I'll agree yes to increased CO2 will increase plant growth, pity so much plant growth is now under roads and houses and every tonne of cement used released 400kg of CO2 just in the reaction, not the fuel to make it.So what's your answer?I'll say yes - increased carbon dioxide results in plant life being healthier and using less water. Its an essential ingredient in photosynthesis after all isn't it.
Do you think pumping the current amount of CO2 is likely good for the planet?
Its fairly simple, Yes or No?
Not so clear when it comes to the role of the oceans because the theory was always that the oceans would become more acidic with increasing CO2 - but I've also read recently that coral life gets healthier with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide because they turn the dissolved carbon dioxide into calcium carbonate to neutralise the acidity.
Regarding increasing CO2: It's going to happen anyway so there's no sense in thinking that you have any control over the final outcome - you don't. Neither do I. Australia is less than half a percent of global emissions. China will never reign in their carbon emissions - we're dreaming if we think a totalitarian nation like that has any intention of losing a strategic advantage over the rest of the planet.
I'll say no to increase CO2 will increase coral growth as its a delicate pH balance and the oceans are much bigger than the coral and potentially the reverse is true.
You didn't comment on the impact on atmosphere, so I'll take that as a no.
I didn't ask what China may or maynot do, so I'll take this is a "what can I do, its all hopeless" response to again divert against what I suspect you know is correct but won't admit it.
Personally I don't fall for "look how big China is" crap which is the fall out for all the right wing anti climate views. At the end of the day for me it gets down to CO2 per captia consumed. This is your actual CO2 foot print, not a political boundary which can be used and abused.
On CO2/capita which is easier to use, but again very misleading Australia is nearly down that of China. Moral of the story, the Chinese have a smaller foot print than YOU! So anyone in Australia sitting back and pointing the finger at China as an excuse is either ignorant or arrogant.
On CO2/capita consumed, Australia gets a small benefit because we produce alot of CO2 to sell products off-shore, aluminium for example is big producer of CO2 per tonne, but we use only around 15% of our own product. So the country's we export aluminium metal too are actually importing CO2 which should be listed on their books, not ours. If they want to lower their CO2/capita consumed, then they can choose aluminium metal made with a lower CO2 per tonne output.
As I've said before, I don't fall for alot of the climate change BS every time there is a storm or a drought, but I also agree that CO2 output should be reduced as technology becomes economically available. This doesn't mean incentives cannot be applied and this certainly doesn't mean we should go down the brain dead leftist CO2 / carbon tax road again.
While there have certainly been govt stuff ups that have cost the community, I think the collective govts are now moving foreword with some common sense in the 25 year transition from coal to RE and the proof is now in the wholesale prices and finally talk about charging PV solar to feed into an oversupplied grid to encourage the next phase of the transition, home and grid sized batteries.