This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Climate Emergency Declaration

Are we, as the IET, declaring a climate emergency? 

It's really that simple a topic, should we be adding our professional voice to the growing number of countries and organisations declaring such an event, to bring better awareness of the threat of the climate crisis and to encourage more discussion in addressing it! 

  • More people need more food, meat, houses, hot water, cars all of which need fuel. 

    The planet has many different types of fuels but nearly all concentrated fuels are hydrocarbons and emit CO2.

    The planets answer is to defrost the tundra and icecaps so more vegetation can absorb the CO2

    Gods very sensible solution and one we must live with.. 

  • This is my understanding too.

    The recent world population boom is most probably due to global warming and human CO2 both of which have increased in the last 300 years since the little ice age. 

    The planet and humans thrive in our current climate and set to increase further.

    As we know from ice core and sediment samples the past has been much warmer than today with CO2 in the thousands of parts per million. The current 423PPM is great for us. Also, its known that we are coming to the end of our current interglacial period,  when things start to get cold humans will struggle, crops will fail and the world population will shrink.

    The IPCC models fail to predict anything useful with there model runs failing to match observations. Indeed they can't even tell what the temperature will be in 10 days time.

  • This has already been debunked. 

    While there has been an increase in the amount of CO2 being absorbed by plantlife, it's offset by the increase in global temperatures which are decimating the very same plants. 

    New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’ | Climate science scepticism and denial | The Guardian

    "A new study by scientists at Stanford University, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, tested whether hotter temperatures and higher carbon dioxide levels that we’ll see post-2050 will benefit the kinds of plants that live in California grasslands. They found that carbon dioxide at higher levels than today (400 ppm) did not significantly change plant growth, while higher temperatures had a negative effect."


  • The Grauniad is a left wing green path follower. You'll get nothing sensible from them other than the usual scaremongering.

  • Did you read the actual 2016 study and see how limited it was?

    Meanwhile in the real world cereal production is increasing steadily in spite of increasing temperatures and CO2 levels:

  • Here's straight from nasa.

    " the warming properties of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are well-established and scientifically uncontroversial.

    Available CO2 is not the limiting factor for plant growth outside of a greenhouse.

    Proper moisture, nutrients, temperature, sunlight and controlling pests are.

    How Rising CO2 Affects Nutrition:

    Though rising CO2 stimulates plant growth and carbohydrate production, it reduces the nutritional value (protein and minerals) of most food crops. This direct effect of rising CO2 on the nutritional value of crops represents a potential threat to human health.


    As CO2 increases, plants need less protein for photosynthesis, resulting in an overall decline in protein concentration in plant tissues. This trend for declining protein levels is evident for wheat flour derived from multiple wheat varieties when grown under laboratory conditions simulating the observed increase in global atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1900. When grown at the CO2 levels projected for 2100 (540–958 ppm), major food crops, such as barley, wheat, rice, and potato, exhibit 6% to 15% lower protein concentrations relative to ambient levels (315–400 ppm). In contrast, protein content is not anticipated to decline significantly for corn or sorghum.

    While protein is an essential aspect of human dietary needs, the projected human health impacts of a diet including plants with reduced protein concentration from increasing CO2 are not well understood and may not be of considerable threat in the United States, where dietary protein deficiencies are uncommon.


    The ongoing increase in atmospheric CO2 is also very likely to deplete other elements essential to human health (such as calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, and zinc) by 5% to 10% in most plants. The projected decline in mineral concentrations in crops has been attributed to at least two distinct effects of elevated CO2 on plant biology. First, rising CO2 increases carbohydrate accumulation in plant tissues, which can, in turn, dilute the content of other nutrients, including minerals. Second, high CO2 concentrations reduce plant demands for water, resulting in fewer nutrients being drawn into plant roots.

    The ongoing increase in CO2 concentrations reduces the amount of essential minerals per calorie in most crops, thus reducing nutrient density. Such a reduction in crop quality may aggravate existing nutritional deficiencies, particularly for populations with pre-existing health conditions.

    Carbohydrate-to-Protein Ratio:

    Elevated CO2 tends to increase the concentrations of carbohydrates (starch and sugars) and reduce the concentrations of protein. The overall effect is a significant increase in the ratio of carbohydrates to protein in plants exposed to increasing CO2. There is growing evidence that a dietary increase in this ratio can adversely affect human metabolism and body composition.

    Carbon speeds crop growth but often for little gain:

    "In “real world” conditions, any gains from carbon fertilisation are lost − because of the stress caused to crops by the 2°C temperature rise that the gas causes in the atmosphere. Even worse, the fact that crops grow faster does not mean that their nutritional value is greater – many showed lower mineral nutrients and protein content.

    Some crops do get a boost from more carbon in the atmosphere because it makes photosynthesis more efficient, but this is only if nutrients and water are available at optimum levels. This group includes soybean, cassava and rice, all vital in feeding some of the hungriest people in the world.

    The anticipated 2°C rise in temperature, caused primarily by this increase in CO2, could halve yields of some of our major crops, wiping out any gain from CO2.

    “Lots of people have presumed that rising CO2 is largely a good thing for crops, assuming more CO2 will make the world’s forests greener and increase crop yields,” Ainsworth said.

    “The more recent studies challenge that assumption a bit. We’re finding that when you have other stresses, you don’t always get a benefit of elevated CO2. The last 15 years have taught us to account more for the complex interactions from other factors like drought, temperature, nutrients and pests.”

    The poor quality of some of the grain, with less mineral and protein content, is also a blow to add to the crop growth doubts. The potential increased yield is also much smaller under conditions where there is low nitrogen fertiliser, typical of the world’s poorest countries."

    Ainsworth and Long 2020 - 30 years of free‐air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE): What have we learned about future crop productivity and its potential for adaptation?

    86% of land ecosystems globally are becoming progressively less efficient at absorbing the increasing levels of CO2 from the atmosphere.

    Wang et al 2020 - Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis

    Soils or plants will absorb more CO2 as carbon levels rise—but not both

    "When elevated carbon dioxide levels drive increased plant growth, it takes a surprisingly steep toll on another big carbon sink: the soil.

    Plants effectively mine the soil for nutrients they need to keep up with carbon-fueled growth. Extracting the extra nutrients requires revving up microbial activity, which then releases CO2 into the atmosphere that might otherwise remain locked in soil.

    The research suggests grasslands may absorb unexpectedly large amounts of carbon in the coming decades. Under a scenario where atmospheric CO2 doubles pre-industrial levels the researchers estimate carbon uptake in grassland soils will increase 8 percent, while carbon uptake by forest soils will remain roughly flat. That's in spite of CO2 enrichment giving a greater boost to biomass in forests (23 percent) than in grasslands (9 percent), partly because trees allocate belowground a relatively small portion of the carbon they absorb."

    Terrer et al 2021 - A trade-off between plant and soil carbon storage under elevated CO2


  • It's not about the guardian. It literally references a scientific study. That's your source. 

Reply Children
No Data