A favorite argument of climate change deniers is that plants need CO₂. Hence more CO₂ is better, or is it?
While plants might grow faster under high CO₂ levels and produce more carbohydrates, at the same time the amount of vitamins and micronutrients is declining.
📸E.Prim
1/n
While plants might grow faster under high CO₂ levels and produce more carbohydrates, at the same time the amount of vitamins and micronutrients is declining.
📸E.Prim
1/n
Field and experimental studies on wheat and rice showed that protein declines by ~10%, iron by ~8%, zinc by 5%. B-vitamins will decline by up to 30% under increased CO₂ conditions
2/n
2/n
For communities primarily depending on starch for their nutrition, this decline may be a dire threat!
3/n
3/n
The decline in iron and zinc is likely to increase the burden of disease (e.g. malaria, pneumonia, anemia etc.). Africa and Asia might be hit hardest, but the effects will be also felt in the US, the EU, and around the globe.
4/n
4/n
So yes, plants might grow a bit faster, but the net-effect on any human and animal living on plants will be a negative one.
5/n
5/n
These are the studies:
Declining nutritional value of plants
thelancet.com/journals/lanpl…
Disease burden
royalauthors.com/raabindexing/j…
6/6
Declining nutritional value of plants
thelancet.com/journals/lanpl…
Disease burden
royalauthors.com/raabindexing/j…
6/6
@threadreaderapp unroll
