- Jan 2025
-
www.dailysignal.com www.dailysignal.com
-
broad policy of universal birthright citizenship that the Constitution never required in the first place.
As the SCOTUS noted in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, even before the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1868, the original understanding was that any baby born within the United States of foreign parents automatically became a U.S. citizen, except for the special case of babies born to foreign diplomats who were exempt (immune) from U.S. law.
-
its framers and ratifiers manifestly intended that its language restrict birthright citizenship based on the strength of a person’s relationship to the United States and the lack of a relationship with another nation.
There is no hint of such an intent in the plain language of the 14th Amendment. Pretending there's a Constitutional distinction between babies with the RIGHT parents and babies with the WRONG parents is inventing language which does not exist in the actual U.S. Constitution. It might as well just say "emanations and penumbras," because that's what this claim relies on. There's not a syllable in the actual Constitution supporting such a distinction.
The Constitution makes no distinction between babies whose parents are in the country legally and those whose parents are not. Nor does it distinguish between parents who are U.S. citizens and those who are not, or parents who have dual citizenship and those who do not, or parents who're disqualified from military service and those who are not, or parents who're disqualified from jury duty and those who are not.
What the actual Constitution says is that:
● ALL (not most) persons
● who are born in the USA
● and who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction [at the time of their birth]
ARE CITIZENS of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The ONLY way for a baby born in the USA to not be subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of the baby's birth is if he or she is born within a foreign embassy (or born on an Indian reservation prior to mid-1924, or, arguably, born to enemy occupiers in occupied territory).
-
Supporters of birthright citizenship ignore the second, critical condition in the amendment of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
It is simply not true that most jurists ignore the "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]" clause. "Subject to the jurisdiction of 𝑿" is not a vague or ambiguous phrase. It just means that the laws of 𝑿 apply. Full stop.
That is what the phrase has always meant. Importantly, it does NOT mean that no OTHER laws also apply.
The only way for a baby born in the USA to not be subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his or her birth is for him to be born within a foreign embassy or eligible for diplomatic immunity. (Prior to 1924 another way was to be born on an Indian reservation.)
That is the meaning and purpose of the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause, and nobody ignores it.
Additionally, the United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision noted that under English Common law:
"every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."
That suggests another (thankfully theoretical) exception to birthright citizenship, besides babies born in foreign embassies: that of a baby born in enemy occupied American territory, of parents who were subjects of the enemy occupiers. Fortunately, nobody alive today in America could have their American citizenship contested on that grounds.
In fact, everyone is subject to multiple jurisdictions. American citizens are subject to U.S. federal law, but also to the laws of their state and local governments. People with dual citizenship are also subject to the laws of the other country.
Additionally, everyone is subject to the laws of jurisdictions that they're temporarily within, So if you are visiting Munich, Germany, you're subject to German laws and Munich local statutes, in addition to the applicable laws of your home country. Conversely, if a German citizen visits Chicago, while he's there he's subject to the jurisdictions of the USA, the State of Illinois, and the City of Chicago.
No honest jurist would ever contend that the laws of the United States do not apply to babies born in the United States. It doesn't matter who a person's parents are, if they are in the United States then they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
-
the U.S.-born child of Chinese immigrants who were lawfully present and permanently domiciled in the United States
The parents of Wong Kim Ark were not permanently domiciled in the United States. They had, in fact, already returned to China.
It didn't matter. What determined the outcome of the case was the fact that he was born in San Francisco.
-
The statutory and constitutional definitions of citizenship existed side-by-side for the next 70 years in a single legal framework and were roundly considered by contemporary courts and legal scholars as being complementary, not competitive—a person who was “subject to a foreign power” for purposes of the Civil Rights Act was not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” under the 14th Amendment, and vice versa.
The 14th Amendment was enacted in 1868.
Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873, to Chinese citizen parents, and was a citizen from birth by virtue of having been born in San Francisco.
In 1889 he visited China, and in 1890 he returned to the United States, where he was admitted as a U.S. citizen, by virtue of his (truthfully) claimed birth in the United States.
In 1894 he again visited China, and in 1895, at age 21, he returned to the United States, where, for the first time, his citizenship was challenged.
Four years later the SCOTUS decided in his favor: that, by virtue of his birth on U.S. soil, he was entitled to U.S. citizenship from birth, even though neither of his parents were U.S. citizens, and both of his parents had subsequently returned to China.
From 1895 (when his citizenship was acknowledged) to 1898 (when his citizenship was challenged), was about three years, not seventy.
-
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, R-Ill., a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said
According to this legislative history:
"Senator Lyman Trumbull was the drafter of the Civil Rights Act [but] he played no role in the drafting of the [14th] Amendment."
Perhaps if Trumbull had drafted the 14th Amendment it would have included the same language as the Civil Rights Act of 1866. But he did not, and it does not.
"The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me [as President] according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption -- a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it..." –Thomas Jefferson
-
her child is a citizen of her home country and owes no political allegiance to the U.S. Thus, the child is not a U.S. citizen.
The U.S. Constitution does not mention "allegiance." So the "political allegiances" of a person's parents are irrelevant. The Rosenbergs' sons are American citizens.
What matters, according to the plain language of the 14th Amendment, is jurisdiction, not allegiance,
-
American citizenship is reserved for all who, regardless of their race or former allegiances, have taken meaningful legal steps toward solidifying permanent bonds with the American people, have taken up the duties and responsibilities inherent to those bonds, and do not owe political allegiance to any other nation.
That's a description of naturalization.
The other way to obtain American citizenship is by the fortunate circumstances of your birth. Newborn babies have not "taken meaningful steps" of any sort at all, yet they are fully citizens of the United States of America.
-
the requirements of lawful permanent residency
Dr. Swearer must have found "the requirements of [parents'] lawful permanent residency" in some emanations and penumbras somewhere, because it is not to be found in the text or history of the Constitution or the Wong Kim Ark decision.
-
it’s not because the Constitution requires it or because the Supreme Court has mandated such a policy.
The plain language of the 14th Amendment and a 126 year-old judicial precedent both mandate it (with the exception of individuals who're not subject to U.S. jurisprudence, because they have diplomatic immunity, because their parents are foreign diplomats).
-
In plain language, the holding of that case only applies to the children of permanent, resident aliens, and cannot be used to justify any claim that it extends citizenship to the children of aliens illegally present or temporarily here legally.
That is obviously inconsistent with both the plain language of the 14th Amendment and the history of United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
-
it can just as easily be read as adopting only a flexible, “Americanized” jus soli limited to the factors of lawful presence and permanent domicile.
No, it cannot. At the time of the decision, Wong Kim Ark's parents, wife, and children were ALL citizens of China, and ALL residing in China. He, himself, had been back to China twice, where he met and married his wife. How can you possibly get a "flexible, Americanized jus soli" out of THAT?
-
Despite owing no tie of allegiance to any other nation, Wong Kim Ark had been relegated to permanent alienage
That's wrong. On his previous visit to China, he had married. His wife remained there when he returned to the United States. At the time of the SCOTUS decision, holding that Wong Kim Ark was entitled to U.S. citizenship by virtue of his birth in the United States, his wife, his parents, and his two sons were all citizens of China residing in China.
-
But the holding in Wong Kim Ark only deviates from the original meaning of the 14th Amendment if one chooses to read it under the assumption that the Supreme Court intended to upend decades of precedent and supersede Congress’ clear intent.
Indeed: the SCOTUS ruling in Wong Kim Ark was consistent with the plain wording and original meaning of the 14th Amendment, that any baby born in United States jurisdiction is a U.S. citizen from birth, regardless of the citizenship or other circumstances of his parents.
-
A tourist can be prosecuted for violating our criminal laws, but cannot be called for jury duty or drafted into the military because that tourist is not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the U.S.
Statutes determine who is eligible for jury duty or military service, and many U.S. citizens are not eligible for either. The fact that a person is not eligible for jury duty or military service does not mean that he is not a citizen, let alone that his children are not citizens.
Anyone who is in the United States, and does not have diplomatic immunity, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, regardless of how or when they got here.
-
does not cover the U.S.-born children of other individuals who owe only a minimal, qualified, or temporary allegiance
The "allegiance" of the parents is irrelevant. It is "jurisdiction" which matters, under the law.
The parents of Wong Kim Ark were citizens of China only temporarily residing in the United States. But it was not Wonk Kim Ark's parents whose citizenship was challenged. He was born in the United States and unquestionably subject to its jurisdiction, so he was a U.S. citizen from birth.
-
There would have been no need for this law if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship on all individuals born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter the legal status of their parents.
American Indian nations were considered, both by their own citizens and governments, and under U.S. law, to be foreign nations, and their territory foreign territory, and hence outside U.S. jurisdiction.
That is irrelevant to the question of citizenship gained by virtue of being born on U.S. soil and subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
-
few people seriously argue that the citizenship clause applies to Native Americans who are born subject to the jurisdiction of their tribal governments.
Since 1924 all Native Americans born on tribal reservations have had U.S. citizenship from birth.
-
Slaughterhouse cases of 1872
The Slaughterhouse Cases ruling in 1873 (not 1872) did not address citizenship. (Moreover, children of foreign ministers and consuls are people with diplomatic immunity, and hence not subject to U.S. law.)
-
was clearly and exclusively the result of disagreements over how best to exclude tribal-affiliated Native Americans from birthright citizenship. It in no way reflected a desire by Congress to fundamentally change the principles of citizenship initially laid out in the Civil Rights Act.
The aforementioned history of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 reports that:
"the narrow reading of the Civil Rights Act language is not supported by the legislative history, and the restrictive intent originalists attribute to the language does not hold water for the Act itself, much less for the 14th Amendment. A colloquy between Trumbull and Senator Edgar Cowan of PA sheds a considerably different light on the provision. Cowan asked whether the language would include the ‘children of Chinese and Gypsies born in the country?’ And Trumbull responded, ‘undoubtedly.’"
-
It seems obvious that a child born to Mexican citizens illegally in the U.S. is a citizen of Mexico, owes his political allegiance to Mexico, and does not meet this jurisdictional requirement in the amendment.
The 14th Amendment says nothing about "allegiance,"
A newborn baby has no allegiances, anyhow. But he or she is subject to the laws of the jurisdictions in which he is born. That is what the 14th Amendment refers to: "jurisdiction," not "allegiance."
As it happens, a child either born in Mexico to American parents or born in the United States to Mexican parents is a citizen of BOTH Mexico and the United States. Any question of "allegiance" will be for him to decide for himself, when he comes of age, when he can renounce his citizenship in either country, if he wishes to do so. Parents do not have the authority to renounce the citizenship(s) of their minor children, and after a child is born nothing his parents do or fail to do can cost him his citizenship.
-
it simultaneously sought to exclude from birthright citizenship broad categories of individuals who maintained only a transient or limited allegiance to the nation.
There is no basis for this claim. If they intended to exclude the babies of foreigners, or of people with dual citizenships, they could have easily written that into the 14th Amendment. It is of no merit to cite opinions expressed in debate, when those opinions did not prevail.
It is the ratification process which gives a Constitutional Amendment its legal force, and the ratifiers' understanding of its meaning is to be found in the plain language.
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." –Thomas Jefferson
"All persons" means all, not most, and "all" with a single exception listed means that there are no other exceptions.
-
Congress drafted and passed the 14th Amendment, which was subsequently ratified, primarily to strengthen the protections of the Civil Rights Act by writing them into the Constitution itself. Under the 14th Amendment, citizenship belongs to “all persons born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
If the drafters of the 14th Amendment had intended to include the "and not subject to any foreign power" clause, they could have done so. They did not.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 does not amend the 14th Amendment.
-
that was precisely how the nation’s courts and constitutional scholars also understood the citizenship clause to work
Actually, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the SCOTUS noted that:
"That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than 50 years after the adoption of the constitution."
-
- Mar 2021
-
climatecite.com climatecite.com
-
Manmade CO2 Does Not Cause Measurable Warming
Actually, CO2 does cause measurable warming. The warming effect is not huge, and not worrisome, but it is not zero, and it is large enough to be measurable.
There really is no question about the fact that the Earth's average temperature has warmed slightly, as CO2 levels have risen, over the last six decades. The magnitude of that change is debatable: different "global" composite temperature indices vary in their measured trend by approximately a factor of two. But none of them show zero trend.
The "climate sensitivity" of the Earth's temperatures to changes in CO2 level can be estimated by careful comparison of measured temperatures to measured CO2 levels. Here's an example on my web site, showing how that can be done:
https://sealevel.info/sensitivity.html
Climate change is a highly politicized issue, so, as is the case for any politicized issue, if you want to understand it you need to seek out balanced information. If you want to learn about the SCIENCE of climate change, instead of political spin, here's a list of resources which can help:
https://tinyurl.com/learnmore4
It has:
● accurate introductory climatology information
● in-depth science from BOTH skeptics & alarmists
● links to balanced debates between experts on BOTH sides
● information about climate impacts
● links to the best blogs on BOTH sides of the issue
-
- Dec 2020
-
michaelshannon.wordpress.com michaelshannon.wordpress.com
-
conservatives
Conservatives stand for honesty, integrity, morality, and steely-eyed realism. We hold our opinions because we are confident that they are correct, we have the confidence in them to encourage free and open debate, and if our opinions are shown to be wrong we gratefully accept the correction of our errors.
Modern liberalism (not to be confused with classical liberalism) is the opposite. It is characterized by dishonesty and immorality (both typically excused with the platitude that "everybody does it"), self-delusion, and a reflexive resort to censorship and worse. ("Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out." -David Horowitz)
You see that in the climate debates, where leftists (climate activists) have repeatedly been caught manipulating, withholding, exaggerating, or even fabricating evidence, flouting the law, blackballing skeptics, and censoring contrary viewpoints, to promote the CAGW scare. The major blogs, publications, and institutions which climate activists control are ruthlessly censored, to suppress dissent.
In stark contrast, the most prominent conservative (climate realist) blogs and institutions actively encourage open discussion and dissent. That's why, for example, WUWT is so obviously and strikingly superior to any of the leftists' climate blogs.
Unfortunately, some people who call themselves "conservative" don't act like it. I'm tired of self-identified conservatives, like Michael Shannon, raging about Republicans' lack of conservatism, while they, themselves, behave like liberals.
If Mr. Shannon were really a conservative, he wouldn't censor his blog, to suppress expression of opinions different from his own. Unfortunately, that's exactly what he does. That's why you don't see the following comment in the comments section, on this article:
·
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
1.If conservatives can’t win Republican primaries, they certainly cannot hope to win as third-party candidates running against both Republicans and Democrats.
2.If so-called “conservatives” don’t care about anything but money, they’re no more conservative than the country clubbers whose Republican identity is based entirely on their desire for low taxes.
There’s something very, very wrong with a 785-word rant accusing Republicans of being “morally corrupt,” which talks almost exclusively about… money. In 785 words you devoted a grand total of three words to a passing mention of moral issues.
One in four American babies die by “choice,” but you never mentioned it.
The courts have spent the last eighty years brazenly lying to impose progressive agendas, and trampling the nation’s fifty-one constitutions in the process, yet now, for the first time in eight decades, honest jurors might actually have a slender majority on the SCOTUS, but you never mentioned it.
The American family is in tatters, with 39.6% of babies born out of wedlock in 2018, but you used the word “family” just once, and never mentioned illegitimacy.
The academy has been mostly taken over by far-left crackpots and atheists, who do everything in their power to crush all dissent, who enforce values antithetical to Christian morality, and who have created entire disciplines dedicated to promoting leftist lunacy, but you never mentioned it.
Academics expose corruption in Grievance Studies
The misallocation of federal monies is a real problem, but it is far from the only problem, it is far from our most important problem, and it is only peripherally a moral issue. If you’re going to editorialize about moral corruption, you should talk about morality, not just money.
-
- Nov 2019
-
cfaes.osu.edu cfaes.osu.edu
-
It might seem there’s an upside to the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Plants are growing faster.
That's not the only upside.
Elevated CO2 levels make plants healthier and more productive. That's why commercial greenhouses use CO2 generators to raise daytime CO2 levels, typically to about 1500 ppmv. That's far higher than we could ever hope to drive outdoor CO2 levels by burning fossil fuels.
Rising CO2 levels have increased global agricultural yields by about 20%. Without that improvement, mankind could approximately make up the difference by planting more land. If all the world's tropical and temperate rainforests were put to agricultural use, that would just about make up the difference.
However, rising CO2 levels also make plants more water-efficient and drought-resistant, by improving stomatal conductance relative to transpiration. That's one of the reasons that droughts are now less damaging to crops, and one of the causes for the sharp decline in drought-triggered famines.
Here are a couple of references:
-
In the short term, the additional photosynthesis spurred by higher carbon dioxide levels may bring about small gains in the amount of leaves, stem and shoots that are produced by a crop but not necessarily in the portion of the crop that can be harvested. And in the long term, it’s going to do more harm to plants than good, Cornish said. “There’s going to be a tipping point, and that tipping point is different for each crop,” Cornish said. Already, rice plants grown in elevated carbon dioxide have been shown to produce more tillers, which include the stems and leaves of the plant, but fewer and smaller grains.
This is disinformation. It denies a full century of consistent results, from thousands of scientific studies. eCO2 is extremely beneficial for the vast majority of crops. For most crops, the benefits of additional CO2 do not begin to diminish until levels exceed 1200 ppmv, which is far above what they could ever reach due to fossil fuel use. So, practically speaking, there is no "tipping point" beyond which rising CO2 levels cease to be beneficial.
Rice is a C3 plant. Like all C3 crops it benefits dramatically from eCO2:
Here's a FACE (Free Air CO2 Enrichment) study of rice. They compared 380 ppmv CO2 to 550 ppmv CO2, and found a 30% grain yield improvement.
A great university like OSU should be embarrassed to have its name associated with the level of misinformation in this article.
-
“Plants need time to adapt to the increase in carbon dioxide levels. And the increase is happening so quickly, plants are not going to have a chance to adapt.”
This is utter nonsense.
Agronomists have conducted thousands of studies of the effects of varying CO2 levels on crops. Many of those studies also tested the effects of other changes, such as temperature, moisture & nutrient levels. The results are irrefutable: the vast majority of plants benefit tremendously from eCO2, to levels far above what they can ever reach due to burning fossil fuels.
These plants evolved when CO2 levels were much higher than now, and they don't need any "time to adapt" to the conditions that they are already best suited for.
-
Plants grown in hot weather conditions can also be impeded by elevated carbon dioxide. In hot temperatures, many plants stay cool by opening wide the pores on the underside of their leaves. But in an atmosphere with high carbon dioxide, the pores do not open as wide, so plants are not able to keep themselves cool, Cornish said. This could cause “the plants to become crispy critters and die, when they were OK at lower carbon dioxide levels,” she said.
This is also the exact opposite of the truth. eCO2 is especially beneficial to crops in hot and arid conditions. For instance, here’s a paper about how eCO2 benefits wheat, especially in hot, dry conditions:
Fitzgerald, G. J. et al (2016). Elevated atmospheric [CO2] can dramatically increase wheat yields in semi-arid environments and buffer against heat waves. Glob Change Biol, 22: 2269-2284. doi:10.1111/gcb.13263
-
Plants can become more vulnerable to diseases as well as insects.
This is the opposite of the truth. By making plants faster-growing and healthier, eCO2 helps them withstand adverse conditions, like droughts, and insects. For instance, this paper reports that higher CO2 levels improve the ability of pine trees to resist damage from pine bark beetles:
K.A. Novick et al (2012)). Increased resin flow in mature pine trees growing under elevated CO2 and moderate soil fertility. Tree Physiology, Vol. 32, Issue 6, June 2012, pp. 752–763. doi:10.1093/treephys/tpr133
-
Low rates of photorespiration, caused by the higher amounts of carbon dioxide, are associated with low stress levels in plants, which ironically is not a good thing. That’s because stressed plants respond by producing antioxidants such as vitamins C and E, as well as higher protein levels. So, as carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere rise, there is less photorespiration and therefore less stress on plants. And the reduced stress means increased growth, but at a cost, a decline in the nutritional quality of the plants. “This has been observed in many different species of plants,” Metzger said. If the plant is not producing enough antioxidants, that’s not just less healthy for people who later eat the plant
Actually, most studies have found that eCO2 increases, rather than decreases, antioxidants in food crops.
-
if animals aren’t getting sufficient protein from plants, that will affect what they can produce as food.
This is a red herring. Inadequate fixed nitrogen reduces protein production relative to carbohydrate production in crops, because proteins contain nitrogen and carbohydrates don't. However, legumes like alfalfa and soybeans fix their own nitrogen from the air, and the benefits of eCO2 for legumes are especially large.
Here's a video which compares legume seedlings grown at two different CO2 concentration levels:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE
Most crops grown for their protein content are legumes, so eCO2 is actually net beneficial for supplying protein.
-
too much carbon dioxide can reduce the amount of valuable nutrients the plant produces including iron, zinc and vitamin C.
That is untrue.
Vitamin C levels are not adversely affected by elevated CO2. In fact, most studies have found that eCO2 increases vitamin C and antioxidant levels in crops.
If soil is deficient in "micro-nutrients" like iron and zinc, then more productive crops may have lower levels of those nutrients—but not lower total amounts.
However, dietary shortages of both of those micro-nutrients are easily resolved through fertilization or very inexpensive nutritional supplementation. In the case of iron, it can be as simple as cooking in cast-iron pots.
It is possible to contrive growing conditions in which something other than CO2 limits plant growth and health, or in which a shortage of some soil nutrient causes better crop yields to be accompanied by reduced levels of some micro-nutrient, but such contrived conditions are easily avoided through normal fertilization practices.
Under real-world conditions, additional CO2 is dramatically beneficial for agriculture, to levels far beyond what we can ever hope to reach in the outdoor atmosphere, and the nutrient value of crops grown with extra CO2 is not significantly different from other crops.
-
the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 400 parts per million, nearly double what it was in the middle of the 18th century, the start of the industrial revolution.
In 1850 CO2 levels averaged about 285 ppmv (0.0285%). By 2018 CO2 levels had risen to about 408.5 ppmv, a 43.3% increase. That's nowhere near "nearly double."
-
in many species of plants, quantity is not quality. Most plants are growing faster, but they have on average more starch, less protein and fewer key vitamins in them
This is the enormously misleading "nutrient scare."
That the nutrient scare is nonsense should be obvious if you consider that food grown in greenhouses at 1500 ppmv CO2 is every bit as nutritious as food grown outdoors at ambient CO2 levels (which currently average about 411 ppmv).
If elevating CO2 by nearly 1100 ppmv doesn't cause crops to be less nutritious, then elevating CO2 by a small fraction of that won't, either.
The nutrient scare is an attempt to put a negative "spin" on an enormous benefit of elevated CO2 (eCO2): that it improves crop yields.
Faster-growing, more productive crops require more nutrients per acre, though not more nutrients per unit of output. Inadequate nitrogen fertilization reduces protein production relative to carbohydrate production, because proteins contain nitrogen and carbohydrates don't. Likewise, low levels of iron or zinc in soils will result in lower levels of those minerals in some crops. These facts are well-known, and unremarkable.
So, it is possible, by flouting well-established best agricultural practices, to contrive circumstances under which eCO2, or any other factor that improves crop yields, reduces levels of protein or micronutrients in crops.
Farmers know that the more productive crops are, the more nutrients they need, and competent farmers fertilize accordingly. (Or, for nitrogen, they may plant nitrogen-fixing legumes — which, fortunately, benefit greatly from extra CO2.)
If you don’t fertilize according to the needs of your crops, the negative consequences may include reductions in protein and/or micronutrient levels in the resulting crops. The cause of such reductions is not higher CO2 levels, the cause is poor agricultural practices.
Mathematician Irakli Loladze and Dr. Samuel Myers are the two most prominent promoters of the nutrition scare, and Dr. Loladze admitted to me that food grown in greenhouses with dramatically elevated CO2 levels is as nutritious as food grown outdoors at low CO2 levels, because adequate fertilization mitigates the potential problem.
-
-
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
-
elevated CO2 (e[CO2], 3000 μmol⋅mol-1) concentrations. Under e[CO2] conditions
3000 ppmv (µmol/mol) CO2 is absurdly high. Ambient outdoor CO2 levels are unlikely to ever reach even 800 ppmv, from burning fossil fuels. Even commercial greenhouses which use CO2 generators to enhance CO2 levels and crop productivity, rarely use CO2 levels above about 1600 ppmv. So testing with levels at 3000 ppmv, while interesting, provides no practical insights.
-
-
web.hypothes.is web.hypothes.is
-
/a/
The "/a" in the url is erroneous.
This is wrong:<br> https://hyp.is/a/{AnnotationId}[/{url}]
It should be:<br> https://hyp.is/{AnnotationId}[/{url}]
Now, a question: assuming you see my annotation, and fix the error (delete the "/a"), what happens to my annotation? Is there a way for you to "annotate the annotation" to say that the problem is fixed? Or what?
-
-
www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com
-
Rising CO2’s effect on crops could also harm human health. “We know unequivocally that when you grow food at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious,” notes Samuel Myers, principal research scientist in environmental health at Harvard University. “[Food crops] lose significant amounts of iron and zinc—and grains [also] lose protein.” Myers and other researchers have found atmospheric CO2 levels predicted for mid-century—around 550 parts per million—could make food crops lose enough of those key nutrients to cause a protein deficiency in an estimated 150 million people and a zinc deficit in an additional 150 million to 200 million. (Both of those figures are in addition to the number of people who already have such a shortfall.) A total of 1.4 billion women of child-bearing age and young children who live in countries with a high prevalence of anemia would lose more than 3.8 percent of their dietary iron at such CO2 levels, according to Meyers.dfp.loadAds("right2","MPU3","dfp-right2-article-2")Advertisement Researchers do not yet know why higher atmospheric CO2 alters crops’ nutritional content. But, Myers says, “the bottom line is, we know that rising CO2 reduces the concentration of critical nutrients around the world,” adding that these kinds of nutritional deficiencies are already significant public health threats, and will only worsen as CO2 levels go up.
This is the enormously misleading "nutrient scare."
The absurdity of the nutrient scare nonsense should be obvious if you think about a simple fact: food grown in greenhouses at 1500 ppmv CO2 is every bit as nutritious as food grown outdoors at ambient CO2 levels (which currently average about 411 ppmv).
If elevating CO2 by nearly 1100 ppmv doesn't cause crops to be less nutritious, then elevating CO2 by only 140 ppmv wouldn't, either.
(However, the article's claim that CO2 levels will reach 550 ppmv by mid-century is also false. They're on track to reach only about 490-500 ppmv by 2050.)
The nutrient scare is an attempt to put a negative "spin" on an enormous benefit of eCO2: that it improves crop yields.
Faster-growing, more productive crops require more nutrients per acre, though not more nutrients per unit of output. Inadequate nitrogen fertilization reduces protein production relative to carbohydrate production, because proteins contain nitrogen and carbohydrates don't. Likewise, low levels of iron or zinc in soils will result in lower levels of those minerals in some crops. These facts are well-known, and unremarkable.
So, it is possible, by flouting well-established best agricultural practices, to contrive circumstances under which eCO2, or any other factor that improves crop yields, reduces levels of protein or micronutrients in crops.
Farmers know that the more productive crops are, the more nutrients they need, and competent farmers fertilize accordingly. (Or, for nitrogen, they may plant nitrogen-fixing legumes — which, fortunately, benefit greatly from extra CO2.)
If you don’t fertilize according to the needs of your crops, the negative consequences may include reductions in protein and/or micronutrient levels in the resulting crops. The cause of such reductions is not higher CO2 levels, the cause is poor agricultural practices.
Dr. Myers and mathematician Irakli Loladze are the two most prominent promoters of the nutrition scare, and Dr. Loladze admitted to me that food grown in greenhouses with dramatically elevated CO2 levels is as nutritious as food grown outdoors at low CO2 levels, because adequate fertilization mitigates the potential problem.
-
plants “get some benefits early on from higher CO2, but that [benefit] starts to saturate” after the gas reaches a certain level, Moore says
The most important part of this sentence is the caveat: “after the gas reaches a certain level”.
Do you wonder what that “certain level” is?
Either Dr. Moore didn’t tell the journalist, or Dr. Moore told her but she omitted it from the article.
The answer is that, for most plants, it’s well over 1200 ppmv. Commercial greenhouses often use CO2 generators to keep daytime CO2 levels around 1500 ppmv, because it makes the plants much healthier, faster-growing, and more productive.
Compare that to outdoor levels, which currently average only about 411 ppmv, and will probably never exceed 700 ppmv.
In other words, the “saturation” effect, beyond which the benefits of extra CO2 diminish, is utterly irrelevant except in greenhouses, because it is far, far above what we can ever hope to see outdoors.
-
But for most of the other plants humans eat—including wheat, rice and soybeans—“having higher CO2 will help them directly,” Moore says. Doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels, she adds, does boost the productivity of crops like wheat by some 11.5 percent
Most studies find much larger benefits that that, even with adequate water.
Under dry conditions the benefits of eCO2 are even more dramatic.
-
the potentially most harmful outcome of rising atmospheric CO2 on vegetation: climate change itself. Its negative consequences—such as drought and heat stress—would likely overwhelm any direct benefits that rising CO2 might offer plant life.
This is nonsense. Manmade climate change is not worsening droughts, or other stressors of crops. Instead, higher CO2 levels are mitigating damage from such stressors, by improving plant resilience to them.
The result is a measurable "greening" of the Earth, especially in arid regions.
-
“If nitrogen is limited, the benefit of the CO2 increase is limited…
This is misleading, because it is only true for some crops, and only if they are grown without adequate fertilization, which most farmers know better than to do.
What's more, it is entirely untrue for legumes, like beans, peas, clover, and alfalfa, because those crops fix their own nitrogen, from the air. Either Dr. Norby didn’t know that, or else the reporter misquoted him.
-
But Norby notes the results scientists produce in labs are generally not what happens in the vastly more complex world outside;
This is misleading, because most of the research in this field has been conducted, not “in labs,” but outdoors, using OTC (open-top container—best!) and FACE (Free Air CO2 Enrichment) methodologies. What's more, many of the thousands of studies of plant response to eCO2 have studied it in combination with a wide variety of other factors.
The results are unambiguous: only in unusual, contrived circumstances is eCO2 not beneficial. In the real world, eCO2 is highly beneficial for most plants under most circumstances.
I am sure that Dr. Norby knows these things. I can only guess at how they came to be omitted from the article.
-
So is it true rising atmospheric CO2 will help plants, including food crops? Scientific American asked several experts to talk about the science behind this question.
The reporter who wrote this article did not actually “ask the experts.”
The experts on this topic are agronomists. They’ve conducted thousands of studies of the effects of varying CO2 levels on crops. Many of those studies also tested the effects of other changes, such as temperature, moisture & nutrient levels.
But this journalist didn’t consult any agronomists. The experts she interviewed are expert mostly in other fields.
There are no plausible negative effects on crops from manmade climate change which are comparable in magnitude to the large benefits of higher CO2 levels.
Elevated CO2 (eCO2) does have a warming effect, but the modest warming occurs disproportionately at chilly high latitudes), where it is clearly beneficial, rather than harmful.
Moreover, even where it isn't beneficial, the expected warming, of at most 1 to 2°C compared to current temperatures, will be easily compensated for by farmers, for most crops, by simply adjusting planting dates by a few days:
It is well-known that eCO2 increases yields for all major crops, but that's not the only benefit. eCO2 also reduces damage from droughts, by making crops more water-efficient and drought-resistant. That makes eCO2 especially valuable for mitigating drought-driven famine.
That is a very, very big deal. Throughout human history, famine has been one of the great scourges of mankind, the "third horsemen of the apocalypse," comparable to war and disease.
An estimated 3.7% of world population died in the global drought & famine of 1876-78. Compare that to the 2.7% of world population who died in WWII, and the 2.0% who died in 1918 flu pandemic, and you can understand how devastating famines used to be.
But famines are rare, now, and eCO2 is one of the reasons.
-
- Jul 2019
-
beallslist.weebly.com beallslist.weebly.com
-
Science Publishing Group
"Science Publishing Group," which published the International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, is a known predatory publisher, not a respectable source.
-