There’s already been a vetting process to weed out some resolutions, but this one made it through, which suggests “someone in the party thinks that this is worth debating,” Young said.
“I think this reminds us that the base of the UCP is host to a pretty substantial group of people who do not believe that climate change is real, or they don’t believe that it is driven by human activity, and they think that any actions taken to transition away from fossil fuels are unnecessary.”
Let’s just release some extra CO2 into these people’s homes for a few weeks and see how they handle such an abundance of such a “foundational nutrient” on their health. Not too much, maybe a little over 5000 ppm or so should be good, I’m not suggesting we kill them or anything.
It’s not even breathing that’s the problem, it’s the claim that higher CO2 is great for plants. It can be, however the plants that grow from higher CO2 levels (particularly crop plants) produce their plant mass differently than with less CO2 unless compensated for, like in a controlled greenhouse. Directly because they are getting a different ratio of nutrients and gases.
Add that to all the other factors that threaten food supplies thanks to warming. Someone at some point saw that plants get green at high CO2 levels and thought it would work as an argument against climate change, not understanding the details (or not caring because it suits their purpose).
Also, plants don’t grow well in floods, or when on fire, or in 50° C.
Flooding and fires are in fact exploited by many plants, even necessary for some.
Also, faster and more voluminous growth =! better quality growth. See: new vs old growth lumber.
Are humans not part of “All life on earth”?
Not for much longer.
Yes, but plant growth reactions to higher CO2 happen at much lower levels of increase than your example of being harder to breath.