Skip to main content

Greenhouse Planet - Lewis Ziska ***

The message of this book is interesting, and one I've rarely seen discussed - I would definitely have given it more than three stars if it wasn't for the extremely irritating writing style (more on that later). What Lewis Ziska does is to bring to the forefront an aspect of climate change that pretty much goes under the radar: its impact on plant growth.

Mostly leaving aside the impacts of drought, wildfires and flash flooding, Ziska homes in on the implications that increased carbon dioxide levels have on plant biology. We all know that plants use the carbon dioxide in the air to get the carbon needed for growth - and that increased CO2 levels can have an effect on that growth. But what's startling is both the lack of research into what the impact of higher carbon dioxide levels are - and the range of effects it is likely to generate (mostly negative).

Perhaps the most frequent comment of the good scientist is 'It's more complicated than we thought,' - and that's certainly the case here. Some have pointed to the positive benefits for agriculture of having more CO2 in the atmosphere. And up to a point those benefits exist. However, Ziska makes clear that it would be extremely over-simplistic to think that this is a universal benefit. Arguably, the two most significant findings here are that not all species of the same crop react the same way to increased carbon dioxide levels, and that weeds, on the whole, get more benefit than crop plants - so the impact of higher CO2 on a field of, say, rice or wheat, can be to reduce the crop yield because there is so much more competition from weeds.

An important point that Ziska makes is the relative lack of research into this, in part because it falls between two stools. The agricultural funders point to the climate people, who then refer you back to the agricultural sources. It is particularly strange, as Ziska says, that there has been hardly any research into finding which strains of crop plants benefit most from having more carbon dioxide available, so that appropriate choices can be made. Hopefully the book will help turn this round.

So far, so good. But there are some issues with the writing. Ziska uses an extremely heavy-handed folksy style with far too many rhetorical questions along the lines of 'Rice is often a staple food for the poorest people - and they will be the ones most impacted. Yeah, but those of us who don't eat a lot of rice won't be affected, right? Wrong...' The single (quite small) page with that one in contains two other rhetorical questions and a passing 'Hmm'.

This is also a very US-centric book for a worldwide problem. Although Ziska does refer to other countries (as in those rice-heavy locations), the examples are very much driven by America's distinctive approach to farming (and its plant life such as poison ivy). And then there's a near-obsession with one phrase that I've never heard used by climate change deniers: 'CO2 is plant food'. The entire book pivots on countering the use of this phrase to suggest that climate change is just fine. 

I accept some have said this, but certainly in Europe it's not something that you often come across. Even if people do make this argument, it's hard to see how it somehow would counter the impact of sea level rise, droughts, wildfires, flash floods, mass migration and more. It might be catchphrase with a certain kind of American conservative, but it's not got any traction in the world at large. All it does in this book is get in the way of the important stuff.

What we have here is by no means all bad, then - and highly recommended if you want to learn more about the impact of CO2  on plant growth, and the implications of yet another impact of climate change. But it could have been better.

Hardback:   
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...