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

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin Five Way Interview

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin (born in 1999) is a distinguished composer, concert pianist, music theorist and researcher. Three of his piano CDs have been released in Germany. He started his undergraduate degree at the age of 13 in Kazakhstan, and having completed three musical doctorates in prominent Italian music institutions at the age of 20, he has mastered advanced composition techniques. In 2024 he completed a PhD in music at the University of St Andrews / Royal Conservatoire of Scotland (researching timbre-texture co-ordinate in avant- garde music), and was awarded The Silver Medal of The Worshipful Company of Musicians, London. He has held visiting affiliations at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and UCL, and has been lecturing and giving talks internationally since the age of 13. His latest book is Quantum Mechanics and Avant Garde Music . What links quantum physics and avant-garde music? The entire book is devoted to this question. To put it briefly, there are many different link...

Should we question science?

I was surprised recently by something Simon Singh put on X about Sabine Hossenfelder. I have huge admiration for Simon, but I also have a lot of respect for Sabine. She has written two excellent books and has been helpful to me with a number of physics queries - she also had a really interesting blog, and has now become particularly successful with her science videos. This is where I'm afraid she lost me as audience, as I find video a very unsatisfactory medium to take in information - but I know it has mass appeal. This meant I was concerned by Simon's tweet (or whatever we are supposed to call posts on X) saying 'The Problem With Sabine Hossenfelder: if you are a fan of SH... then this is worth watching.' He was referencing a video from 'Professor Dave Explains' - I'm not familiar with Professor Dave (aka Dave Farina, who apparently isn't a professor, which is perhaps a bit unfortunate for someone calling out fakes), but his videos are popular and he...

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on...