Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Planet of the Plants

By Glenn Scherer, Grist.org. Posted July 25, 2005.


In a world changed by global warming, crops may grow more abundantly, but be unable to nourish us.
Advertisement

Humanity is on the threshold of a century of extraordinary bounty, courtesy of global climate change. That's the opinion of Robert Balling, former scientific adviser to the Greening Earth Society, a lobbying arm of the power industry founded by the Western Fuels Association. In a world where atmospheric carbon dioxide levels soar from the burning of fossil fuels, he says, "crops will grow faster, larger, more water-use efficient, and more resistant to stress." Quoting study after study, he invokes visions of massive melon yields, heftier potatoes, and "pumped-up pastureland." Bumper crops of wheat and rice, he says, will benefit the world's farmers and the hungry.

Balling's assertions are backed by solid science: Gaseous CO2 fertilization does cause remarkable growth spurts in many plants, and could create a greener planet with beefier tomatoes and faster-growing, bigger trees. But there's a catch: The insects, mammals, and impoverished people in developing countries who feed on this bounty may end up malnourished, or even starving.

A small but growing body of research is finding that elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, while increasing crop yield, decrease the nutritional value of plants. More than a hundred studies, for example, have found that when CO2 from fossil-fuel burning builds up in plant tissues, nitrogen (essential for making protein) declines. A smaller number of studies hint at another troubling impact: As atmospheric CO2 levels go up, trace elements in plants (such as zinc and iron, which are vital to animal and human life) go down, potentially malnourishing all those that subsist on the plants. This preliminary research has given scientists reason to worry about bigger unknowns: Virtually no studies have been done on the effects of elevated CO2 on other essential trace elements, such as selenium, an important antioxidant, or chromium, which is believed to regulate blood-sugar levels.

The less-nutritious plants of a CO2-enriched world will likely not be a problem for rich nations, where "super-sized" meals and vitamin supplements are a dietary mainstay. But things could be very different in the developing world, where millions already live on the edge of starvation, and where the micronutrient deficit, known as "hidden hunger," is already considered one of the world's leading health problems by the United Nations.

The problem of hidden hunger grew out of the 1960s "green revolution." That boom in agriculture relied on new varieties of high-yield crops and chemical fertilizers to staunch world hunger by upping caloric intake in the developing world. Unfortunately, those high-yield crops are typically low in micronutrients, and eating them has resulted in an epidemic of hidden hunger. At least a third of the world is already lacking in some chemical element, according to the U.N., and the problem is due in part to a steady diet of micronutrient-deficient green-revolution plants. Iron deficiency alone, which can cause cognitive impairment in children and increase the rate of stillbirths, affects some 4.5 billion people. Lack of iodine, another micronutrient, can result in brain damage and is a serious problem in 130 countries. According to the World Bank, hidden hunger is one of the most important causes of slowed economic development in the Third World.

Enter rising CO2 levels, which could exacerbate hidden hunger in this century. Current concentrations of atmospheric CO2 now exceed anything seen in the last 420,000 years -- and likely in the last 20 million years, according to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And forecasts call for CO2 levels to rise dramatically, from today's 378 parts per million to 560 parts per million or more by as early as 2050. The micronutrient decline brought by these ballooning CO2 levels could collide dangerously with the developing world's nutrient-poor green-revolution crops and its exploding population. Scientists also worry about how plant nutrient deficiencies might destabilize the world's wild ecosystems in unexpected ways.

"This is one of those slow-motion effects that does not hit us like a hammer, so we don't notice it," says Irakli Loladze, an assistant professor at the University of Nebraska. But, he says, failing to notice the hidden hunger fueled by changing CO2 levels does not lessen its potential impact: "The structure of the whole food web could change."

Diet for a Nitrogen-Deprived Planet

Early carbon-dioxide enrichment experiments were relatively simple: All kinds of wild and cultivated plants were exposed in field or lab to current, doubled, and tripled levels of CO2, and scientists watched what happened. In more than 2,700 studies, plant growth typically exploded. Doubled CO2 levels resulted in an average increase in agricultural yield of over 40 percent.


Digg!

Glenn Scherer is an author and freelance journalist and the former editor of Blue Ridge Press, a syndicated environmental commentary service in the Southeast.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
gramps
Posted by: gramps on Jul 25, 2005 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem of the greenhouse effect is only one of many deadly problems that can be laid directly at the feet of the oil companies. Read Joel Bakan's The Corporation. We are also the victims of other corporations like the armaments industry.
I can see no other solution to these problems than for us to outlaw the corporation as a business form and replace them with cooperatives. The reason for the psychopathic behavior of the corporation is that it is a mechanical construct that is not owned. Somebody has to own the damned thing!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: gramps Posted by: nakis
» RE: gramps Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: gramps Posted by: bornxeyed
"A Fast-Food Connection?"
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jul 25, 2005 9:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing like playing "Russian Roulette" with the world. . .

On a somewhat related note: I wonder what deep-fat-frying everything (i.e.: fast food) does to micronutrients? Are we eating more of the stuff, like malnourished insects, and getting fat while trying to get our chromium and selenium?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "A Fast-Food Connection?" Posted by: Diecash1
The Last Paragraph
Posted by: nakis on Jul 25, 2005 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The whole article is quite good. But the last paragraph says the most. When you plumb all those facts together you get a rather large strain on the environment. At this rate, not too far in the future there will be a tipping point.

But don't worry about that. The wealthy are already insulated against major environmental problems They'll be fine.
Well if you're not fabulously wealthy you do have something to worry about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A simple solution.......
Posted by: Diecash1 on Jul 25, 2005 11:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is to join a CSA. Community supported agriculture (CSA) is a good way to get locally grown food. This lessens the environmental impact, especially when it is an organic farm. You can find a CSA local to you at this website:

Local Harvest

There is alot of good info at this site. I have been a member for 2 years and I really like it. I also buy variety of other fruits & vegetables from the farmer's market where I pickup my share. I think that this would be something easy that many people could do. It supports a local farmer and it reduces the amount of pesticides (if organic) and fossil fuels that are used in production and transport of goods.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A simple solution....... Posted by: Pooty T
» Before you ask... Posted by: nickptar
» RE: A simple solution....... Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: A simple solution....... Posted by: nickptar
» RE: A simple solution....... Posted by: bornxeyed
» D'oh Posted by: nickptar
» RE: A simple solution....... Posted by: Diecash1
» RE: A simple solution....... Posted by: robertjneal
Outlaw the Corporation
Posted by: bornxeyed on Jul 25, 2005 1:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alexander Hamilton wanted the formation of coproations banned from the start.
He stated that a corporation "has no body to punish nor a soul to condemn"

May I add nor a conscience to guide it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Outlaw the Corporation Posted by: Diecash1
» RE: Outlaw the Corporation Posted by: bornxeyed
Limiting nutrients, limited space, limited sun and limited water
Posted by: bornxeyed on Jul 25, 2005 2:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Without reading more than the first paragraph in detail it was predictable that increased yields due to higher CO2 would produce nutritionally bereft food. CO2 has never been the limiting nutrient in regard to plant growth. In well balanced soil it is usually nitrogen and phosphorous, for the production of nucleic acids and proteins, are what limit a plants growth.

What isn't included in the article, however, will be the effect of shorter growing seasons and less arable land as grain belts shift north. More CO2 may not increase yields when, at higher latitides, the summer is only 3 months long and there simply isn't as much land area to grow food on.

Think of Canada as the new "breadbasket of the world" when the American Heartland is drought-ridden dustbowl.

These feedback type effects, along with unknowns in rainfall distributions have made predicting the effect of higher CO2 concentrations on plant growth controversial for over 20 years.

To bet our nutritional survival on increased experimental plant yields is just as foolhardy as increasing the natural greenhouse effect to begin with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I got lost between 'micro-' and 'macro-' nutrients
Posted by: Sojourner on Jul 25, 2005 2:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Prattle on about zinc, iron, selenium, and chromium, and I say pop a vitamin pill. I guess the story of 'hidden hunger' is so well hidden this is the first time I've heard about it. It sounds like the very same kind of science-doubletalk that Bush listens to in order to resist any changes to what his family fortune is selling in the energy industry.

The crops have died in the American Midwest this year in the worst drought in over a hundred years. The predictions of the return of the dust bowl due to global warming have been common knowledge.

Yet it was just a few years ago that the flooding of the Mississippi was the worst it has been in over 100 years. Since global warming is reported as if the planet were a single thermometer (thank you science for the dependence on aggregates), it's only 1/7 of a degree currently.

But global warming means more hurricanes, more floods, more droughts, more tornados, and more heat waves unpredictably. Our bread basket states, productive because of hard work, are also productive because the weather was predictable. If good at least one of four years, an old South Dakotan told me, they could survive on a farm with that.

Cut that down to one out of five years and the 'hidden' hunger will no longer be hard to find. Get your head out of the lab (well, at least some of it)! Look around. Believe your eyes. Bush has been forced to beat a retreat because what science has known for a long time now is self-evident.

Why is it the self-evident is even harder to see than 'hidden hunger'? We see what we are looking for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Dear Henry David Thoreau Posted by: Sojourner
Your not alone - It's World demand and supply that counts
Posted by: IanA on Jul 26, 2005 4:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact is harder winters and dryer summers are having a devastating effect on agricultural production worldwide. Climate change is real and deadly in terms of food production. The more subsistence level the production areas, the more badly effected it is by drought or flood. The problems are being caused by more extreme swings that climate. (Africa, Central Asia, South Asia, Russia etc.). The melting of permafrost in the arctic or retreating of glaciers is no solution and is in fact causing other a problems. It does not make for instant apple orchards in Alaska.

People live off animal protein mostly produced by the highly inefficient means of growing vegetable matter, namely grains etc. and feeding them to animals.

Just one example: China accounts for ¼ of the world’s population. In rough terms and on an equivalence of US animal protein consumption, the average Chinese eats meat about 0.8 times a weak. With urbanization and economic growth of 9% to 12% annually, the eating habits in China change too. If the average Chinese consumption changes to increasing demands for meat produced from grain fed animals to say 2.00 times a week it would require them to import the equivalent of 1/5 last years US and Canada’s grain production alone.

Imagine what that change in demand will do to the price of grains when China already is one of the worlds biggest importers of Soya, Sorghum, and wheat. They also need the noodles to go with the beef.

For facts and figures on global food security see and study: http://www.fao.org/es/english/index_en.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]