🚀 go-pugleaf

The quote below from the web page of the "Oregon Institute of Science and
Medicine" is rather extraordinary. The scientists at the Institute may or
may not be competent chemists (I am not in a position to judge), but the
quote indicates a rather breath-taking ignorance of ecology and of the
ecological history of the United States.) If their chemistry is as bad. . .


they write <http://www.oism.org/EntreWave32Page22.htm>:

". . .Since 1900, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased about 70 parts
per million or about 25%. This increase is believed to be the result of
release of below-ground carbon from the burning of coal, oil, and natural
gas.

"This increase in carbon dioxide has caused a marked acceleration in the
growth rate of vegetation. It is estimated that the world wide inventory of
plants has increased by over 20% during this century. Trees are  affected
more than most other vegetation. The amount of standing timber in the
United States has increased  by about 25% since 1958. The nation currently
has 120,000 pounds of standing timber for every man, woman, and child. This
amount is increasing at the rate of 600 pounds per person per year.

"Along with this remarkable increase in plants has come a corresponding
increase in the amount of animal life. This lush increase in plant and
animal life is expected to continue (as more coal, oil, and natural gas are
burned), so that the quantity of plants and animals is likely to double
during the 21st century."


----
The section above  argues that we have so much more tree life since the
last century because of increased CO2. An ecologist would argue that
suppresion of fire, an end to unrestricted logging, the growth of tree
plantations and intensive agriculture, the decline of agriculture in the
northeast US, and the 'suburbanization' (farms broken up into shaded house
lots) around areas have all made the US greener. The role of CO2, if any,
plays a minor role compared to these. At the world level, deforestation is
a major problem and  I would love to see the data for a 20% increase in
"inventory". Where exactly are forests increasing in Asia, Central America,
and the Amazon?

As to any increase in animals, the authors appear completely ignorant of
the end of market hunting and the rise of wildlife management (e.g.
reintroductions, wildlife refuges, bag limits, hunting seasons) as more
credible agents of wildlife increase for the few species for which we have
data.

Finally, while it may or may not be true that the "quantity of plants and
animals is likely to double during the 21st century" (and I'd also love to
see the 'science' behind that), we have to ask if making the world a better
place for starlings, white tailed deer, goats, cattle, rats, and Lyme
disease ticks is a good thing, a question that evidently will continue to
escape the good folks at the Oregon Institute of Science.

David Duffy
Department of Biology
University of Alaska Anchorage