I am reading the "The Uninhabitable Earth".

[roamer65]

Wow.

Since 1950, the nutritional content of crops has declined by about 1/3. Crops in a higher CO2 environment become larger, more sugary and less nutritional.

I wonder if this is one of the contributors to the skyrocketing occurrences of diabetes.

[Locrian]

1. on my list....

there's this too

https://jembendell.wordpress.com/2018/07/26/the-study-on-collapse-they-thought-you-should-not-read-yet/

[Mickju]

14. Jem Bendell is excellent!

[mahina]

2. I found David Wallace Wells' interview with Chris Hayes (on his podcast) unforgettable. One Q,

since I haven't gotten the book yet, is just this. Lots of other changes have come to agriculture. How does he pull CO2 out as the cause of this decline, or does he?

Causation, correlation etc.

I agree with everything he said on the podcast and am glad for the book.

[roamer65]

3. He quotes it from a 2004 landmark study.

As he says, crops are becoming more like junk food. Even bee pollen protein has declined by 1/3.

[mahina]

4. I read you and I don't question how horrible CO2 we put in the atmosphere is just wondering

I’m just wonderingHow he’s pulling out CO2 from everything else including toxic chemicals and soil degradation as a cause of this problem.

Guessing that’s for me to find out. Thanks again for the info.

[roamer65]

5. Yup. From reading so far, this guy has done his research.

As the CO2 levels increase, the problem is becoming worse with the plants. More sugar, less nutrients.

[dixiegrrrrl]

10. plus the soil is depleted in commercial farms

Soil becomes saturated with chemicals, same crops are planted in same soil every year, same variety, there is no tilth at all.
I have no problem understanding the loss of nutrition. Also loss of flavor.
We are raising kids who have no idea what real food is supposed to taste like.

Dunno if CO2 is creating higher sugars. or not. I suspect bathing commercial plants in Round UP might have some effect we have not discovered.

Thanks for the book title.

[mahina]

18. All very true and horrible and hopeful at once.

I don’t know any farmers on the continent and understand this round with trump has been disastrous for many, following years of other disasters.

May we rebuild the soil and shift to sustainable agriculture. There’s a national emergency.

[roamer65]

20. In the back of the book he lists his sources.

[roamer65]

6. From 1992-1997, we were melting 49 billion tons of Antarctic ice a year.

From 2012-2017, we melted 219 billion tons a year.

5 times as much.

I think we fucked, folks.

[Cold War Spook]

9. I am all for trying,

but I think at this point it is pretty useless since the majority people won't do anything about it. I mean we won't go extinct from global climate change, there will be enough small villages to start over.

[Blue_true]

16. My feeling is that you are right in that humans won't go extinct.

But the challenge to survive will likely be difficult and expensive. The survivors will likely be mostly the well off on the wealthiest countries. Because animals will did in droves and/or will eat any available plant or animal to survive, food will likely be extrodinarily scarce, causing widespread killer famine.

Even if there were global villages surviving, why "start over"? Why not just not breed and let the last of humans die without reproducing. The small villages will likely face a hellish existence because once the climate has been taken beyond a point it will take many years maybe even centuries for it to get back to stable (both carbon oxide gases and water vapor cycle in and out of the atmosphere, without plants and seas, carbon oxide gases will take a long time to cycle back to a level where life can once again thrive).

[mahina]

21. Yikes. I've felt for a while

That it was too late for 2 degrees by 2100 but now it looks like we’ll be lucky w 3. Which is unimagineable. The author suggests that carbon capture is something to seriouslybthink about, even at over a trillion dollars cost to capture enough to make 2 degrees. If I understood him rightly.

He explained the benefit and cost in context. Only works if we also change our output. I’m guessing you know that very well already.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

7. I'm under the impression that the problem with the decline in crop nutrition

is more a factor of the soil being depleted of nutrients.

Can't quote a source for that, but I know I've read it more than once. It makes more sense to me than a higher CO2 environment. For one thing, I want to see some sort of actual proof that the CO2 is having the claimed effect.

[The Mouth]

8. " Crops in a higher CO2 environment become larger, more sugary and less nutritional."

But think of the billionaires! how can you be so selfish?!?!?

Of course consuming garbage couldn't possibly be linked with health issues... what kind of 'murican are you?

[trickyguy]

11. Yes, I'm reading it also. There are so many frightening and abundant statistics in each chapter.

I can only read a few at a time. But it's engrossing material and
David Wallace-Wells has certainly done his homework.

I've seen a few interviews with him on You Tube and he is articulate and
quite engaging. When one interviewer asked him what we can do about climate change
he said we need two main things: one, a global awareness that this is affecting our entire planet
and secondly, the world needs politicians who will collectively seek to find solutions and
not ignore the problem. And that it affects all other policies and agenda.

This is what frightens me about Trump and company is they are totally blind to this
and even make a mockery of what is being done ie: wind power. We are just getting further
behind in finding any solutions and they are doing a dis-service to the world.

I'm very interested in the candidacy of Governor Jay Inslee who has put climate change at
the TOP of his agenda. He knows a lot and is willing put in the work to bring this forward
into the Democratic Presidential Race.

[LAS14]

15. I'm watching Inslee with great interest. He seems to have "it," whatever it is. nt

[cstanleytech]

12. I doubt it to blame for diabetes. If anything I lean towards the usage of more refined foods like

refined flour and high fructose corn syrup.

[Blue_true]

17. And more sedentary people.

Up until something like the 1920s the amount of manual labor to get almost anything done was large. As machines become more advanced people need to do less physically demanding labor and most people don't work out.

[erronis]

13. IANAS: Makes sense to me. CO2 is used by plants via photosynthesis to create glucose

glucose is a elemental sugar that is further developed into stuff like fructose and sucrose.

If plants are given a bunch of one of their needed building components such as CO2, they'll use it. But they won't be automatically be given other components such as nitrogen and minerals from the soil.

My recollection is that kudzu has been moving north since it is so good at capturing CO2. Poison ivy (my bane) is even moving into the far north-east of the US give the warming trends and increased CO2.

(IANAS: I am not a scientist)

[canetoad]

19. K&R

You may also find this article interesting. I bookmarked it 18 months ago and it's still terrifyingly relevant.

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511

The great nutrient collapse

snip...

IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, it’s been understood for some time that many of our most important foods have been getting less nutritious. Measurements of fruits and vegetables show that their minerals, vitamin and protein content has measurably dropped over the past 50 to 70 years. Researchers have generally assumed the reason is fairly straightforward: We’ve been breeding and choosing crops for higher yields, rather than nutrition, and higher-yielding crops—whether broccoli, tomatoes, or wheat—tend to be less nutrient-packed.

In 2004, a landmark study of fruits and vegetables found that everything from protein to calcium, iron and vitamin C had declined significantly across most garden crops since 1950. The researchers concluded this could mostly be explained by the varieties we were choosing to grow.

Loladze and a handful of other scientists have come to suspect that’s not the whole story and that the atmosphere itself may be changing the food we eat. Plants need carbon dioxide to live like humans need oxygen. And in the increasingly polarized debate about climate science, one thing that isn’t up for debate is that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. Before the industrial revolution, the earth’s atmosphere had about 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide. Last year, the planet crossed over the 400 parts per million threshold; scientists predict we will likely reach 550 parts per million within the next half-century—essentially twice the amount that was in the air when Americans started farming with tractors.

If you’re someone who thinks about plant growth, this seems like a good thing. It has also been useful ammunition for politicians looking for reasons to worry less about the implications of climate change. Rep. Lamar Smith, a Republican who chairs the House Committee on Science, recently argued that people shouldn’t be so worried about rising CO2 levels because it’s good for plants, and what’s good for plants is good for us.

[roamer65]

22. Good job, canetoad.

That research is one that he cites.