ice loss , ocean acidification ,microplastics , forever chemicals , ageing nuclear waste depositories , very aging ww2 munition dumps , soil loss, fresh water reserves at record lows .military expenditure at record highs , mass extinction event well under way and things probably be fine .

[@woohooman-fl9vq]

Simon most of your videos are informative. I like it when you explain the technical details of climate science, however I highly suggest that you stick to your field instead of making inaccurate "predictions". You cannot scare people into being aware of global warming and its effects, you can only scare people into being doubtful of climate science.

[@neilaspinall5005]

There's a man who produces tomatoes in the East of England very close to a sugar beet factory. The beet production produces lots of co2, and the tomato grower pipes the co2 to his glasshouse He seems to produce around double the yield as he did without the co2.

[@annoloki]

Yes, but that extra growth is carbs (those "carbs" are from the "CARBon dioxide)

[@neilaspinall5005]

@@annoloki in the green stuff, not the red. And the latter is what he sells, the green stuff going back into the ground as compost

[@blastermanr6359]

Greenhouse aren't the same a the atmosphere. Under the *right* conditions added CO2 can aid plant growth with certain crops/plants but an atmosphere with higher levels of CO2 won't.

[@mkuc6951]

I've seen some great research for carbon sequestration using microbes. They're searching for the most carbon sequestering (is that a word?) microbes in soils for development. A lot of the carbon is released after the plants are harvested, however there are certain microbes which help retain the carbon post harvest. If we can exploit these microbes and even develop them further we could potentially sequester a lot of carbon in the soils.

[@Tore_Lund]

Yes that happens naturally, but to a lesser extent on farmland, because the soil gets compacted and the spraying with pesticides, deteriorates the living conditions for for the bacterial flora. In undisturbed forest soil that is mostly the end product of composting, you can push a stick down 2 feet, because the soil is porous and air permeable, so a much larger volume of sequestering bacteria are able to live there.

[@johnbattler4246]

To me it would make more sense that the nutrient deficiency is caused by exhaustion of the soil and overusing it. We do not give enough organic matter to our soils now and we rely on artificial fertilizers too much. We are just depleting our soils constantly by the means of modern agriculture. That is probably the main reason of today's food being less nutritious than it used to be. We cannot solve everything by just not emitting CO2. The humanity has many more problems than just one gas. Whole our system is based on exploitation of the planet and it is not sustainable. We do not solve everything by using so called green technologies not emitting CO2. Although that's a good thing to do it is not enough.

[@annoloki]

True. Problem isn't so much artificial fertilisers, but it's that those fertilisers are the minimum required to grow the plants... we're not returning the micro nutrients. A fertiliser that contained those would be more expensive. There is also the issue, though, of the increase in soil pH from increase in rain pH, this also washes out many minerals. This was seen in much higher levels before sulphur emissions controls gave us the "acid rain" problem. Even where this is now under control, that doesn't mean the soils have been restored.

[@oskarmeister]

Warming will mostly effect where its cold and during nighttime, which is where and when you want more warmth. Rising in global average temperatures doesn't mean that the temperature will rise with 2 degrees everywhere. Irrigation will more than compensate for any droughts, especially if we don't carbon tax the shit out of our poor farmers.

[@annoloki]

And lack of magnesium stops the body from using the sugars, leading to obesity and type II diabetes. One metastudy found a 15% reduction in change of developing diabetes is correlated with a 100mg increase in daily magnesium intake. In the US & UK, we see less than half of the population is meeting its daily magnesium intake requirements. This problem is already here.

[@pcbif]

Interesting video, but you talk about only part of the story. It's also a fact that due to the functioning of the enzyme Rubisco (where CO2 is fixed into plant biomass), increased CO2 in many plant species (especially C3 plants) will result in higher levels of net photosynthesis (plant production). It could be that drought and other things related to higher temperatures will offset this advantage, but this impact of CO2 on net photosynthesis should be mentioned. It should also be mentioned that life expectancies in underdeveloped countries like Ghana and Bangladesh, for example, has been increasing at a rapid rate over the last decades. Much of this is due to developments in medicine and probably also generally more food availability. It could be that decreasing nutrients in food (as related to increasing CO2) impact health in these regions, but this must be balanced against other considerations like medical developments and the ability to obtain nutrients by other means. I appreciate the plea of reducing CO2 emissions. I'm all onboard with that, but this video only presents part of the story in relating CO2 to plant production and human health.

[@MrNicoJac]

Isn't the higher levels of photosynthesis the exact reason why the nutrients that the plant takes from the soil get diluted in a more carbohydrate-rich plant?? Seems like you didn't really hear what he was saying...

[@Jay_Johnson]

@@MrNicoJac the study he mentioned was focused on current elevated CO2 and did not consider future temperatures. Ribulose bisphosphate carboxylate/oxygenase fixes CO2 in the pathway generating most sugars. It can either use CO2 or O2. Increasing CO2 concentration increases carbon dioxide fixation whereas increasing temperature increases oxygen fixation. The oxygen fixation is a large drain on the metabolism of the plant and it is why a carbon concentrating mechanism has independently evolved 60 something times.

[@MrNicoJac]

@@Jay_Johnson I am _amazed_ by how much info you managed to fit into a short comment, while keeping it clear and understandable 😲👌🏼 Thanks! ^^

[@joaquimbarbosa896]

For the first part I think he didn't mention because it was kinda obvious

[@RipleySawzen]

So, the entire premise of this video is fake. More CO2=faster growing plants. Fact. It's ALREADY HAPPENING. It's been scientifically shown over and over again that most plants grow faster with more CO2. Maybe you need to change the title of your video to reflect that. Because this isn't a video about CO2, is it?

[@lilybertine5673]

As a general rule, if something is good or necessary doesn't mean an excess of it would be beneficial. Everything is about balance. Life is no exception. Also nice job featuring Uncle Roger, didn't see it coming 😂

[@RaglansElectricBaboon]

Thanks for doing these videos. I really don't know how you can read all this stuff and still be motivated to tell anyone. Well done :)

[@raffaelepiccini3405]

Only one technology gives me hope.. GMO It can help fixing both issues, making plants more resilient to heat and droughts, and making more nutrients dense food….

[@johannageisel5390]

In (parts of) Germany we have a big problem with drought now. I have a little vegetable garden and it's bad. Basically no rain in March, a little in April, nothing so far since that little in April. There is a lot of agriculture located around where I live. They are probably in trouble too.

[@timshirk6261]

This info is accurate only the the extent to what was discussed. 99% of farms are contributing to CO2 despite the fact that the extra CO2 in atmosphere is benefiting them. The problem is they are farming with dead soil. Myself and some others are farming with live soil by feeding soil biology and that food is sugar coming from photosynthesis and CO2 and if all other things in soil is correct over 50% of this sugar goes to roots and thru root exudates feeding the bacteria and fungus which then also breakdown rocks and pebbles bringing bio available minerals to the plants which then put that into the crop and makes for a very healthy food. This process is a net gain for the climate and health of anything that eats it and for mankind. So if I may make a correction to this article I will say that the extra C02 in the atmosphere is not the problem but rather the harmful synthetic fertilizers and chemicals that farmers use. If this was corrected there would be more super healthy food than ever before and fix climate change. Sad thing is this will likely not happen until it is to late and might already be.

[@dugan6056]

The delivery here is one of undisputed fact. There are shortcomings to the argument, some possibly introduced after this video was made. Measurements are increasingly showing a difference between actual weather patterns and IPCC predictions. The Antarctic ice shelves, atmospheric temperature, severity of typhoons/hurricanes (though there is more coastal damage due to increasing development along coastlines, flattened trees are not headline material) The wheat belt covers a very wide range of latitudes and climate, a 1 deg rise will not affect the majority of it. Greenhouse farming utilises pumped in CO2. Basically, we do not fully understand climate, or whether we can have the slightest effect on it. I am a biologist and have spent 35 years working in the environmental field. I keep track of all climate updates on a daily basis. With regard to climate change I'm sitting on the fence, I've found nothing either side to tempt me down! As for the IPCC, net zero (utterly ridiculous to remotely consider factoring that in) be highly suspicious of anything affected by politicians or the global elite. There is money and power at stake. Incidentally, does anyone know what the wind turbine blades are made of? Solid balsa wood with a non recyclable cover bound with a resin that can leach bisphenol A's into the surrounding environment. Check them out. Statistics regarding the likely concentrations and possible medical effects are generally produced by companies with an interest. Also check to see the effects of balsa deforestation in Equador. Nothing is proven, we cannot produce a policy, we can only depend on independent science.

[@mrunning10]

How much of a RISK for your descendants is small enough to sit on your ass and do NOTHING???

[@dennislaughton1676]

It takes a complete package of nutrients to grow any food product. Using wheat as an example, with adequate mineral and water availability an additional 300 ppm of CO2 will increase wheat yield by 68.9% with a variability of 10.4%( sum of 88 trials) source C. Idso PhD.

[@tadhgtwo]

Hi Simon, another interesting and concern paper video. When I heard you mentioned it on stream (about 2 weeks ago) I had two questions. One you answered, about the move toward homogeneous crops with less flavour but easier more reliable growth by large food companies. The other question I have is did the paper adjust for possible improvements in measuring techniques? That there may have been inaccuracies in the 1950s measurements that would have been adjusted for in later measurement techniques. I'm sure any impact of such inaccuracies would have been very minimal but just querious if it was discussed in any of the papers you referenced?

[@altrag]

Fairly minimal I would imaging. While there are certainly things we've gotten better at measuring since the 1950s, analysis of basic elements is not really one of them. We've been doing that since the 1800s (maybe even 1700s?) Plus, its not that hard to just grow some test crops in an environmentally-controlled greenhouse and just compare what happens when you mess with the CO2, temperature, soil nutrients, etc.

[@jessBinalla]

Seen a lot of videos on this topics, but this is probably the most well explained on by far, amazing work!

[@nunofoo8620]

"CO2 is plant food" is the equivalent of "brawndo: it's what plants crave"

[@XD152awesomeness]

Just this idea that CO2 is the limiting factor to plant growth shows the lack of understanding of biology and chemistry. No amount of CO2 is going to help if plant growth is restrained by other reagents

[@ricclayton9663]

The declining nutritional value of food since the 1950s is an interesting question. I have heard various hypotheses for this phenomenon. The people who hate Monsanto blame it on the herbicide Roundup, various organic and regenerative farming groups blame it on artificial fertilisers and pesticides. Now it is increasing levels of CO2 to blame. Has anyone done any serious practical research to prove exactly what is happening with our food.

[@aemmelpear5788]

As he mentioned in the video. The CO2 hypothesis was further tested and confirmed by multiple studies.

[@annoloki]

Acid rain also washed minerals from soils, reducing availability for plants. More than one thing is happening.

[@mikeekim1101]

My first suspect with that would be poor soil. Less iron or calcium in soil, less uptake. If CO2 really impacts that, then time to start cultivating or GMOing varieties that can still be nutritious with higher CO2 levels.

[@dickybannister5192]

arent they already in a 1 in 1000 year (20 year plus) megadrought. watching the PBS short on the Colorado basin "The Worst Drought in 1200 Years: What Does it Mean for Your Food?", the problem is less about rainfall (most commonly assumed 'drought') but more about the amount of evaporation occuring. I was amazed at the state of the soil the Hopi guy was farming in, but a dustbowl effect must be possible if it dries out any more.

[@deepashtray5605]

There is also a serious issue with what will happen to the soil itself. Warmer more acidic soils will be significantly altered from what is optimal for the growth of traditional food crops.

[@LeanAndMean44]

If this makes you sad and/or gives you anxiety, read „Climate change is altering the seasonal rhythm of plant life-cycle events“ from „The Conversation“ to get oven more or that/those feeling(s)

[@mrackerm5879]

A video full of misleading information. While the impact on specific plant species depend on a lot of factors, satellite data accumulated over the past 40 years shows a steady overall "greening" of the planet. In other words, as CO2 increased, overall more plants are present on the earth. Also, it is well known, even by those extremely concerned about climate change, that even if the current concentration of CO2 doubles, it makes about a 1% difference in radiation from the earth, which would in turn cause temperatures to increase by approximately 1 deg C. Maybe we should be spending money on accomodation rather that bankrupting the planet to possibly make a 1 degree difference. Don't take my word for it, go read.

[@ncdave4life]

You are correct, mrackerm. Scientists have done thousands of careful, controlled studies of the effects of eCO2 and climate on crops, and they've found that all major crops benefit substantially, and in many cases very dramatically. Agronomists have been doing those studies for more than a century, and the results are very consistent! Scientific American reported on one such study back in 1920, in an article entitled, _Carbonic Acid Gas to Fertilize the Air._ It is very educational reading. What's more, even Loladze admitted to me that food grown in greenhouses at 1500 ppmv is just as nutritious as food grown outdoors at 415 ppmv.

[@antronx7]

@@ncdave4life LOL, climate deniers are now quoting 100 year old studies.

[@ncdave4life]

​@@antronx7, did you miss the part about the thousands of more recent studies, and the part about the results being very consistent? It is long-settled science. The 1920 study reported in _Scientific American_ tested potatoes, cauliflower, castor beans, tomatoes, cucumbers, spinach, lupines and barley. They found that all of them benefit greatly. More recent studies have tested all other major crops, as well, and most minor ones. The crops which benefit the most are C3 legumes. They utilize symbiotic bacteria to fix their own nitrogen fertilizer. They are grown for their high protein content, so by improving the productivity of those crops elevated CO2 levels help alleviate protein shortages in poor countries. Other C3 crops, such as trees, vegetables, fruits, and many grains, also benefit tremendously. C4 plants benefit the least, but even the most important C4 plants, corn and sugarcane, benefit greatly, and even those C4 plants which benefit the least still benefit greatly when under drought stress, because elevated CO2 improves water use efficiency and drought hardiness.

[@antronx7]

@@ncdave4life And where are you going to grow them when earths climate is wrecked? What good is this extra co2 for plants if there is nowhere to grow them? Also i highly doubt 100 years ago scientists had sophisticated equipment like they have now to make an accurate analysis of plants nutrient content. But go ahead keep denyin'.

[@samuelmelton8353]

I imagine that if this applies to human food chains, then might this also apply to nature as a whole? Which in turn will mean animals all up the food chain will also have nutrient deficiencies.

[@andrewgordon1687]

I wish more people knew this

[@Eregur]

Also, not really about plants but still important, is that the increase in co2 that is projected could cause a significant cognitive decline. Which if we look at what leaded fuel did (not entirely the same but it also caused a cognitive decline), could among other things cause crime practically violent crime to increase.

[@mh1593]

Are you able to show any research on this specific issue (CO2) ? "crime" is very subjective to the society it is reported by. ie; different parts of the world treat different things as crimes, including violence.

[@annoloki]

I think we just breathe a bit faster

[@jawadsworth]

Never trust someones predictions about the future who don't recognize the reality of the present. Simon shows two very important graphs at the beginning of the video showing a rapid rise in human population and CO2, almost in direct proportion. In the present CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 50% over preindustrial time AND food production is at an all time high while malnutrition is at an all time low (how else do you get such a rapid increase in human population?). These facts blow a big fat hole in Simon's predictions for the future. Today with more C02 in the atmosphere we are already nourishing more people than ever before.

[@Tortuga6able]

He’s full of crap. So are the so called climate scientists that are in constant need of funding. It’s about the money and keeping the narrative alive.

[@hosnimubarak8869]

By burning fossil fuels, humans are releasing more CO2 than Earths plants and oceans can absorb. Where does the extra CO2 go? Do you deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Do you deny the greenhouse effect of Earth's atmosphere?

[@hosnimubarak8869]

@@Tortuga6able Do you deny the following? Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are about 30% higher than they were about 150 years ago at the dawn of the industrial revolution. Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others. But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle - by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 51 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in thousands of years. (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of has taken just 120 years). Meanwhile the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade. This rate of recent warming is 10x that of the gradual warming that ended the last glacial period.

[@Tortuga6able]

@@hosnimubarak8869 It all sounds pretty accurate me. So what tho. Looking at 150 years or even 2000 years as some sort of a scale on a planetary change that has 4.5 billion years of history is ridiculous. Do you deny the following CO2 levels were at 6 to 7 thousand during the Jurassic period? Big deal they have gone up. Why is it that climate activists think that co2 levels have to stay the same or it will be disaster. They aren’t going to. Human behavior is be afraid of the unknown? It’s not unknown tho. There was beauty and abundance in previous times of higher Co2. I am not saying we should not be good stewards of the planet, because we absolutely should. The world is not going to end if all the ice caps melts tho. This hair on fire crap is ridiculous and unfounded. It’s about the money.

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

So what your saying, the dinosaurs were fat? Because co2 levels were much higher during the Mesozoic causing a hot house and sugary plants

[@Pistolita221]

And there were 2 mass extinctions that put the CO2 in the atmosphere to make the Mesozoic warm. Comparing the stabilized Mesozoic to the destabilized Holocene is like saying atomic bombs aren't damaging because Nagasaki was so quiet the day after the bomb.

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

@@Pistolita221 yep, now humans will transform the quaternary into the Anthropocene hot house (unless action is taken)

[@lunarknight33]

So does this mean that certain foods grown in greenhouses tend to be less nutritious? Usually the CO2 concentration is controlled and elevated to levels like 1000ppm in a greenhouse. Are making these climate controlled houses suboptimal for the quality of the crop?

[@Gormathius]

"Carbon is plant food" say the denialists. Well yeah, and fat is human food, and we all know what happens when we eat too much of that don't we?

[@KeVIn-pm7pu]

You dont get fat from fat.

[@richardzimmermann9372]

Heat wave in India, sandstorms in Iraq, bad news from the Antarctic as a glacier there may collapse, record drought in the southwestern US, bad news from the Arctic as the permafrost thaw is faster than hoped, the list goes on and on. Why are we allowing this?

[@iantaakalla8180]

Money.

[@catmatism]

This will give meat eaters a reason to eat more meat without understanding that lifestock get the minerals from plants

[@thatrandomguy8567]

Is there any good news? Im tired of every god damn thing being horrible

[@MePeterNicholls]

I’ve noticed former climate change deniers now moving to saying “but co2 is good!”

[@موسى_7]

The population chart in the beginning is wrong. There is no 0 AD; 0 wasn't invented yet, so it was called 1 AD. Anyway, our food being less nutritious is why I'm all for banning cars, suburbs, and air conditioning. People lived before air-con after all.

[@Anonymous-df8it]

How tf do you *_invent_* a number?

[@thunfischtoast]

I guess a good analogy that might be easier to understand is water: all life on earth needs water, some more and some less, but there is a minimum amount. Our grains, corns, beans and tomatoes hoverever will not grow better or faster if we drown them in water.

[@ElectricGeckos]

Well, I already don't know how nutrition works, and it sounds like I should pay more attention to it if food will get less healthy.

[@hikerstl]

One factor you didn't consider is that plant geneticists are constantly breeding new varieties that better adapt to climatic conditions.

[@jstans3943]

Ok I’m really confused, I’m not a botanist, but I’m pretty into permaculture and this seems to really butt heads with findings in how our soil has changed over the last few centuries. Not only has our soil health decline, but we have selectively bred for plants to taste sweeter and destroyed most of the heirloom varieties at least in North America. So did these studies account for these co-founding variables? Also, with warmer climates, what about more warm loving grains and other tropical plants? Yea we get a lot of our calories from grains and of course potatoes being a winter crop don’t like warmer weather, but what about rice production? Why not discuss that in a warmer climate? Finally I’m confused- so does this mean that more CO2 actually produces greater amounts of sugars in plants as per your last point, and doesn’t that mean more CO2 would affect plant growth in a positive way? Ok so zinc levels are falling, what about our soil quality? Were those and other variables such as species and genetic history held constant? I’m not narcing on climate change here it just, respectfully speaking, seems like there’s a lot of holes with this. More temperature equates to a lot more germination rates for the majority of plants grown for foods, and more sugars in the environment would seemingly equivocate to a greater total amount of energy into the ecosystem. Finally, I’m extremely intrigued into the data you got from rain patterns, and I hope to research that soon. What sort of processes with greater volatility of temperature equates to less rain? Or more, which I’m assuming is what you where talking about, less landfall rain, and is there a remedy to this involving sea water transportation? Climate change is real and is a problem, but respectively, why are we all sitting here crying about it if it’s a reality, and why aren’t we trying to work with the changes as we seek to reduce the problems causing them?

[@tylerhawley4012]

Keep up the great work, Simon!

[@thomasstrudwick94]

So this will be affecting non domesticated plants too presumably. All animals will be weaker and more prone to disease (giving the disease a greater spread and risk of mutating to cross species) and will affect livestock meaning farmers will need to use more antibiotics and generally reduce quality while at the same time increasing the cost of meat.

[@ryanevans2655]

Thankful for your videos dismantling climate myths. You’re one of the clearest, most knowledgeable communicators in the climate space. It’s just a bit disheartening knowing that the anti-science myths will just keep coming, because they are (usually) not fair-minded questioning of scientific dogma. Myths like these start from the premise that “modern society running on fossil fuels is good, therefore it must be the science telling us we need to change that is bad.”

[@critiqueofthegothgf]

honestly, i had no idea this argument even existed. it's asinine

[@baggaz167]

This my favourite video of yours so far, Simon, mainly because I hear this argument all the time and had no idea how wrong it was! I'm sure Piers Corbyn and Jordan Peterson have both made these arguments before, so it's good to have the counter arguments in my head for when people agree with them!

[@jameso1447]

The funny thing about IPCC reports is the total lack of numbers. Crystal clear connection? If there was any clear connection he would have explained in 5 seconds. 2:00 “Each degree in warming results in a 10% decrease in yield.” It’s like not watering the yard in the hot summer. The grass can’t do photosynthesis or cooling transvaporation without sufficient water. AND the CO2. It’s like rationing food to people who are Olympic Athletes in Beijing before the competition. Obviously this suppresses performance. Ignoring the rising temperature theory, increased carbon dioxide level increase yield of C3 (grains, corn, …) “40% to 100%” at carbon dioxide levels of 800 to 1,000 ppm. Many growers recommend 1,500 to 2,500. Above 3,500 is not beneficial unless air *pressure and temperature* are both increased. The key to the 10% loss quoted is obvious: It is based on assumed constant water availability. They didn’t water the lawn. They established that if every farmer is so stupid that they don’t water when needed, warming can damage crops. Bravo, Sherlock. 2:08 “Plants don’t like being hotter than they’re used to.” They probably forgot to water them. A plant adapts to climate between germination and the second month. Cultivars already prove that plants have thermal adaptability genetically built in already. Canada grows grape vines that survive frost. “Drought will be even more common…” Really? The world’s favorite drought right now is the American west and Saharan Africa. The American west has salt flats left over from the ocean that was there 32 million years ago. It’s been a drought for 32 million years already! Anybody got proof the Sahara was wet in the last 23 million years? The answer is no. 5:00 That report investigated on 3 minerals!? Three! Iron, phosphate, and calcium. Those all come as standard fertilizer. Totally ignores magnesium and a host of other minerals essential to health and productivity. Wait. Did he say PROTEIN?! Protein is not a mineral! This guy doesn’t know amino acid complexes from minerals! And we’re listening to HIM on how plants work? 6:00 The mineral deficit is because we’re not plowing new farmland, exploding volcanoes, or putting our feces on the ground where next year’s crops will grow. Magnesium in soil -> plant -> human -> sewer -> landfill. Essential minerals are not recycled in this system. If that silly carbon crisis exists then go to a volcano and prove it. Absurd. Been proven wrong 100 times in Hawaii alone. 9:20 “A roadmap to success”, eh? Like *Thelma and Louise*. Speaking of deficiencies, B12 is a bad deficiency and Dracula has a darker tan than this guy does. Symptoms include * Weakness, tiredness, or lightheadedness * Heart palpitations and shortness of breath * Pale skin * A smooth tongue * Constipation, diarrhea, loss of appetite, or gas * Nerve problems like numbness or tingling, muscle weakness, and problems walking * Vision loss * Mental problems like depression, memory loss, or behavioral changes Vitamin B12 Deficiency: Causes, Symptoms, and Treatment www.webmd.com/diet/vitamin-b12-deficiency-symptoms-causes

[@jameso1447]

@@pauljackson2409 Got it Thanks

[@ocschwar]

"The funny thing about IPCC reports is the total lack of numbers". well, that's proof that you have not read them.

[@Pistolita221]

" Many growers recommend 1,500 to 2,500." In a controlled environment, not in the atmosphere. You think a grow room is a good analog to the atmosphere? And you want to be taken seriously? The factors of magnitude difference between grow rooms and the atmosphere have magnitudes of difference, the difference is so great. You're pathetic. "They established that if every farmer is so stupid that they don’t water when needed, warming can damage crops." Where's the extra water for Cali going to come from? You think we have unlimited water? You don't think that increased temp will increase evaporation rate? You're stupid. "They probably forgot to water them." Where is Argentina going to get water? And China? Where is this 20% increase in available water going to come from? is it going to come from up yours? "That report investigated on 3 minerals!?" You're hilarious, you think mislabeling proteins as minerals invalidates the rest of his argument, or are you hoping to focus on the only piece of info he actually got wrong in an attempt to claim he's as ignorant as you?

[@TOH_Fan]

Could we genetically modify plants to intake more nutrients? I know we already use GMOs commonly. Would gene editing be able to deal with problem or not?

[@davidhilderman]

It is helping us grow more food. Lots more. It is the reason that greenhouses PAY for CO2 to increase levels to 1000 ppm. It is one of the reasons that crop productivity records are being broken every subsequent year. Dems da facts man!

[@user-xsn5ozskwg]

Did you watch the video or are you just speaking out your ass?

[@albin4323]

@@user-xsn5ozskwg Why should he watch the movie Simon clark is mentally insane there can't be enough CO2 for plants, we are already at starvation values right now.

[@user-xsn5ozskwg]

@@albin4323We are literally throwing away 40% of the food we produce what are you talking about. Starvation since the 1930's has been a direct result of poor logistics getting food to the people who need it, typically because of explicit political or economic policies. And again, the science does not agree. More CO2 does not result in more food, it *can* result in bigger plants but that doesn't mean their edible yield increases. To say nothing of how they are affected by subsequent changes in temperature, whether, and other parts of the ecosystem that don't thrive on increased CO2 like ocean life and insects.

[@albin4323]

@@user-xsn5ozskwg Bigger plants have more leafes/food on them so you make no sense, are you saying a bigger apple tree usually don't have more apples on average are you really that thick? What a completely mess you are.

[@Joseph_Dredd]

Rice, Wheats , grains may not increase, but what about fruits and vegetables? Eg grapes and wine now made in Southern England where before it was not possible. Interesting video for sure though. One point not touched upon is the changes in soil fertility/crop yields in southern parts of world will exacerbate mass migration! And given it is places like Africa and Asia whose populations are the ones expanding so rapidly this bodes ill for nations in North (Europe/UK) whose populations are not at replacement level.

[@edvindenbeste2587]

We could probably grow enough food even in a warmer climate if we took away animal agriculture, but it would be less effective, more drought-prone and overall worse than if we just stopped warming

[@darthmaul216]

KZbin didn’t show me this video despite having notifications enabled

[@beactivebehappy9894]

Also to point out here, the first comparison might mislead many people, conforming to their preconceived biases. The graphs correlate but they are not causal. The top 10 countries contribute to about 70% of total co2. Yes and US being highest polluter has produced emissions more than China, UK and India combined. Also all major developed countries like US, UK, AUS have highest emissions per capita. So instead of putting the blame on developing countries, who actually need to emit, unfortunately, to grow and become more developed and they are not even the top polluters per capita, it's high time to put a cut on consumerism in the developed countries and introduce strict policies. But then again, it would be against their over-capitalistic mindsets, and it's easier to keep blaming China and India for pollutions

[@sebucwerd]

How old is the computer you typed this on?

[@annoloki]

US emissions are higher than China's if you include overseas military emissions (or at least, this was true a few years ago, I've not seen newer figures).

[@QT5656]

China's carbon footprint includes making products for export to Europe and USA

[@ddhqj2023]

Yes, grain growing Alberta, Canada now facing a drought that has the idiot provincial government already talking about how to manage it, while still being in talks with an Australian coal company whose production in the Rockies Mountains, will pollute the rivers that flow in that area.

[@Cannedcheese45]

Here to boost engagement but also damn theres a lot of stuff in this video I had no idea about

[@StoutShako]

Regarding the nutrient collapse point: I find it interesting that you didn't answer the most obvious question when it comes to battling that. Why can't we just synthesize our own vitamins? We've known how to for a long time, and Vitamin C in a pill isn't that much different than Vitamin C in an orange. Or course, the orange offers more than just vitamin C, but we can solve that by making multivitamins, right? Am I missing something here?

[@terenceiutzi4003]

Then why on earth do they maintain a minimum of 1600 PPM Co2 in greenhouses where they grow food? No don't tell me they like wasting money?

[@Stealthbong]

Who is they? Nobody i know makes any changes to the air mixture in their greenhouse.

[@terenceiutzi4003]

@@Stealthbong well I know of ten tomato green houses in Ontario and they all run 1600 PPM Co2 in their green houses! And they have to pay a special carbon tax for producing the Co2 even though the plants eat it all! And the pot green house in town bought a huge Co2 generator from the company I work for!

[@Stealthbong]

@@terenceiutzi4003 I guess running 1600ppm in a greenhouse for tomatoes is different to grains growing out in the open, and greenhouses have the added benefit of there being no ice sheets or glaciers the CO2 will thaw.

[@terenceiutzi4003]

@@Stealthbong no it just gives the fruit and vegetables closer to the amount of Co2 that was in the atmospher when they evolved

[@terenceiutzi4003]

And every paper that I have read they give the grain massive amounts of Nitrogen that makes them grow plant and not fruit

[@eric2500]

Here in the state of New York, on the coast, It rained all last week. In the American West one of the dryest states is on fire. Yes, the Gulf stream and the water cycle is not working the way it used to..

[@AadidevSooknananNXS]

I remember you did a video showing how you chose climate dynamics as a research topic (specifically the extreme warming events induced by the shifts in the cold donut of air circling the arctic), could you do a longer one, showing how you ended up on the specific problem you ended up tackling for your PhD (maybe a tree-based explanation haha)? I'm sure I want to do a PhD in ML-related climate science, but the field of specifically climate science seems overwhelming at time (currently at MS-level in Machine Learning) Keep up the great work!

[@miajar]

Terrifying, but I'd rather know than not know. More proof that action should not be a question

[@merrymachiavelli2041]

I accept all the science here, but I'm a litttttle bit more optimistic on the famine-front, for three reasons. First, global population is almost certainly going to plateau and peak before 2100, probably around 2070 at 9 billionish, the UN population projections are too high (other demographers have produced other models, and even if you just look at data from the 3 years since it was published, the 2019 predictions are increasingly off). Second, a large amount of our crop production is underutilised - massive amounts of crop land is essentially wasted to produce meat. This gives humanity 'wiggle room'. Even assuming we don't all switch to being vegan/vegetarian on our own steam (and we should, at least in regards to beef because it's catastrophic emissions wise), and governments don't see this coming and encourage it, you'd expect to see meat consumption decrease as it becomes more expensive, freeing up land for producing calories in a more efficient way. Third, some of these impacts can probably be ameliorated by technical solutions. Not completely, but partially. Crops can be bred, engineered or just swapped-out to keep yields up in hotter regions. Currently somewhat-impractical things like indoor vertical agriculture will get more efficient and price-competitive. Decreasing nutrients in food can be addressed via supplementation or food fortification (the latter of which isn't even that expensive). Again, I'm not saying there won't be serious issues and that all possible actions shouldn't be taken to avoid climate change (I'm personally willing to make drastic lifestyle alterations and pay more to see this happen), but famines are the type of thing that _does_ prompt innovation.

[@pattheplanter]

Difficult to breed crops that are resistant to hurricanes, wildfires, mudslides and flash floods. The improvements by genetic engineering have been minimal after decades. The political willingness to change always lags behind the need to change - in this case the general population may be forced to go vegan after tens or hundreds of millions of deaths but the middle and upper classes are very careful about guarding their consumption priviliges. If they won't reduce CO2 production, why would they bother to reduce consumption?

[@Jay_Johnson]

@@pattheplanter on the genetic engineering front the progress has been so little cos it is still illegal in most places. The agrobacterium CRISPR Cas9 method will give results as soon as we understand the plant metabolism. Unfortunately the base understanding of plant metabolism doesn’t get the attention it deserves. If you want to feel a bit more optimistic read some of the work by the C4 rice consortium.

[@mh1593]

UN estimates circa ~2010 are that the global population will naturally plateau at 11 billion individuals by 2050. However a lot of things (Covid-19, etc.) will influence this, not least mass migration, weather effects, famines, wars, and other aspects directly attributable to global warming.

[@Jay_Johnson]

@@mh1593 I think you mean 2100?

[@mh1593]

@@Jay_Johnson no the study was published in 2010 and referred to figures for 2050

[@Justgoodvids]

I wonder if a summary of the video should be a short as well

[@NoIce33]

TBH that was a badly chosen meme at 1:15, not only for the film. Not every word, indeed not even most of what that the politician said was wrong, he just left an important part of the picture out. There is nothing wrong with the core plant physiology behind the assessment of "more CO2 gives more food"; this has good theoretical basis and has been thoroughly proven in experiments over several decades, it is just that there is the climate aspect that overwhelms the positive effect. A lot of what we eat is even grown with artificial CO2 fertilisation.

[@wlhgmk]

Also the far east decided around the 50s to eat polished rice, further exacerbating this effect.

[@TheDisproof]

Great video! Soil moisture loss in higher temps is a massive problem .

[@anonxnor]

The new star wars movies are the only good ones. The old ones need a remake, they are really outdated. I'm sure they were good for their time, but the special effects and choreography just don't hold up. They were ambitious movies and it shows now many decades later.

[@pattheplanter]

rofl

[@RB_Eldritch]

Special effects and choreography are the only things the new ones have, and even then some of the choreography is questionable. The quality of the story is what lasts, which is why the OT endures so long, even the prequels are a good story told poorly, the highs of The Clone Wars Series proved that if done properly they could have been amazing, the "Siege of Mandalore" arc is basically EP. 3 from another characters perspective, and its among the best in the franchise. The Sequels went from unoriginal, to poorly-realized, to just plain non-sensical. it honestly saddens me that every star wars project going forward is going to have to accomodate the ridiculous story these movies told.

[@anonxnor]

​@@RB_Eldritch The old movies are not well paced either, they are really boring. Luke training with Yoda for example, yawn. And Yoda is a hand puppet or something? It doesn't look convincing at all. But as I said, they are old movies, so you can't expect much more. They need a rework. The Sequels were great. Fans of the originals who are biased enough to not see that they don't hold up at all, were always going to hate the new ones.

[@RB_Eldritch]

@@anonxnor Well if you enjoyed the Sequels thats great, honestly im envious of you, i wanted nothing more than to like them, but i dont, and many others dont either. Your issues with the OT seem more like personal opinions then actual problems, which is fine, it just doesnt make them objectively bad. but yeah, if you prefer good graphics then Yoda's gonna suck, if you're impatient or like action then Dagobah is going to be boring, but they were loved by the majority when they came out, and they still are now. I dont think it is fair to judge them for the conventions and restrictions of the time they were made in. The fact the the Sequels are so divisive indicates that there is a problem, you cant please everyone, but it was not impossible to make something that most would enjoy. Actually planning out the trilogy and sticking with one passionate director were such easy steps to take.

[@nieiniei]

Simon, nutrition deficiency isn't really due to food. Even as nutrient deficiency fall, people are eating more food - processed food that has nutrients pulled out. Nutrient fall is more significant from the application of pesticides, herbicides that is causing mineral nutrient leachates and also minerals locked in landfills that are too toxic to be used.

[@mrunning10]

blah blah blah, what are YOU doing NOW?

[@mythiccass3837]

I wish I had this information 2 weeks ago when I saw someone say higher CO2 = more plant growth. XD Though, a question about plants & nutrition: I get that plants need CO2 to grow & that benefits to increased CO2 is limited by access to other nutrients. Though, as illustrated from 5:48 are you saying increased CO2 is inhibiting the intake of other nutrients via producing more sugars crowding out nutritious growth, or just that increasing CO2 obviously doesn't add the nutrient dense growth we want since there isn't an increase in the other nutrients we want.

[@teodoras9611]

Sometimes I wonder what it takes for a person like me, just watching the video, to prove whether the claims in it are true. I guess the books you pointed out must be well researched but still... If it is truth, it's a truth that people don't want to hear

[@clf400]

Well the citations are there. That’s the point of a bibliography

[@JM-zg2jg]

Eh, don’t trust it. Most of the studies he cites rely on repeatedly failed models. He has no idea what the warming will mean for us. None of them do. The system is just too complex, and we just aren’t as smart as we pretend to be.

[@clf400]

@@JM-zg2jg imagine ignoring someone with a phd in atmospheric physics because you don’t know what you’re talking about. Stop pretending you know what you’re talking about

[@alexturlais8558]

I can't believe you know so much about science but are completely wrong about star wars!

[@gavinminion8515]

An interesting and relevant video. However we must remember that the "more co2 equals more plants" argument is similar to a flat Earth view. The people who argue it prefer to spend their time looking for arguments which support their views and avoid critical thought or analysis beyond the most simplistic. "When I look out to sea it looks flat so the Earth is flat". These people are easily persuaded by populist leaders who are prepared to misinform for personal gain. Videos like this one will not have much impact on those people - unfortunately.