CO2 Ag - Scholars

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1
Scholars CO2 Fertilization

ICO2 Good
Agriculture Shell 1/2........................................................................................................................3
Agriculture Shell 2/2........................................................................................................................4
CO2 Good – Solves Hunger............................................................................................................5
C02 Good - Increases Crop Yields...................................................................................................8
CO2 Good - Famine Impact...........................................................................................................10
CO2 Good – Benefits Outweigh Risks..........................................................................................11
CO2 Good – Empirically Proven...................................................................................................12
C02 Good – Multiple Reasons.......................................................................................................13
C02 Good – Increased Photosynthesis...........................................................................................14
CO2 Good – Water Efficiency.......................................................................................................15
CO2 Good – Droughts - Mycorrhizal Fungi..................................................................................17
CO2 Good – High Temperatures...................................................................................................19
CO2 Good – Air Pollution.............................................................................................................20
CO2 Good – Trees - Reforestation.................................................................................................21
C02 Good – Increases Root Mass..................................................................................................22
CO2 Good – AT: Weeds – C3/C4 Distinction................................................................................23
CO2 Good - AT: Superweeds.........................................................................................................24
CO2 Good – AT: Pests/Disease......................................................................................................25
CO2 Good – AT: Pests...................................................................................................................26
CO2 Good – AT: Disease...............................................................................................................27
AT: Idso Indicts..............................................................................................................................28
Corn - Shell 1/2.............................................................................................................................29
Corn – Shell 2/2.............................................................................................................................30
Corn – Unq – High Now................................................................................................................31
Corn - Co2 Increases Production..................................................................................................32
Corn – CO2 Increases Drought Resistance....................................................................................34
Corn - AT: Corn is C4 ..................................................................................................................35
Corn – Mexico Impact...................................................................................................................36
Rice - Shell 1/2..............................................................................................................................37
Rice – Shell 2/2..............................................................................................................................38
Rice – Meeting Demand Now........................................................................................................39
Rice – Must Increase Production...................................................................................................40
Rice - ↓CO2 Risks Crop Survival..................................................................................................41
Rice – CO2 Increases Yields..........................................................................................................42
Rice – Impact – 3 Billion...............................................................................................................43
AT: Rice Crisis Disproves CO2 Good..........................................................................................44
Winter Wheat – Shell 1/2...............................................................................................................45
Winter Wheat – Shell 2/2...............................................................................................................46
Winter Wheat – UQ – Wheat Up...................................................................................................47
Winter Wheat – CO2 Increases Yields...........................................................................................50
Winter Wheat – Key to Food Prices..............................................................................................51
Winter Wheat - AT: Turn – Temp Extremes (Drought, etc.).........................................................52
Winter Wheat – Impact - Pakistan Instability................................................................................53
Winter Wheat – Impact - Pakistan Instability................................................................................54
CO2 Bad – Agriculture..................................................................................................................55
CO2 Bad - Agriculture – Storms ...................................................................................................58
CO2 Bad – Agriculture – Pests/Disease.........................................................................................59
CO2 Bad – Agriculture – Irrigation...............................................................................................61
CO2 Bad – Agriculture – Fertilizer/Pesticides...............................................................................62
CO2 Bad - ↑ Drought.....................................................................................................................63
CO2 Bad - ↓ Food Production.......................................................................................................64
CO2 Bad – Famine.........................................................................................................................67
CO2 Bad – AT: Water Efficiency ..................................................................................................69
CO2 Bad – AT: Night Warming Good...........................................................................................71
CO2 Bad – AT: Increased Growing Season...................................................................................72
CO2 Bad – AT: Adaptation............................................................................................................73
CO2 Bad – A2: Disease Resistance...............................................................................................74
CO2 Bad - Hurts Plant Reproduction............................................................................................75
CO2 Bad - Plants Will Acclimatize ..............................................................................................76
CO2 Bad – Disparate Impacts........................................................................................................77
CO2 Bad – Site Selection..............................................................................................................78
CO2 Bad – Short-Term..................................................................................................................79
CO2 Bad - Increases Air Pollution.................................................................................................80
CO2 Bad – AT: C3/C4 – Weeds.....................................................................................................81
CO2 Bad – AT: C3/C4 – Process Drainage....................................................................................82
CO2 Bad - Fertilization= Superweeds ..........................................................................................83
C02 Bad – CO2 Good Studies Flawed..........................................................................................85
AT: Corn - Production Low Now...................................................................................................86
AT: Corn – CO2 Decreases Production.........................................................................................87
AT: Corn - Weeds Decrease Production.........................................................................................89
AT: Rice–Price Up.........................................................................................................................90
AT: Rice - Warming Decreases Supply..........................................................................................91
AT: Rice - CO2 Decreases Production...........................................................................................92
AT: Rice - CO2 Decreases Nutritional Value.................................................................................93
AT: Rice - Riots Inevitable ............................................................................................................94
AT: Winter Wheat – N/U – Supply Low Now...............................................................................95
AT: Winter Wheat – CO2 Decreases Production...........................................................................97
AT: Winter Wheat – CO2 Bad - Drought.......................................................................................98
AT: Winter Wheat – CO2 Bad - Asia.............................................................................................99
AT: Winter Wheat – CO2 Bad - Weeds........................................................................................100
AT: Winter Wheat - Pakistan has extra crops...............................................................................101
Agriculture Shell 1/2
A. Only increased CO2 can avert global starvation and war
Center for Science and Public Policy, 6 (Jan 12,
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060112/20060112_02.html)
Wallace (2000) illustrates the source and magnitude of the problem by noting that the projected
increase in the number of people who will join our ranks in the coming half-century (a median
best-guess of 3.7 billion) is more sure of occurring than is any other environmental
change currently underway or looming on the horizon; and these extra people will
need a whopping amount of extra food that will take an equally whopping amount of extra
water to produce, the problem being that there is no extra water. "Over the entire globe,"
therefore, says Wallace, "a staggering 67% of the future population of the world may
experience some water stress," which translates into food insufficiency; and food insufficiency
means malnutrition and, in the most extreme cases, starvation and war. So what's the
solution? There's only one answer, according to Wallace. We must produce much more food
per unit of available water, which leads to the most important question of all. How can it be
done? Wallace suggests we must greatly augment water conservation measures wherever possible
and implement every conceivable efficiency-enhancing procedure in irrigated and rain fed
agriculture. Second, we must do everything we can, as he says, "to fix more carbon per unit of
water transpired." That is, we must strive to dramatically increase plant water use efficiency.
Human ingenuity will surely enable great strides to be made in all of these areas over the coming
decades. But will the improvements be large enough? At the present time, no one can answer this
question with any confidence. In fact, pessimism permeates most thinking on the subject; for as
Wallace correctly reports, "the global scientific community is not currently giving this area
sufficient attention." So where is our attention currently focused? Unfortunately, it is focused on
reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, which is truly lamentable; for the
continuation of those emissions is, ironically, our only real hope for averting the near-certain
future global food and water shortfalls that are destined to occur if the Kyoto Protocol Crowd
gets its way with the world. But how would allowing anthropogenic CO2 emissions to take their
natural course help to ameliorate future thirst as well as hunger? The answer resides in the fact that
elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 tend to reduce plant transpiration while simultaneously
enhancing plant photosynthesis, which two phenomena acting together enable earth's crops
to produce more food per unit of water used in the process. Literally thousands of laboratory
and field experiments - and that is no exaggeration - have verified this fact beyond any doubt
whatsoever. Indeed, this atmospheric CO2-induced blessing is as sure as death and taxes, and
as dependable as a mother's love. But what do climate-alarmist ideologues do about it? They
spurn it. They deny it. They even try to make people believe the opposite (see our Editorial 13 Dec
2000). And they do it to the detriment of all mankind.
Arial fertilization of C02 both reduces plant transpiration and increases
photosynthesis, making plants more efficient and solving for water wars.
Agriculture Shell 2/2
B. C02s food security outweighs impacts of warming.
Wittwer 92 (Sylvan H., Professor of Horticulture at Michigan State University, Fall, Issue 62, Policy Review)
For the present, the direct effects of an increasing atmospheric CO2 on food production and the
outputs of rangelands and forests are much more important than any effects thus far
manifest for climate. A recent review of over 1,000 individual experiments with 475 plant crop varieties, published in 342 peer-
reviewed scientific journals and authored by 454 scientists in 29 c o u n t r i e s , has shown an average growth
enhancement of 52% with a doubling of the current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Ye t some scientists, especiall y those with ecological
orie ntati ons, take del i ght in glam or izing, al ong w i t h a s y m p a t h e t i c p r e s s , t h e f e w e x c e p t i o n s which, in turn, become widel y quoted in the sci-
e n t i f i c l i t e r a t u r e . T h e s e i nc l ude t u s so c k a r c t i c t u n d r a ; s o m e g r a s s l a n d s w h e r e u n d e s i r a b l e species may, under restricted conditions, outgrow t h e
m o r e d e s i r a b l e ; a n d i n s o m e e c o s y s t e m s whe re c om pe t it i o n a mo n g sp e c ie s ma y c re a te a lack of balance. (See "Ri sing Carbon Dioxide Is Great
for Plants," CR, December 1992.) Globally, it is estimated the overall crop productivity has been already increased by 10%
because of CO2 and may account for much of what has been attributed to the Green Revolution. Meanwhile, changes in
climate in specific fields where crops actually grow and are cultivated remain defiantly uncertain. Con versely,
the effects of an enriched CO2 atmosphere on crop productivity in large measure are positive
and leave little doubt as to the benefits for global food security. Wi t h t h i s n o t e , i t i s a s a d c o m m e n t a r y t h a t
m o s t o f t h e c u r r e n t a n d m o d e r n t e x t b o o k s o n plant nutrition omit, inad vertentl y or otherwise, a n y m e n t i o n o f t h e r o l e o f c a r b o n d i o x i d e a s a
fe rtil izer or esse ntia l nut rie nt. This was true 35 year s ago and remains so to this da y. Textbooks still i gn or e the f act that d iffe re nt le vel s o f CO2 ma y
have pronounced effects on plant growth and may interrelate and complement various levels of other nutrients applied to crops in the rooting media. The
complementary effects are al so m a ni f e st wi t h re spe c t to wa t e r re q u i r e ments and positive interrelations with temperature, light, and other atmospheric constraints. (See
-
"E nvir onmental 'Sc ie nce ' In The Cla ssroom," CR, April 1997.) Today, in the greenhouses of the Westlands of Holland, where the first use of elevated
levels of greenhouse carbon dioxide for enrichment of food crops occurred 40 years ago, there are glass green houses covering over 10,000 hectares.
These are all enriched with atmospheric levels of 1,000 ppm of CO2 during daylight hours. This practice is followed during the entire year when crops
are produced. Increases of marketable yields of tomatoes, cucumbers, sweet peppers, eggplant, and ornamentals range between 20% to 40% with an
annual return of $3 billion. There is currently a blind spot in the political and informational systems of the world. This is accompanied by a corruption
of the underlying biological and physical sciences. It should be considered good fortune that we are living in a
world of gradually increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. The satellite data on global temperature changes are now
in. There has been no appreciable warming. Accordingly, the rising level of atmospheric CO2 does not make the United
States the world's worst polluter. It is the world's greatest benefactor. Unlike other natural
resources (land, water, energy) essential for food production, which are costly and progressively in shorter supply, the rising
level of atmospheric CO2, is a universally free premium gaining in magnitude with time on which we can all reckon for the future. The effects of the
level of CO2 on photosynthetic capacity for the enhancement of food production and the output of
increasing atmospheric
appear far more important than any detectable change in climate. Elevated
rangelands and forests,
levels of atmospheric CO2 also provide a cost-free environment for the conservation of water
which is rapidly becoming another of the world's most limiting natural resources, the
majority of which is now used for crop irrigation.
CO2 Good – Solves Hunger
C02 is key to stopping world hunger
Climate & Environment Weekly 6 (Jan 12, http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060112/20060112_02.html)

Also writing about the need to increase global food production near the close of the 20th century were the Rockefeller Foundation's
Conway and Toenniessen (1999), who stated that "the Green Revolution was one of the great technological
success stories of the second half of the twentieth century," but that its benefits were dropping
and that a number of arguments "point to the need for a second Green Revolution." It is
enlightening to consider the arguments made by Conway and Toenniessen. First, they note that the world already produces more than
enough food to feed everyone on the planet, but that it is not evenly distributed, due to "notoriously ineffective" world markets
that leave 800 million people chronically undernourished. Hence, it would seem that requirement number one for the second Green
Revolution should be that the agricultural benefits to be reaped should be equitably distributed among all nations. Second, the
Rockefeller representatives say that food aid programs designed to help countries most in need "are also no solution," as they reach
"only a small portion of those suffering chronic hunger." In addition, they say that such programs, if prolonged, "have a negative
impact on local food production." Hence, it would seem that requirement number two for the second Green Revolution should be that
local food production should be enhanced worldwide. Third, Conway and Toenniessen state that 650 million of the world's poorest
people live in rural areas and that many of them live in "regions where agricultural potential is low and natural resources are poor."
Hence, it would seem that requirement number three for the second Green Revolution should be that regions of low agricultural
potential lacking in natural resources should be singled out for maximum benefits. All three of these requirements represent noble
causes; but if mankind already produces more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet and we don't do it, i.e., we don't
feed everyone, it is clear that mankind must not be noble enough to rise to the challenge currently confronting us. So why does
anyone think we will do any better in the future? Based on humanity's prior track record, it would seem to us that the second Green
Revolution envisioned by the Rockefeller Foundation will also fall short of its noble goal, depending, as it were, on a less-than-noble
humanity to see it through. So what do we do? Let's consider the three requirements for the next Green Revolution and see how the
likelihood of meeting them may be enhanced by letting the air's CO2 concentration continue to rise unimpeded. Requirement No. 1:
the agricultural
The agricultural benefits to be reaped should be equitably distributed among all nations. First of all, what are
benefits of elevated atmospheric CO2? For a 300 ppm increase in the air's CO2 content, they are
30 to 50% increases in the yields of nearly all food crops. As for their equitable distribution
among all nations, the fact that CO2 is well mixed throughout the atmosphere insures that all
nations will share equally in the availability of this great resource and its proven yield-enhancing
properties. Requirement No. 2: Local food production should be enhanced worldwide. The nice
thing about the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment in this regard is that it is
a blessing that transcends all political barriers. As Wittwer (1995) has so eloquently put it, the effects of elevated
CO2 "know no boundaries and both developing and developed countries are, and will be, sharing equally," for "the rising level of
atmospheric CO2 is a universally free premium, gaining in magnitude with time, on which we all can reckon for the foreseeable future."
Requirement No. 3: Regions of low agricultural potential lacking in natural resources should be singled out for maximum benefits.
Fortunately, CO2 helps most where people hurt most: in areas of low agricultural potential. In a
comprehensive review of the scientific literature, for example, Idso and Idso (1994) found that
the greatest CO2-induced percentage increases in plant productivity typically occur in places
of limited resources and heightened environmental stresses. In light of these observations, it
would seem that atmospheric CO2 enrichment meets the major requirements of the much-
needed "second Green Revolution" as envisioned by the Rockefeller Foundation. Their conventional programs will do
much to help; but they will not solve the problem on their own. With the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration as a potent ally,
however, we may come much closer to achieving our "noble goal" than we have ever come in the past.
C02 Good - Solves Hunger
C02 solves for world hunger by increasing plant efficiency and reducing the demand on
land.
Climate & Environment Weekly 6 (Jan 12, http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060112/20060112_02.html)

Humanity faces many challenges; we always have, and we always will. None of them, however,
is as pressing as the need to be able to produce the food we will require to sustain ourselves in
but a few short decades without usurping most of the planet's remaining arable land and
freshwater resources in the process and thereby leaving precious little of either for the plant
and animal components of the planet's natural ecosystems. In addition, no need is more essential to the
preservation of world peace than for people everywhere to have sufficient food to eat. Many thoughtful people have agonized over these
facts. As described in our Editorial of 1 Oct 1999, for example, our local newspaper of 26 September 1999 published a brief article by
former U.S. President Jimmy Carter entitled To cultivate peace, we must first cultivate food, wherein he stated that "when the Cold War
ended 10 years ago, we expected an era of peace" but got instead "a decade of war." He then asked why peace is so elusive, answering
that most of today's wars are fueled by poverty - poverty in developing countries "whose economies depend on agriculture but which
lack the means to make their farmland productive." This fact, he said, suggests an obvious, but often overlooked, path to peace: "raise
the standard of living of the millions of rural people who live in poverty by increasing agricultural productivity," his argument being that
thriving agriculture, in his words, "is the engine that fuels broader economic growth and development, thus paving the way for
prosperity and peace." Can the case for atmospheric CO2 enrichment be made any clearer?
Automatically, and without investing a single hard-earned dollar, ruble or whatever, people
everywhere promote the cause of peace when they utilize energy produced by the burning of
fossil fuels; for CO2 - one of the major end-products of the combustion process - is the very elixir
of life, being the primary building block of all plant tissues via the essential role it plays in the
photosynthetic process that sustains nearly all of earth's vegetation. And as with any
production process, the insertion of more raw materials (in this case CO2) into the front of the
production line results in more manufactured goods coming out the end of the line, which in
the case of enhanced plant growth and development is biosphere-sustaining food. Consequently,
in light of the former president's statement that "leaders of developing nations must make food security a
priority" for "there can be no peace until people have enough to eat," one can begin to appreciate the role of
the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content within this important context. In investigating the subject in more
detail " Idso and Idso (2000) developed a supply-and-demand scenario for food in the year 2050, wherein
they identified the plants that currently supply 95% of the world's food needs and projected historical trends
in their productivities (based on the assumption of continued increases in agricultural knowledge and
expertise) 50 years into the future. Under this scenario, they found that world food production would
rise by about 37% between the start of the 21st century and its midpoint, but that world food
needs, which they equated with world population, would likely rise by 51% over the same period.
Fortunately, they additionally calculated that the shortfall in production could be overcome (but
only barely) by the benefits anticipated to accrue from the many productivity-enhancing
effects of the expected concomitant rise in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration. These findings
demonstrate that world food security is precariously dependent upon the continued rising of the air's CO2
content, which must be allowed to take its natural course, for as Sylvan Wittwer, Director Emeritus of
Michigan State University's Agricultural Experiment Station, stated in his 1995 book Food, Climate, and
Carbon Dioxide: The Global Environment and World Food Production: "The rising level of
atmospheric CO2 could be the one global natural resource that is progressively increasing
food production and total biological output, in a world of otherwise diminishing natural
resources of land, water, energy, minerals, and fertilizer. It is a means of inadvertently
increasing the productivity of farming systems and other photosynthetically active
ecosystems. The effects know no boundaries and both developing and developed countries
are, and will be, sharing equally."
C02 Good - Solves Hunger
C02 is key to solving food security and preventing massive starvation.
Not many people think of it in this way, but food, climate, and the rising levels of atmospheric
carbon dioxide are uniquely interrelated. Food production is a critical and an essential
renewable resource. Without food, the human race would not survive. The production
of this renewable resource, upon which all life depends, is possible only
through photosynthesis, the most important of biochemical processes. An essential
raw material, almost always in short supply, is the low level of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
For example, an acre of corn crop must process over 40,000 tons of air to produce the record
yield of more than 130 bushels per acre recorded in the United States for 1995.
C02 Good - Increases Crop Yields
Higher levels of C02 would make plants more efficient and substantially increase crop
yields
One of the best-kept secrets in the global warming debate is that the plant life of
Planet Earth would benefit greatly from a higher level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
atmosphere. You read that correctly. Flowers, trees, and food crops love carbon dioxide,
and the more they get of it, the more they love it. Carbon dioxide is the basic raw
material that plants use in photosynthesis to convert solar energy into food, fiber, and
other forms of biomass. Voluminous scientific evidence shows that if CO2 were to rise
above its current ambient level of 360 parts per million, most plants would grow faster
and larger because of more efficient photosynthesis and a reduction in water loss. There
would also be many other benefits for plants, among them greater resistance to
temperature extremes and other forms of stress, better growth at low light intensities,
improved root/top ratios, less injury from air pollutants, and more nutrients in the soil
as a result of more extensive nitrogen fixation. This good news about carbon dioxide has
been all but ignored in alarmist discussions about possible global climate changes. CO2-
related benefits were barely mentioned at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June, where the rising level of carbon dioxide and other
"greenhouse gases" was decried as the world's greatest environmental threat. The Rio Summit ended with the United States and over 150
other nations signing a Framework Convention on Climate Change, committing themselves to stabilizing emissions of CO2 and other
greenhouse gases at 1990 levels.
More C02 makes plants more efficient and produce more food in less time.
There are two important reasons for this productivity boost at higher CO2 levels. One
is superior efficiency of photosynthesis. The other is a sharp reduction in water loss
per unit of leaf area. Photosynthesis converts the renewable energy of sunlight into energy that living creatures can use. In
the presence of chlorophyll, plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates that, directly or indirectly, supply
The principal
almost all animal and human needs for food; oxygen and some water are released as by-products of this process.
factors affecting the rate of photosynthesis are a favorable temperature, the level of
light intensity, and the availability of carbon dioxide. Most green plants respond quite
favorably to concentrations of CO2 well above current atmospheric levels. A related benefit
comes from the partial closing of pores in leaves that is associated with higher CO2 levels. These pores, known as stomata, admit air into
the leaf for photosynthesis, but they are also a major source of transpiration or moisture loss. By partially closing these pores, higher
CO2 levels greatly reduce the plants' water loss--a significant benefit in arid climates. There are marked variations in response to CO2
among plant species. The biggest differences are among three broad categories of plants--C3, C4, and Crassulacean Acid Metabolism or
CAM--each with a different pathway for photosynthetic fixation of carbon dioxide. Most green plants, including trees, algae, and most
major food crops, use the C3 pathway, so named because the first products of photosynthesis (called photosynthate) have three carbon
. At current atmospheric levels of
atoms per molecule. C3 plants respond most dramatically to higher levels of CO2
CO2, up to half of the photosynthate in C3 plants is typically lost and returned to the
air by a process called photo-respiration, which occurs simultaneously with
photosynthesis in sunlight. Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 virtually eliminate
photo-respiration in C3 plants, making photosynthesis much more efficient. High CO2
levels also sharply reduce dark respiration (the partial destruction of the products of
photosynthesis during nighttime) among C3 plants.
C02 Good - Increases Crop Yields
CO2 increases crop yields 40%
Cohen and Idso 99 (Bonner, Senior Fellow at the Lexington Institute and Keith Vice President of the Center for the Study of Carbon
Dioxide and Global Change, January 1, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=13372)
Cohen: Then increased CO2 levels benefit agriculture, right?
Idso: As the CO2 content of the air continues to climb, most agricultural crops should
respond by increasing their yields. Agricultural crop responses to elevated CO2 have
been studied extensively, and the peer-reviewed scientific literature shows that for a
doubling of the atmospheric CO2 content, yield is boosted by 30 to 40 percent for
most species.
Moreover, because transpirational water loss is generally reduced at elevated CO2
levels, these greater yields are achieved with about one-third less water loss per leaf.
Hence, the water-use efficiencies of the leaves of most agricultural plants actually double
with a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 content. And this phenomenon will become
increasingly more important as agricultural water supplies are reduced to offset
increased human needs in growing urban areas.
CO2 Good - Famine Impact
CO2 Good – Benefits Outweigh Risks
Warming offsets its own effects-food production, forestation,
First, we can expect a rapid expansion of food production that may offset some of the
presumed adverse climate effects. As crop yields rise with higher CO2 levels, the
amount of land devoted to agriculture can decline. It will be much easier to protect
environmentally sensitive land areas from over-cultivation for crops.
Since C3 plants will benefit somewhat more than C4 plants from higher CO2 levels, there
will be some shift in the mix of plants. Trees are C3 plants, so we can expect more rapid
reforestation and an enormous expansion in forest biomass. Of the 21 most important
food crops, 17 have C3 pathways. They include rice, wheat, barley, oats, rye, soybeans,
field beans, mung beans, cowpeas, chickpeas, pigeonpeas, potatoes, sweet potatoes,
cassava-yams, sugar beets, bananas, and coconuts. The exceptions are corn, sorghum,
millet, and sugarcane, which have C4 pathways, and which will probably decline in
relative production. On the other hand, since 14 of the 18 most noxious weeds are C4
plants, rising levels of atmospheric CO2 will generally favor crop production over
weeds.
Plants, directly or indirectly, provide 95 percent of the total food of the earth. Since plants
are at the bottom of the food chain, a boost in plant production should lead to major
increases in bird, fish, and mammal populations as well.
CO2 Good – Empirically Proven
Empirically proven- C02 has been used for 100 years
And yet, for over 100 years, nurserymen have been adding carbon dioxide to their
greenhouses to raise the yields of vegetables, flowers, and ornamental plants. And for
decades, it has been well known among botanists, biochemists, agriculturalists, and
foresters that a shortage of carbon dioxide is the most common limiting factor
preventing photosynthesis from proceeding more efficiently.
CO2 increased grain production by 1.3 billion tons in the last 54 years
Avery and Burnett 05 (Dennis, NCPA adjunct scholar and H. Sterling, Senior Fellow at NCPA,
May 19. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba517/)
The available evidence undermines Brown’s claims. Indeed, a warmer planet has
beneficial effects on food production. It results in longer growing seasons — more
sunshine and rainfall — while summertime high temperatures change little. And a warmer
planet means milder winters and fewer crop-killing frosts.
Global warming also increases carbon dioxide (CO2), which acts like fertilizer for
plants. As the planet warms, oceans naturally release huge tonnages of additional CO2.
(Cold water can hold much more of a gas than warmer water.) Since 1950, in a period of
global warming, these factors have helped the world’s grain production soar from 700
million to more than 2 billion tons last year.
C02 Good – Multiple Reasons
CO2 from warming increase plant growth, efficiency, temperature resistance.
One of the best-kept secrets in the global warming debate is that the plant life of Planet
Earth would benefit greatly from a higher level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
atmosphere.
You read that correctly. Flowers, trees, and food crops love carbon dioxide, and the
more they get of it, the more they love it. Carbon dioxide is the basic raw material that
plants use in photosynthesis to convert solar energy into food, fiber, and other forms of
biomass. Voluminous scientific evidence shows that if CO2 were to rise above its
current ambient level of 360 parts per million, most plants would grow faster and
larger because of more efficient photosynthesis and a reduction in water loss. There
would also be many other benefits for plants, among them greater resistance to
temperature extremes and other forms of stress, better growth at low light intensities,
improved root/top ratios, less injury from air pollutants, and more nutrients in the
soil as a result of more extensive nitrogen fixation.
Predicted CO2 levels would increase plant productivity by 1/3, better root systems enable
roots to reach deeper water, spur more efficient photosynthesis
While scientists disagree about the likely effects of additional carbon dioxide on
global temperature, they generally agree on another important effect of a rise in the
CO2 level. A doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, as is
projected, would increase plant productivity by almost one-third. Most plants would
grow faster and bigger, with increases in leaf size and thickness, stem height,
branching, and seed production. The number and size of fruits and flowers would
also rise. Root/top ratios would increase, giving many plants better root systems for
access to water and nutrients. More Efficient Photosynthesis
There are two important reasons for this productivity boost at higher CO2 levels. One
is superior efficiency of photosynthesis. The other is a sharp reduction in water loss
per unit of leaf area. Photosynthesis converts the renewable energy of sunlight into energy that living creatures can use. In
the presence of chlorophyll, plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates that, directly or indirectly, supply
The principal
almost all animal and human needs for food; oxygen and some water are released as by-products of this process.
factors affecting the rate of photosynthesis are a favorable temperature, the level of
light intensity, and the availability of carbon dioxide. Most green plants respond quite
favorably to concentrations of CO2 well above current atmospheric levels. A related
benefit comes from the partial closing of pores in leaves that is associated with higher
CO2 levels. These pores, known as stomata, admit air into the leaf for photosynthesis, but
they are also a major source of transpiration or moisture loss. By partially closing these pores, higher
CO2 levels greatly reduce the plants' water loss--a significant benefit in arid climates.
C02 Good – Increased Photosynthesis
CO2 increases photosynthesis
Prentice 0 (I.C., Co-ordinating Author of “The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”,
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-03.pdf
, pg 195, most recent source)
Increased CO2 concentration allows the partial closure of stomata, restricting water
loss during transpiration and producing an increase in the ratio of carbon gain to
water loss (“water-use efficiency”, WUE) (Field et al., 1995a; Drake et al., 1997;
Farquhar, 1997; Körner, 2000). This effect can lengthen the duration of the growing
season in seasonally dry ecosystems and can increase NPP in both C3 and C4 plants.
CO2 decreases transpiration and increases photosynthesis
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have also been reconstructed indirectly, from
stomatal index measurements on sub-fossil leaves (Van de Water et al., 1994; Beerling
et al., 1995; Rundgren and Beerling, 1999; Wagner et al., 1999). Stomatal density and
stomatal index of many species respond to atmospheric CO2 (Woodward, 1987;
Woodward and Bazzaz, 1988) but are influenced by other environmental variables as
well (Poole et al., 1996). One recent stomatal index record, interpreted as implying high
(up to 350 ppm) and rapidly fluctuating CO2 concentrations in the early Holocene (Wagner
et al., 1999), is clearly incompatible with the ice core record of Indermühle et al.
(1999), whereas a continuous stomatal index record from 9 kyr BP onwards (Rundgren and
Beerling, 1999) has shown concentration trends consistent with the ice-core records.
CO2 increases photosynthesis
At high CO2 concentrations there can be no further increase in photosynthesis with
increasing CO2 (Farquhar et al., 1980), except through further stomatal closure,
which may produce continued increases in WUE in water-limited environments. The
shape of the response curve of global NPP at higher CO2 concentrations than present is
uncertain because the response at the level of gas exchange is modified by
incompletely understood plantand ecosystem-level processes (Luo et al., 1999). Based
on photosynthetic physiology, it is likely that the additional carbon that could be taken up
globally by enhanced photosynthsis as a direct consequence of rising atmospheric CO2
concentration is small at atmospheric concentrations above 800 to 1,000 ppm.
Experimental studies indicate that some ecosystems show greatly reduced CO2 fertilisation
at lower concentrations than this (Körner, 2000).
CO2 Good – Water Efficiency
C02 increases water efficiency
The most readily identifiable potential climatic impact of significant magnitude on
future living standards of the human race is availability of water resources. The
efficiency of their use will be a major key to future food security.
What Does CO2 Do To Crops? We now introduce the impacts of the rising level of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
First, we have its presumed effect on climate change, and second, its effect on food production. The climate-
change effect is characterized by the widely publicized global warming (the so-called "greenhouse effect").
elevated
Presumably this also is causing an increased frequency of extreme or hazardous events. Conversely,
levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have a decidedly beneficial effect on crop
production through an enhancement of photosynthetic capacity and an increase in
water-use efficiency. Additionally, hundreds of experiments now show partial alleviation
of the harmful effects of both marginally low and high temperatures, air pollutants, a
lessening of the environmental hazards imposed by drought, alkalinity, and mineral
stresses—both excesses and deficiencies—low-light intensities, and UV-B radiation.
High CO2 concentrations increases water use efficiency
Terrestrial uptake of CO2 is governed by net biome production (NBP), which is the
balance of net primary production (NPP) and carbon losses due to heterotrophic
respiration (decomposition and herbivory) and fire, including the fate of harvested
biomass. NPP increases when atmospheric CO2 concentration is increased above
present levels (the “fertilisation” effect occurs directly through enhanced
photosynthesis, and indirectly through effects such as increased water use efficiency).
At high CO2 concentration (800 to 1,000 ppm) any further direct CO2 fertilisation effect is
likely to be small. The effectiveness of terrestrial uptake as a carbon sink depends on the
transfer of carbon to forms with long residence times (wood or modified soil organic
matter). Management practices can enhance the carbon sink because of the inertia of these
“slow” carbon pools.
Increased CO2 causes efficient water use in plants
The process of CO2 “fertilisation” thus involves direct effects on carbon assimilation
and indirect effects such as those via water saving and interactions between the
carbon and nitrogen cycles. Increasing CO2 can therefore lead to structural and
physiological changes in plants (Pritchard et al., 1999) and can further affect plant
competition and distribution patterns due to responses of different species. Field
studies show that the relative stimulation of NPP tends to be greater in low-productivity
years, suggesting that improvements in water- and nutrient-use efficiency can be more
important than direct NPP stimulation (Luo et al., 1999).
C02 Good - Water Efficiency
CO2 increases water use efficiency
CO2 Science 8 (“The Debt We Owe To Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment”, co2science.org, Volume 11,
Number 22, http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N22/EDIT.php, May 23, 2008)
In an intriguing paper recently published in Global Change Biology, Cunniff et al. (2008) note that "early agriculture was characterized
by sets of primary domesticates or 'founder crops' that were adopted in several independent centers of origin," all at about the same time;
and they say and that "this synchronicity suggests the involvement of a global trigger." Further noting that Sage (1995) saw a causal link
between this development and the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that followed deglaciation (a jump from about 180 to 270
they hypothesized that the aerial fertilization effect caused by the rise in CO2
ppm),
combined with its transpiration-reducing effect led to a large increase in the water
use efficiencies of the world's major C4 founder crops, and that this development was
the global trigger that launched the agricultural enterprise. Consequently, as a test of this hypothesis,
they designed "a controlled environment experiment using five modern day representatives of wild C4 crop progenitors, all 'founder
crops' from a variety of independent centers." The five crops employed in their study were Setaria viridis (L.) P. Beauv, Panicum
miliaceum var. ruderale (Kitag.), Pennisetum violaceum (Lam.) Rich., Sorghum arundinaceum (Desv.), and Zea mays subsp.
parviglumis H.H. Iltis & Doebley. They were grown individually in 6-cm x 6-cm x 6-cm pots filled with a 1:1 mix of washed sand and
vermiculite for 40-50 days in growth chambers maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 180, 280 and 380 ppm, characteristic
This work revealed that the "increase in CO2 from
of glacial, post-glacial and modern times, respectively.
glacial to postglacial levels [180 to 280 ppm] caused a significant gain in vegetative
biomass of up to 40%," together with "a reduction in the transpiration rate via
decreases in stomatal conductance of ~35%," which led to "a 70% increase in water
use efficiency, and a much greater productivity potential in water-limited conditions."
In discussing their results, the five researchers concluded that "these key physiological changes could have greatly enhanced the
productivity of wild crop progenitors after deglaciation ... improving the productivity and survival of these wild C4 crop progenitors in
early agricultural systems."
C02 reduces stomata conductance
Jablonski et al, 2 (Leanne M. Jablonski, Xianzhong Wang, Peter S. Curtis, “Plant Reproduction under Elevated CO2
Conditions: A Meta-Analysis of Reports on 79 Crop and Wild Species,” New Phytologist, Vol. 156, No. 1, (Oct., 2002), pp. 9-26)
Practically all of the CO2 fixed by terrestrial plants, and most of the water
evaporated from them, passes through stomatal pores in leaves and other surfaces. The
way in which stomata respond to the environment and control photosynthesis and
transpiration is, therefore, a key determinant of plant growth and water status.
Moreover, these gas exchange processes affect the global carbon and hydrological
cycles, and therefore feedback on climate, so they are central to the concerns of global
warming and climate change. It is widely stated that increased atmospheric CO2
concentration ([CO2] ) will cause reduced stomatal conductance (gs), and there have been many
attempts to derive a 'typical value' for the reduction of stomatal conductance (Ags), but this value has varied widely, if not wildly, as
different reviews have been published. The latest review, by Medlyn et al. (2001) (see pp. 247-264 in this issue), suggests a mean Ag of
21% (95% CI of 5-33%) for tree species
CO2 Good – Droughts - Mycorrhizal Fungi
C02 fertilization increases mycorrhizal fungi
Treseder 4 (Kathleen K., Associate Professor, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at UC Irvine, A Meta-Analysis of Mycorrhizal Responses
to Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Atmospheric CO2 in Field Studies, New Phytologist, Vol. 164, No. 2, (Nov., 2004), pp. 347-355)
Controls over mycorrhizal dynamics by C, N, and P are germane to global change studies.
Enrichment of atmospheric CO2 typically augments photosynthesis (Bazzaz, 1990;
Poorter, 1993) and increases nutrient limitation in plants (Oren et at, 2001; Schlesinger & Lichter,
2001; Finzi et at, 2002), while fertilization with N and P (as land is converted to agriculture) and anthropogenic N deposition enhance
soil fertility (Vitousek, 1994). Humans may be altering global and regional distributions of this ecologically and economically important
microbial group.
CO2 enrichment consistently and strongly increased
By contrast to N and P fertilization,
mycorrhizal growth, by an average of 47% across all studies (Fig. 1), and by 36% within studies that
measured percentage colonization (R = 1.36, CI of 1.11-1.68, number of studies = 12). Among the study characteristics examined, none
contributed significantly to differences among studies (Table 2), and there was no significant variation among studies in general (QT =
14.5, d.f. = 13, P= 0.342). We could not test for differences among measurement types, since percentage colonization was the only
metric used by more than one study.
For each nutrient examined, results from the meta-analyses supported the hypothesis
that mycorrhizal fungi are more abundant where plants are more limited by soil
nutrients. However, responses to N were less consistent than were responses to P and elevated CO2, given the heterogeneity in N
effects among studies. Replicate numbers within N studies influenced response ratios, but not substantially. What other characteristics of
the studies might be responsible for the remaining variation in N effects? It is possible that mycorrhizal fungi may not be as effective in
facilitating plant uptake of inorganic N compared with inorganic P (Morse & Phillips, 1971; Smith & Read, 1997). In particular, nitrate
is more mobile in the soil than is phosphate, so diffusion or mass flow may supply N at adequate rates in nitrate-rich systems. Under
these circumstances, plant investment in mycorrhizal fungi may be minimal even in control plots. Alternately, mycorrhizal growth may
be N-limited in some ecosystems (Treseder Allen, 2002) so that N fertilization increases mycorrhizal abundance. Nitrogen effects were
positive in 23% of studies (Table 1). Regardless of the mechanism, the significant variation in N responses among studies indicates that
predictability of N deposition effects on mycorrhizal biomass for any given ecosystem is relatively low. The smaller confidence intervals
for N effects vs P or CO2 effects (Fig. 1) reflect the larger number of N studies included in the meta-analyses.
Fungus Performs Critical Plant Functions- Helps Plants Resist Droughts
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education 96

(http://www.sare.org/publications/bsbc/chap3.htm, (most recent source))
Mycorrhizal fungi help plants take up nutrients, improve nitrogen fixation by
legumes, and help to form and stabilize soil aggregates. Crop rotations select for more
types and better performing fungi than does mono-cropping. Some studies indicate that
using cover crops, especially legumes, between main crops helps maintain high levels of
spores and promotes good mycorrhizal development in the next crop. Roots that have lots
of mycorrhizae are better able to resist fungal diseases, parasitic nematodes, and
drought.
CO2 Good – Droughts - Mycorrhizal Fungi
C02 fertilization helps mycorrhizal fungi
Treseder 4 (Kathleen K., Associate Professor, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at UC Irvine, A Meta-Analysis of Mycorrhizal Responses
to Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Atmospheric CO2 in Field Studies, New Phytologist, Vol. 164, No. 2, (Nov., 2004), pp. 347-355)
In summary, mycorrhizal abundance generally increases under elevated CO2 and
declines in response to N and P fertilization across studies. Plants may adjust allocation of
C to mycorrhizal fungi according to the degree to which plant growth is N or P limited, as
hypothesized (Mosse & Phillips, 1971; Read, 1991). Direct limitation of mycorrhizal fungi
by soil nutrients appears to be at most a secondary control,evident in a subset of studies. In
respect of environmental change, global standing stocks of mycorrhizal fungi may be
substantially augmented by atmospheric CO2 enrichment and moderately reduced by P
fertilization. Anthropogenic N deposition effects might vary among ecosystems, with a
slightly negative influence overall. These shifts in mycorrhizal dynamics may elicit
corresponding shifts in ecosystem dynamics, including nutrient uptake by plants (Smith
& Read, 1997), trace gas emissions (Redeker et al., 2004), carbon sequestration in glomalin (Treseder & Allen, 2000), and aggregate
formation in the soil (Rillig et al., 19996).
C02 is good for mycorrhizal fungi
Korner 0 (Christian Institute of Botany, University of Basel an, “Biosphere Responses to CO2 Enrichment,” Ecological Applications, Vol.
10, No. 6, (Dec., 2000), pp. 1590-1619)
A most important group of soil organisms that completely depends on plants arc fungi,
which utilize either live or dead plant material or exist in symbiosis with live plants,
forming mycorrhiza. Since the mycorrhiza forming fungus immediately depends on photo-
assimalates. it is obvious that increasing their abundance will have an effect. A large
number of studies have demonstrated substantial mycorrhizal stimulation under
elevated CO2 over a wide spectrum of growth conditions and plant partners (e. g..
review in O'Neill 1994, Incich et al. 1995, Tingey et al. 1995, Dhillion et al. 1996,
Lovelock et al. ]996, Norby 1996, Godbold ct al. 1997), but in a few cases the effect was.
small (Markkolaa et al. 1996). A most remarkable phenomenon has been described by
Sanders (1996), namely, a host specificity of endo-mycorrhizal responses to CO, en-
richment. It is not unlikely that some differential plant species responses to elevated
CO2 are in fact due to responses of their mycorrhizal partner, which may either
become more supportive or more demanding tinder a changed diet. Hence, presence of
natural mycorrhiza seems imperative in plant CO2 research—a clear advantage of
field research, also in light of evidence that one fungus is able to functionally connect
various hosts (Francis and Read 1984, Newman 1988).
CO2 Good – High Temperatures
C02 gives plants resistance to high temperatures
To date, our knowledge of the climate effects of the rising CO2 and other
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is inadequate for initiating any global
attempt to change the climate. If the climate does change, some warming could
be tolerated, and may even be beneficial with no reductions in food production. A
warming trend would increase thelengths of the growing seasons, encourage farmer
adaptations, and favor the introduction of new technologies and cultural practices. The
results would be crops and food animals more resistant to environmental stresses. The
prospects of climate change from increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide do not
frighten many agriculturists, farmers, or foresters.
Plants are helped by both high temperatures and high C02.
Enrichment of the air by carbon dioxide also appears to offer some protection to plants against both extremely hot and cold
temperatures. There is also evidence that high atmospheric levels of CO2 raise the optimal
temperature for plant growth. The implication of this for the global warming debate is significant: if the higher-CO2
world of the future leads to higher temperatures, plants will respond favorably both to increases in
carbon dioxide and to the warmer conditions.
Plant responses to a higher carbon dioxide concentration do appear to be limited by
deficiencies in nitrogen and other mineral nutrients. If plants are to take full advantage
of future CO2 -enriched atmospheres, it may be necessary to apply more fertilizer in many parts of the world.
Even so, higher CO2 levels have a remarkably stimulatory effect on biological nitrogen fixation by legumes, such as soybeans. A classic
a tripling of atmospheric CO2
study by Ralph Hardy and U. D. Havelka, published in Science in 1975, showed that
results in a six-fold increase in biological nitrogen fixation--from 75 to 425 kilograms of nitrogen per
hectare--by rhizobial bacteria in nodules attached to the roots of soybeans.
CO2 Good – Air Pollution
C02 mitigates air pollution effects for plants.
Elevated concentrations of CO2 also offer protection against air pollutants. The partial closing
of the stomata at higher CO2 levels reduces the exposure of both C3 and C4 plants to
ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, and other harmful substances in the air. The
benefits are particularly pronounced for soybeans and other legumes that are especially
sensitive to air pollutants.
CO2 Good – Trees - Reforestation
More CO2 jumpstarts tree growth, would facilitate reforestation
Some of the most convincing evidence that the rising level of atmospheric carbon dioxide
is good for plants comes from the response measurement of individual trees and overall
forest growth. Forests cover approximately one-third of the earth's land area, and
account for two-thirds of global photosynthesis. They have C3 metabolism, and, like
other C3 plants, respond favorably to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide.
Trees and their seedlings grown under controlled environments or in open top chambers
simulating the outdoors have shown remarkable growth responses to elevated levels of
CO2. Practically every species evaluated thus far in the seedling stage has shown a
positive response. Addition of carbon dioxide to black walnut seedlings--at
concentrations of 1,000 to 2,000 ppm for three months--increases dry weight by 80
percent, height by 96 percent, and leaf area by 79 percent. Similar results have been
obtained for sugar maple, oak, ash, sweet gum, pine, and eucalyptus. The forestry
department at Michigan State University has produced plantable trees in months,
rather than years, by subjecting seedlings to 1,000 ppm CO2 concentrations under
optimal conditions of light, temperature, day length, and nutrients.
The Water Conservation Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Agriculture has compared
the growth of orange trees under the current atmospheric CO2 concentration of 360 ppm,
and a concentration of 650 ppm. The trees at the elevated levels have accumulated 2.8
times more biomass in five years, and in their first two years of production produced
10 times more oranges.
C02 Good – Increases Root Mass
High C02 increases root mass
CO2 Science 5 (“Effects of Very High CO2 Concentrations on Ginseng Roots”, Volume 8, Number 39,
CO2Science.org, http://www.co2science.org/articles/V8/N39/EDIT.php, 28 September 2005)
Of most immediate concern in such an experiment would be the effects of the ultra-high
CO2 concentrations on root growth. Would they be toxic and lead to biomass reductions or
even root death? The answer was a resounding no. After 45 days of growth at 10,000 ppm
CO2, for example, root dry weight was increased by fully 37% relative to the dry weight
of roots produced in bioreactors in equilibrium with normal ambient air, while root dry
mass was increased by a lesser 27% after 45 days at 25,000 ppm CO2 and by a still smaller
9% after 45 days at 50,000 ppm CO2. Hence, although the optimum CO2 concentration for
ginseng root growth clearly resided at some value lower than 10,000 ppm in this study, the
concentration at which root growth rate was reduced below that characteristic of
ambient air was somewhere significantly above 50,000-ppm, for even at that high
CO2 concentration, root growth was still greater than it was in ambient air.
CO2 leads to root growth in CAM plants
CO2 Science 99 (“Response of an Orchid to Super Elevated CO2”, co2science.org,

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V2/N15/B3.php, August 1, 1999)
As the CO2 content of the air continues to rise higher and higher, it is likely that this
CAM species will exhibit enhanced rates of photosynthesis and growth, leading to
ever-increasing gains in biomass. Roots, in particular, should increase their size more
than leaves, thus acting as large sinks for leaf-derived carbohydrates, which may keep
photosynthetic acclimation from occurring due to end product feedback inhibition.
CO2 Good – AT: Weeds – C3/C4 Distinction
C3 food crops can readily absorb CO2 – Their turns assume the wrong crops
Ruttan & Easterling 95 (Vernon & William, U.Minn, U.Neb, Summer,

http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/summer95/agriculture.html)
Crop species vary in their response to CO2. Wheat, rice, and soybeans belong to a
physiological class (called C3 plants) that respond readily to increased CO2 levels. Corn,
sorghum, sugarcane, and millet are C4 plants that follow a different pathway. The latter,
though more efficient photosynthetically than C3 crops at present levels of CO2, tend to be
less responsive to enriched concentrations. Thus far, these effects have been demonstrated
mainly in controlled environments such as growth chambers, greenhouses, and plastic
enclosures. Experimental studies of the long-term effects of CO2 in more realistic field
settings have not yet been done on a comprehensive scale.
This solves their weeds turns
Wittwer 92 (Sylvan, MSU, Policy Review, http://www.purgit.com/co2ok.html)

Since C3 plants will benefit somewhat more than C4 plants from higher CO2 levels, there
will be some shift in the mix of plants. Trees are C3 plants, so we can expect more rapid
reforestation and an enormous expansion in forest biomass. Of the 21 most important food
crops, 17 have C3 pathways. They include rice, wheat, barley, oats, rye, soybeans, field
beans, mung beans, cowpeas, chickpeas, pigeonpeas, potatoes, sweet potatoes, cassava-
yams, sugar beets, bananas, and coconuts. The exceptions are corn, sorghum, millet, and
sugarcane, which have C4 pathways, and which will probably decline in relative
production. On the other hand, since 14 of the 18 most noxious weeds are C4 plants, rising
levels of atmospheric CO2 will generally favor crop production over weeds.
CO2 Good - AT: Superweeds
Weeds can be used to bolster the defenses of traditional crops against climate change- those
weeds that are helped by C02 can provide valuable genetic information to help crops cope
as well.
New York Times 8 (June 29, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29weeds-t.html?pagewanted=7)

Ziska says that he worries about mankind’s ability to feed itself in a fast-changing
future. Paradoxically, it is weeds, he says, that can provide solutions. They have
helped us deal with lesser crises in the past. When diseases and pests overwhelmed
our domesticated food crops, it was to their wild relatives — plants that mankind has
been battling for millennia — that plant breeders turned. Because weeds have more
diverse genomes, it is easier to find one with the proper genetic resistance to a given
threat — and then to create a new hybrid by breeding it with existing crops. An answer
to the Irish potato blight of 1845-6 was eventually found among the potato’s wild and
weedy relatives; a wild oat found in Israel in the 1960s helped spawn a more robust,
disease-resistant strain of domesticated oats.
Weedy ancestors of our food crops, Ziska predicts, will cope far better with coming
climatic changes than their domesticated descendants. Coping, after all, is what weeds
have always done best. As last year’s climatechange panel report, Climate Change 2007,
made clear, we have already set in motion far-reaching and unstoppable changes in
regional temperatures and precipitation and in the composition of our atmosphere. No
matter what actions we take, these changes will continue for decades. If we are to
avoid disaster, experts agree, we will need to be tenacious but flexible, ready to
identify and exploit any opportunity in what will be a challenging, even hostile
situation. In this new world that we have made, weeds, our old adversaries, could be
not only tools but mentors. At which point, if Ralph Waldo Emerson is to be believed,
weeds by definition will cease to exist.
CO2 Good – AT: Pests/Disease
Comprehensive studies prove that CO2 enhances the key defense against pests and diseases
Idso & Idso 1 (Sherwood & Keith, Az., Environmental & Experimental Bio, 45)
A number of studies have confirmed this expectation (Fajer et al., 1992; Julkunen-Titto et
al., 1993; Lambers, 1993; Lincoln, 1993; Lindroth et al., 1993; Lavola and Julkunen-Titto,
1994; Roth and Lindroth, 1994; Lindroth et al., 1995; Roth and Lindroth, 1995; Lawler et
al., 1997; Gebauer et al., 1998), while others have detected no changes in the
concentrations of plant CBSCs in response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment (Fajer,
1989; Fajer et al., 1989; Lincoln and Couvert, 1989; Johnson and Lincoln, 1990, 1991;
Fajer et al., 1992; Heyworth et al., 1998; Kainulainen et al., 1998), and a few have found
an increase in the air’s CO2 concentration to lead to a decrease in plant CBSCs (Williams
et al., 1994a; Penuelas et al., 1996). As is the case with plant nitrogen and protein
concentrations, it has also been shown that some of the neutral or negative responses of
CBSCs to atmospheric CO2 enrichment are the result of size differences (dilutions)
produced by the accelerated growth (accumulation of carbohydrates) typically experienced
by plants growing in CO2-enriched air (Gebauer et al., 1998; Penuelas and Estiarte, 1998;
Jones and Hartley, 1999; Koricheva,
1999). The results that have been obtained to date — whether indicative of increases
(positive response),
decreases (negative response) or no changes (no response) in the foliar concentrations of
plant CBSCs that result from an increase in the air’s CO2 content — all have significant
implications for the direct and indirect impacts they may or may not have on animals that
feed on plants. Secondary metabolites, for example, typically help plants defend
themselves against both vertebrate and invertebrate herbivory (Feeny, 1968; Bernays et al.,
1989; Palo and Robbins, 1991; Langenheim, 1994), as well as the attacks of plant
pathogens
(Rhoades, 1979; Nicholson and Hammerschmidt, 1992), while they simultaneously may
act as allelopathic
substances against other plants competing for the same resources (Halligan, 1975; Inderjit
and Dakshini, 1994; Inderjit, 1996). Although it may thus appear that chaos reigns within
this particular field of research, a review of the responses of plant CBSCs to atmospheric
CO2 enrichment in 17 different species grown under
different levels of soil nitrogen supply has brought a certain degree of order to the issue
(Penuelas et al., 1997a). When the soil nitrogen supply in these 17 studies was less than
adequate, some of the CBSC responses to a doubling of the air’s CO2 concentration were
negative, i.e. CBSC concentrations declined as the air’s CO2 content rose. When the soil
nutrient supply was more than adequate, however, the responses were almost all positive,
with CBSC concentrations increasing in response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. In
addition, when the CO2 content of the air was tripled, all responses — under both high and
low soil nitrogen conditions — were positive. Nevertheless, there have been a few studies
that continue to contradict this generalization, where researchers have found positive
CBSC responses when soil nutrient levels were low (Julkunen-Titto et al., 1993; Lavola
and Julkunen-Titto, 1994; Lawler et al., 1997; Hartley et al., 2000).
CO2 Good – AT: Pests
CO2 increases recovery from pests
Another aspect of plant-pest interactions is how plants respond after herbivory, which may
be just as important — to both the plant and its herbivorous assailants — as how they
respond prior to or during attack. Kruger et al. (1998), for example, found the growth-
promoting effects of elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 were proportionally greater in
maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) and aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.)
trees that had half their foliage removed to simulate herbivory than they were in
undefoliated trees. This finding suggests that atmospheric CO2 enrichment may enable
plants to better recover from effects of herbivory, which would tend to benefit both the
plants and the herbivores that may encounter them at a later date.
CO2 Good – AT: Disease
CO2 leads to disease resistance
Atmospheric CO2 enrichment may also alter the abilities of plants to combat diseases that
periodically
afflict them. A good example of this phenomenon comes from the experiment of
Malmstrom and Field (1997), who studied CO2- induced growth responses of healthy oat
(A6ena sati6a L.) plants and oat plants infected with the barley yellow dwarf virus
(BYDV), which plagues more than 150 plant species worldwide, including all major cereal
crops. In response to a doubling of the air’s CO2 concentration, they found that
after only sixty days, total biomass in CO2-enriched healthy plants had increased by 12%
over total biomass in non-CO2-enriched healthy plants. In BYDV-infected plants,
however, biomass had increased by 36%, a response that was three times greater than the
12% increase observed in healthy plants. In addition, whereas elevated CO2 had little
effect on root growth in healthy plants, it increased root biomass in infected plants by up to
60%. Although no attempt was made to determine if these dramatic growth enhancements
were provided by CO2-induced increases in plant constituents that directly and negatively
impacted the specific plant pathogen of this study, such a possibility exists and should be
seriously considered infuture work of this nature.
More evidence…
Bilgin, Clough, & Dilugia 7 (Damla, Steven & Evan, U of Ill-UC, http://www.life.uiuc.edu/delucia/presentations.htm)
Plants have numerous defence mechanisms many of which are induced by the pathogen
attack or various environmental stresses. Although the ultimate response may be different,
abiotic and biotic stress-induced signaling pathways share many common genes and nodes.
Changes in the concentrations of atmospheric gases played a significant role in the
evolution of organisms and their interactions with each other. Increasing levels of ozone
(O3) and carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere causes changes in the gene expression
profile of plants and their response to pathogens and other stresses.
We used soybean plants, an economically important crop, to study the effects of global
atmospheric change on gene expression and plant-pathogen interaction. Soybean plants
grown in the field under elevated O3 or CO2 were tested against virus infection. Both
treatments increased the resistance of susceptible plants to Soybean Mosaic Virus (SMV).
Gene expression analysis with Affymetrix arrays showed that the nonspecific resistance
response induced by elevated O3 is different than CO2 induced response. Elevated O3
treatment induced isoflavone biosynthesis and pathogenesis- related genes PR1, PR5 and
PR10. Elevated CO2 changed the cell number and size of foliar tissue and differentially
regulated cell cycle and plant development related genes. The similar and different effects
of elevated O3 and CO2 on plant gene expression and plant –pathogen interactions will be
discussed. Various reasons of nonspecific resistance induced by the two major components
of global atmospheric change will be presented.
AT: Idso Indicts
Idso's writings were not motivated by money and funding from questionable sources is
common on both sides of the warming debate, incentives can never be proven or disproven
- the facts and analysis in the writings should still be considered
Idso 90 (Sherwood B.(last date cited, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change)
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20061013/20061013_12.html
That we tell a far different story from the one espoused by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change is true; and that may be why ExxonMobil made some donations to us a few
times in the past; they probably liked what we typically had to say about the issue. But
what we had to say then, and what we have to say now, came not, and comes not, from
them or any other organization or person. Rather, it was and is derived from our individual
scrutinizing of the pertinent scientific literature and our analyses of what we find there,
which we have been doing and subsequently writing about on our website on a weekly basis
without a single break since 15 Jul 2000, and twice-monthly before that since 15 Sep 1998 ...
and no one could pay my sons and me enough money to do that. So what do we generally
find in this never-ending endeavor? We find enough good material to produce weekly reviews
of five different peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not follow the multiple
doom-and-gloom storylines of the IPCC. In addition, we often review articles that do follow
the IPCC's lead; and in these cases we take issue with them for what we feel are valid
defensible reasons. Why do we do this? We do it because we feel that many people on the other
side of the debate - but by no means all or even the majority of them - are the ones that
"misrepresent the science of climate change." Just as beauty resides in the eye of the beholder,
however, so too does the misrepresentation of climate change science live there; and with people
on both sides of the debate often saying the same negative things about those on the other side, it
behooves the rational person seeking to know the truth to carefully evaluate the things each side
says about more substantial matters. Are they based on real-world data? Do the analyses
employed seem appropriate? Do the researchers rely more on data and logic to make their points,
or do they rely more on appeals to authority and claims of consensus? Funding also enters the
picture; but one must determine if it is given to influence how scientists interpret their findings or
to encourage them to maintain their intellectual integrity and report only what they believe to be
the truth. In this regard, as I mentioned earlier, there are many scientists on both sides of the
climate change debate who receive funds from people that admire their work and who
continue to maintain their intellectual and moral integrity. Likewise, there are probably some
on both sides of the controversy who do otherwise. So how does one differentiate between them?
Corn - Shell 1/2
A. Global demand will double by 2050
Idso, Idso and Idso 07 (Sherwood, Craig and Keith, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and
Global Change, http://www.pcgp.it/pcgp/dati/2007-04/30-999999/Idso.doc)
What, if anything, can be done to avoid this horrific situation? In a subsequent analysis that was published in the 8 August 2002 issue of
Nature,10 Tilman and a second set of collaborators introduced a few more facts before suggesting some solutions. They noted, for
example, thatby 2050 the human population of the globe is projected to be 50% larger
than it was just prior to the time of their writing, and that global grain demand by 2050
could well double, due to expected increases in per capita real income and dietary shifts toward a higher proportion of meat.
Hence, they but stated the obvious when they concluded that “raising yields on existing farmland is essential
for ‘saving land for nature’.”
So how can this readily-defined but Herculean task be accomplished? Tilman et al. proposed a strategy that focuses on three essential
efforts: (1) increasing crop yield per unit of land area, (2) increasing crop yield per unit of nutrients applied, and (3) increasing crop yield
per unit of water used.
With respect to the first of these efforts – increasing crop yield per unit of land area – the researchers note that in many parts of the world
the historical rate-of-increase in crop yield is declining, as the genetic ceiling for maximal yield potential is being approached. This
observation, in their estimation, “highlights the need for efforts to steadily increase the yield potential ceiling.” With respect to the
second effort – increasing crop yield per unit of nutrients applied – they note that “without the use of synthetic fertilizers, world food
production could not have increased at the rate [that it did in the past] and more natural ecosystems would have been converted to
agriculture.” Hence, they say that the
ultimate solution “will require significant increases in
nutrient use efficiency, that is, in cereal production per unit of added nitrogen.” Finally,
with respect to the third effort – increasing crop yield per unit of water used – Tilman et al. note that “water is regionally scarce,” and
that “many countries in a band from China through India and Pakistan, and the Middle East to North Africa either currently or will soon
fail to have adequate water to maintain per capita food production from irrigated land.” Increasing crop water use
efficiency, therefore, is also a must.
Although the impending man vs. nature crisis and several important elements of its potential solution are thus well defined, Tilman and
his first set of collaborators concluded that “even
the best available technologies, fully deployed,
cannot prevent many of the forecasted problems.” This was also the finding of a study my brother and I
conducted a few years ago,11 wherein we concluded that although “expected advances in agricultural
technology and expertise will significantly increase the food production potential of
many countries and regions,” these advances “will not increase production fast
enough to meet the demands of the even faster-growing human population of the
planet.”
B. CO2 boosts corn production

Science Daily 3 [July 29, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030728080920.htm]
Increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit photosynthesis in U.S. corn
crops in the future by relieving drought stress, say researchers at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. According to preliminary findings of a new study -- being
released this week in Hawaii during Plant Biology 2003, the annual meeting of the
American Society of Plant Biologists -- photosynthesis of maize on average increased
by 10 percent under projected carbon dioxide conditions in the year 2050.
Corn – Shell 2/2
C. Corn determines overall food prices
Kalamazoo Gazette 8 [“Flooding pushes up corn, world food prices”, June 17,
http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/news-29/1213714232223310.xml&coll=7]
If consumers and the news media seem largely uninterested in the workings of worldwide
commodities markets, it may be that they fail to understand that corn's impact on their
household budget stretches far beyond the price of a bag of Fritos, Wylie said.
``Everything in agriculture revolves around corn,'' Wylie explained. ``There's
competition for finite crop acres, and corn is the biggest single annual crop (in the
United States).''
Wheat, soybean and vegetable prices will reflect what happens in corn, as will meat,
milk and eggs, he said.
``Feed is the biggest cost of producing meat, milk and eggs, and corn is the largest
part of feed,'' he said.
C. Food price increases kill 800 million
Burns 96 (Business Week, Greg, 6-14)

Impoverished nations are also squeezed out as richer countries race for food. Even as
diets improve in much of the developing world, some 800 million remain malnourished--
and higher food prices could make that worse. The U.S. Agency for International
Development (AID) expects to distribute less than half as much wheat this year, for
instance, because prices have climbed so sharply. ``The potential for real human tragedy
is great,'' warns Leonard Rogers, an AID official.
Corn – Unq – High Now
Corn yields are expected to be higher than average.
Reuters June 30 [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7620295]

USDA said American farmers intend to plant 87.3 million acres of corn this year -- up
1.3 million from their March intentions. U.S. soybean planted acreage was forecast at
74.5 million, compared with USDA's March estimate for 74.8 million.
Most traders estimated that planted corn acreage roughly 2 million lower than USDA's
projections. That led many to question what will be the final acreage numbers.
Additionally, USDA reported the U.S. corn supply on June 1 at 4 billion bushels,
versus the average trade estimate for 3.9 billion.
Corn Production High

McMullen 8 (Alia, nationalpost.com,
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpposted/archive/2008/06/30/something-s-eating-corn-prices.aspx,
June 30, 2008)
A surprise rise in the amount of corn planted in the United States this spring caused
corn prices to fall by 3.8% - the most the Chicago Board of Trade will allow the
commodity to decline in one session. The U.S. Department of Agriculture said Monday
that farmers planted about 87.3-million acres of corn in spring. The increase was
1.9% more than forecast in March and took the market by surprise. Stockpiles of the
commodity have also increased. As a result, December corn futures dropped by 30 cents
to US$7.57 a bushel on the CBOT on Monday after reaching a record high of US$7.9925
on June 27.
Corn - Co2 Increases Production
C02 increases corn production
ScienceDaily 3 (July 29, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030728080920.htm)

Increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit photosynthesis in U.S. corn
crops in the future by relieving drought stress, say researchers at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. According to preliminary findings of a new study -- being
released this week in Hawaii during Plant Biology 2003, the annual meeting of the
American Society of Plant Biologists -- photosynthesis of maize on average increased
by 10 percent under projected carbon dioxide conditions in the year 2050.
CO2 increases corn yield by 2030

Abler, Shortle, and Fisher 4 (David, James, and Ann. professors at Penn State in Agriculture, Environmental Economics, Winter.
Penn State Environmental Law Review.)
Climate change could affect Pennsylvania agriculture in several ways. Higher levels of
atmospheric carbon dioxide may lead to an increase in photosynthesis and thus crop
yields, a phenomenon known as the carbon dioxide "fertilization" or "enrichment" effect.
n22 Carbon dioxide is an indispensable component in the process of photosynthesis.
Higher levels of carbon dioxide could also reduce transpiration (evaporation from plant
foliage), which would reduce water stress facing crops during droughts. Studies by
MARA's research team and others suggest that the carbon dioxide fertilization effect
could be significant for important crops such as corn, soybeans, and alfalfa. n23 Corn
yields in Pennsylvania could rise 5-10% by the year 2030 as a result of the carbon
dioxide fertilization effect. n24
Corn – CO2 Increases Production
CO2 Increases corn yields
Idso, Idso and Idso 4 (Craig, Keith, Sherwood, CO2 Science Magazine, July 28, http://www.co2science.org/articles/V7/N30/B1.php)
Reference
Leakey, A.D.B., Bernacchi, C.J., Dohleman, F.G., Ort, D.R. and Long, S.P. 2004. Will photosynthesis of maize (Zea mays) in the US
Corn Belt increase in future
[CO2] rich atmospheres? An analysis of diurnal courses of CO2 uptake under free-air concentration enrichment (FACE). Global Change
Biology 10: 951-962.
Background
Leakey et al. note that "the C4 grass Zea mays (maize or corn) is the third most important food crop
globally in terms of production, and demand is predicted to increase 45% from 1997 to 2020
(Young and Long, 2000; Rosegrant et al., 2001)." Hence, they further note that "any effects of elevated CO2 on
crop productivity will have significant economic and social consequences," but that "there
are currently no experimental data on the response of Z. mays to growth at elevated CO2 under standard agricultural practice in the
field."
What was done
In an experiment designed to rectify this situation, the five University of Illinois scientists grew corn (Zea mays L. cv. 34B43) in the
field at their SoyFACE facility in the heart of the US Corn Belt while exposing different sections of the field to atmospheric CO2
concentrations of 354 and 549 ppm using cultural practices deemed "typical for this region of Illinois" during a year that turned out to
have experienced summer rainfall that was "very close to the 50-year average for this site, indicating that the year was not atypical or a
drought year."
On five different days during the growing season (11 and 22 July, 9 and 21 August, and 5 September), they also measured diurnal
Contrary to what many
patterns of photosynthesis, stomatal conductance and microclimatic conditions. What was learned
people had long assumed would be the case for a C4 crop such as corn growing under
the best of natural conditions, Leakey et al. found that "growth at elevated CO2
significantly increased leaf photosynthetic CO2 uptake rate by up to 41%."
The highest whole-day increase was 21% (11 July) followed by 11% (22 July), during a period of low rainfall. Thereafter, however,
during a period of greater rainfall, there were no significant differences between the photosynthetic rates of the plants in the two CO2
treatments, so that over the entire growing season, the CO2-induced increase in leaf photosynthetic rate averaged 10%.
Additionally, on all but the first day of measurements, stomatal conductance (gS) was significantly lower (-23% on average) under
elevated CO2 compared with
ambient CO2, which led to reduced transpiration (E) rates in the CO2-enriched plants on those days as well; and since "low soil water
availability and high evaporative
demand can both generate water stress and inhibit leaf net CO2 assimilation in C4 plants," in the words of the authors, they say that the
lower gS and E they observed
under elevated CO2 "may have counteracted the development of water stress under elevated CO2 and prevented the inhibition of leaf net
CO2 assimilation observed
under ambient CO2."
What it means In the words of the researchers,
"contrary to expectations, this US Corn Belt summer
climate appeared to cause sufficient water stress under ambient CO2 to allow the
ameliorating effects of elevated CO2 to significantly enhance leaf net CO2
assimilation." Hence, they conclude that "this response of Z. mays to elevated CO2 indicates the potential
for greater future crop biomass and harvestable yield across the US Corn Belt."
Corn – CO2 Increases Drought Resistance
CO2 increases corn drought resistance
Wittwer 92 (Sylvan H, Prof of horticulture, Rising Carbon Dioxide Is Great for Plants”, Policy
Review, http://www.purgit.com/co2ok.html)
Corn, sugarcane, sorghum, millet, and some tropical grasses use the C4 pathway, so
named because the first products of photosynthesis have four carbon atoms per molecule.
C4 plants also experience a boost in photosynthetic efficiency in response to higher
carbon dioxide levels, but because there is little photo-respiration in C4 plants, the
improvement is smaller than in C3 plants. Instead, the largest benefit C4 plants receive
from higher CO2 levels comes from reduced water loss. Loss of water through leaf
pores declines by about 33 percent in C4 plants with a doubling of the CO2
concentration from its current atmospheric level. Since corn and other C4 plants are
frequently grown under drought conditions of high temperatures and limited soil
moisture, this superior efficiency in water use may improve yields when rainfall is
even lower than normal.
CO2 increases corn water use efficiency.
Science Daily 3 [July 29, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030728080920.htm]

Corn is among the 1 percent of plants that use the carbon-dioxide efficient
photosynthesis system known as C4. Scientists had theorized that C4 plants would not
respond to more carbon dioxide in the air, because the gas is internally concentrated
by the leaf – essentially a fuel-injected photosynthesis, Leakey said. However, Leakey
found that in a carbon dioxide concentration of 550 parts per million, carbon fixation
in the leaves indeed rose in association with greater intercellular carbon dioxide and
enhanced water use efficiency. The 2002 growing season, when the research was
conducted, was considered a typical one in terms of weather. However, at the end of a dry
spell in June, Leakey found, carbon fixation increased under elevated carbon dioxide
as much as 41 percent. Since carbon dioxide serves to close the stomata, which are
tiny pores in the epidermal layer of leaves, the jump in photosynthesis likely resulted
from the plant maintaining higher water content in the leaves during the dry period,
Long said.
Corn - AT: Corn is C4
Even though corn is a C4 plant C02 indirectly makes it more water efficient and improves
yields.
ScienceDaily 3 (July 29, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030728080920.htm)

Corn is among the 1 percent of plants that use the carbon-dioxide efficient
photosynthesis system known as C4. Scientists had theorized that C4 plants would not
respond to more carbon dioxide in the air, because the gas is internally concentrated
by the leaf – essentially a fuel-injected photosynthesis, Leakey said. However, Leakey
found that in a carbon dioxide concentration of 550 parts per million, carbon fixation
in the leaves indeed rose in association with greater intercellular carbon dioxide and
enhanced water use efficiency. The 2002 growing season, when the research was
conducted, was considered a typical one in terms of weather. However, at the end of a dry
spell in June, Leakey found, carbon fixation increased under elevated carbon dioxide
as much as 41 percent. Since carbon dioxide serves to close the stomata, which are
tiny pores in the epidermal layer of leaves, the jump in photosynthesis likely resulted
from the plant maintaining higher water content in the leaves during the dry period,
Long said.
Corn – Mexico Impact
Corn is crucial to the Mexican agricultural sector and is a staple food crop.
Henriques 4 [Gisele, Raj Patel, International Relations Center, “NAFTA, Corn, and Mexico's
Agricultural Trade Liberalization,” February 13, http://americas.irc-
online.org/reports/2004/0402nafta.html]
Corn in Mexico accounts for 60% of cultivated land, employs 3 million farmers (8%
of Mexico's population and 40% of people working in agriculture) and is the
country's main staple food crop. 20 There are a total of 18 million people 21
dependent on corn production, including farmers and their families. 22 Seventy-two
percent of national corn-producing units are organized into ejidos--mostly small-scale
holdings that account for 62% of corn production. Corn production accounts for
more than two-thirds of the gross value of Mexico 's agricultural production, while
horticultural crops account for only 6%. 23
Rice - Shell 1/2
A. Even though prices are rising, global rice supplies just enough to avoid food
shortages now
Western Farm Press 8 (June 25, http://westernfarmpress.com/rice/rice-supply-0625/)

Media attention was driven by news of increasingly tight supplies and rapidly escalating
prices in many rice-producing countries, particularly in Asia, the Middle East and Africa. The
price increases began in the fall of 2007 following several years of strong global demand. Rising
fuel and fertilizer costs and recent full or partial export bans by major export markets prompted a
one-two-punch of high costs and reduced supplies. Despite the media coverage and high
prices, global supplies are adequate.
B. High CO2 levels are key to high rice yields.
Curtis 2(Pete, Ohio State Research news, 10-2-02, http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/co2plant.htm)

To understand the role that rising CO2 levels may play on plant growth, Curtis and
his colleagues conducted a meta-analysis – a technique in which researchers pull together data from a large
number of similar studies (159, in this case) and summarize the results. Curtis said that this is the first time that researchers have used
the meta-analysis technique to determine the effects of climate change on plant reproduction.
The studies were published between 1983 and 2000. The results included data on crop and wild plant species’ reproductive responses to
estimated CO2 levels at the end of this century. Scientists expect CO2 levels to nearly double by 2100.
The researchers analyzed eight different ways plants respond to higher CO2 levels: number of flowers; number of fruits; fruit weight;
number of seeds; total seed weight; individual seed weight; the amount of nitrogen contained in seeds; and a plant’s reproductive
allocation, a measurement of a plant’s capacity to reproduce.
Plants grown at higher CO2 levels had more flowers (an average of 19 percent more in
the species studied); more seeds (16 percent more); greater individual seed weight (four
percent more); greater total seed weight (25 percent more) and lower concentration of
nitrogen in the seeds (a decrease of 14 percent) than those grown at current levels of
atmospheric CO2.
Under higher CO2 levels, crop plants showed a notable increase in reproduction while
wild plants did not. On average, crops produced more fruits than did wild species (28 percent higher in crops vs. 4 percent higher in wild
plants) as well as seeds (21 percent higher vs. 4 percent higher, respectively).
Rice seemed to be the most responsive, as its
Individual crops varied in their response to increased CO2 levels.
seed production increased an average of 42 percent. Soybean followed with a 20 percent increase in seed,
then wheat (15 percent increase) and, finally, corn (5 percent increase).
While crop plants and wild plants had similar increases in total growth (a 31 percent increase), crops allocated the additional weight to
reproduction, while wild plants seem to funnel much of it to tasks other than reproduction, Curtis said.
Rice – Shell 2/2
C. Enough rice stops 3 billion deaths.
ScienceDaily 7 (“Protecting Rice: The Planet’s Most Important Food Source”, ScienceDaily,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070319175803.htm, March 21, 2007)
An unprecedented new agreement --part of an aggressive move to safeguard the world's food production - aims to protect thousands of
the world's unique rice varieties. The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and the Rome-based Global Crop Diversity Trust
announced the historic new agreement at a special dedication ceremony at IRRI's Genetic Resources Center, which houses more than
100,000 samples of rice, the biggest and most important such collection in the world. The funding agreement is expected to help
Today, about three
conserve and manage forever the extraordinary diversity of arguably the world's most important crop.
billion people depend on rice for their survival, with the thousands of varieties carefully stored at IRRI
providing the last line of defense between them and possible famine, especially in times of war, natural disasters, and attacks from pests
and diseases. The agreement offers for the first time in the history of modern agricultural research stable and long-term support to an
unrivaled collection of genetic diversity that is estimated to include at least 80,000 distinct rice varieties. The collection is considered the
Institute's "crown jewels" and is kept in a special earthquake-proof and fireproof facility that must be maintained at temperatures as low
as --19 degrees Celsius. At a special ceremony on the same day, the Institute also dedicated the Genetic Resources Center (GRC) to Dr.
Te-Tzu Chang, the founder of the International Rice Germplasm Center -- one of the predecessors of the GRC. Dr. Chang, who passed
away last year in Taiwan, China, was a world authority on rice genetics and conservation and spent 30 years at IRRI collecting and
storing rice varieties from all over Asia and the world. From now on, the GRC will be known as the T.T. Chang Genetic Resources
Center. "With almost half the world's population depending on rice, we wanted to make sure IRRI's
genebank was insulated from the whims of fluctuating funding," said Cary Fowler, the Trust's executive secretary. "The agreement goes
it's hard to
to the core of the Trust's mission, which is to guarantee the conservation of the world's crop diversity, and
imagine a more important crop for sustaining humanity than rice." This agreement, the first
major conservation grant made by the Trust, is structured to reflect the long-term vision of both organizations. "Short-term thinking
about funding has wreaked havoc with effective conservation," continued Dr. Fowler. "This agreement is probably unique among
funding contracts in having no end date. I am pleased that our first long-term grant protects the crop which feeds the most people, for the
longest term imaginable -- forever." Under the agreement, IRRI has pledged to designate a portion of its financial assets to generate
$400,000 in annual income that will be invested in the genebank, which will unlock $200,000 from the Trust each year. The agreement
allows for inflationary increases and will remain in force "indefinitely." The money will go toward, among other things, acquiring any
rice varieties not currently in the repository and making sure the storage systems for long-term conservation are up to international
standards. "The rice genebank is not just a scientific exercise in seed genetics but a major hedge against disaster that ensures farmers
throughout the world will always have the rice varieties they need to maintain food security," said Dr. Robert S. Zeigler, IRRI's director
general. For example, after the Asian tsunami (December 26, 2004), IRRI was able to reach into its collection and provide farmers in
areas that had been under seawater with varieties of rice capable of growing in salty soils. In addition, several countries, including
Cambodia, East Timor, India, Nepal, and the Philippines, have turned to the IRRI genebank to restore native varieties of rice that, for a
variety of reasons, had disappeared from domestic production. Last year, IRRI introduced a new variety of rice able to withstand being
completely submerged in a flood. And, this variety is playing a central role in an initiative of IRRI's umbrella organization, the
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), to develop crops that will allow farmers to deal with the
potentially devastating effects of climate change. In each case, the genebank played an essential role, helping to provide the genetic
diversity needed to develop such varieties. According to Dr. Zeigler, the grant breaks new ground in the funding of arguably the most
"Rice diversity, like all crop diversity, is at risk for the want of
important resource in the world:
relatively small amounts of money. Given that we are talking about the biological
base upon which the global food supply is built, it is extraordinary that the current
situation is so precarious. The economics speak for themselves." According to Dr. Fowler, an independent study estimated
that adding just an additional 1,000 rice samples to IRRI's genebank would generate an annual stream of benefits to poor farmers of
$325 million.
Rice – Meeting Demand Now
Rice production high for 2008
UN News 8 (May, “Rice production to reach record high in 2008, but prices to continue climbing
– UN,” http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=26630&Cr=food&Cr1=crisis#)
Rice production in Asia, Africa and Latin America will reach record highs in 2008, but prices could also
continue to soar in the short term, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported
today. The agency’s preliminary forecasts show harvests surging by 2.3 per cent and reaching an all-time
high of over 600 million tons, but prices will remain high in the immediate future because a large portion of
this year’s crop will only be harvested at the end of 2008.
Widespread rice growth
FAO Newsroom 8 (May, “Strong signs of record rice production,”

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000835/index.html)
“For the first time, paddy production in Asia may surpass the 600 million tonne benchmark this year,
amounting to 605 million tonnes,” Calpe said. “Major gains are expected all across the region.
Bangladesh, China, the Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam could register the largest gains. Prospects
are also buoyant for Indonesia and Sri Lanka, despite some recent flood-incurred losses,” Calpe said.
Assuming normal rains in the coming months, rice production in Africa is forecast to grow by 3.6 percent
to 23.2 million tonnes in 2008, with large expansions anticipated in Ivory Coast, Egypt, Ghana, Guinea,
Mali and Nigeria. Paddy production in Latin America and the Carribbean is expected to rebound by 7.4
percent to 26.2 million tonnes in 2008. Production prospects, however, are negative for Australia, the
United States and Europe.
Rice – Must Increase Production
Must increase production to meet rising demand
Flakus 8 (April 15, Greg, “US Rice Farmers Boost Production as World Faces Shortage,” VOA News,
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-04/2008-04-15-voa50.cfm?CFID=7059592&CFTOKEN=43340757)
A dramatic surge in the international price for rice has U.S. producers planting more fields in an effort
to increase profits.† But, as VOA's Greg Flakus reports from the rice-growing area of Dayton, Texas, high costs could limit their margins. Tractors are tilling the land
and building earthen rows that will serve as levees once water flows into these fields.† This area of southeast Texas is one of the best rice growing areas of the United States. Other
states that also produce major amounts of rice include Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Ray Stoesser plants rice on more than 1,800 hectares of land in the area near his home in
the market is better than it has
Dayton, Texas and he is hoping the recent jump in prices will help him come out ahead. "Naturally, we watch the market and
been since 1974 right now," he said.† "We can grow rice and make a good yield and we can usually get
a second growth, so we will maximize our profits." The price of rice has more than doubled in the past year, but Stoesser says production costs
have also risen. "Fertilizer went up $80 a ton last week," he added.† "It just seems like when we need it, everything goes up.† All our suppliers say they cannot get potash and they
cannot get phosphorous and, of course, nitrogen is mostly imported into this country right now, so we have to depend on foreign sources for that." Dwight Roberts is president and
Chief Operating officer of the Houston-based U.S. Rice Producers Association.† He says rice is the most expensive crop to grow in the United States because it is fully mechanized,
"The bulk of the U.S. rice crop is yet to be
so he says farmers in some of the best growing areas for rice are cautious in their planting decisions.
planted as we go north into Louisiana and up into Arkansas to the Missouri boot heel," he noted. Roberts says the United States exports about half
the rice it produces, so when prices are low on the world market, farmers tend to shift production to
crops that are more profitable at home, like corn and soybeans.† The price of both of those crops has
risen sharply in recent years because of their use in making bio-fuels. Dwight Roberts says the reason for the international
shortage of rice has to do, in many cases, with government policies in nations where prices for consumers were subsidized without providing incentives for farmers.† He also blames
drought in Australia, where rice production has virtually come to a halt, and an increase in demand driven by population growth. "Economists predict that the world population will
grow by one billion people during the next 10 years and the middle class will grow by 1.8 billion people and 600 million of those are in China, and when people move up in the
economic chain they want to eat better, they want more protein, which requires more grain and more fuels to produce it," he said. Growth in population has also contributed to urban
sprawl.† The loss of arable land to housing, roads and other infrastructure has also reduced the world's rice production. Dwight Roberts says all of these factors have come together to
reduce the amount of rice available. "We have seen in a number of countries including Vietnam, Thailand, the United States, India, Pakistan and, to some degree, in Uruguay and
now it is a simple case of supply and demand and we have gotten to a point
Argentina, we have seen reductions and so
where world stocks of rice are at the lowest today since the early 1970's and we have had a lot of
population growth since then, so there is a very tight supply and Third World consumers in particular
are hurting right now,"† he added. Increased production in the United States will help alleviate the rice
shortage in some parts of the world.† The United States has promised to help the Philippines, which
imports about 15 percent of the rice consumed in the country and is facing severe shortages.†
Rice - ↓CO2 Risks Crop Survival
Decreased Amounts of CO2 Risks the Survival of Rice Plants
CO2 Science 0 (“Subambient CO2 Increases Rubisco Content in Plants”, co2science.org,

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V3/N31/B1.php, November 15, 2000)
Prior to the Industrial Revolution, it is likely that rice had a more difficult time growing
than it does today. At lower atmospheric CO2 concentrations, it is likely that rice
plants had to reallocate valuable resources into rubisco and other photosynthetic
proteins just to ensure that net carbon uptake could prevail for plant survival. Thus, it
is likely that plants were smaller and produced less yield than they do today. Therefore, it
logically follows that the rise in the air's CO2 content, beginning with the Industrial
Revolution and still ongoing, is making carbon uptake and biomass production easier
and more efficient for this important agricultural species.
Rice – CO2 Increases Yields
CO2 Increases rice yield and nutrients- this is key to ½ the world’s population
Idso, Idso and Idso 4 (Sherwood, Craig, Keith, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
http://www.co2science.org/subject/p/summaries/protein.php
In the case of rice - which according to Wittwer (1995) is "the basic food for more than
half the world's population," supplying "more dietary energy than any other single food"
- Jablonski et al. (2002) conducted a wide-ranging review of the scientific literature,
finding that it too appeared to suffer no reduction in grain nitrogen (protein)
concentration in response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Likewise, they found no
CO2-induced decrease in seed nitrogen concentration in the studies of legumes they
reviewed. This finding is also encouraging, since according to Wittwer (1995) legumes
"are a direct food resource providing 20% of the world's protein for human consumption,"
as well as "about two thirds of the world's protein concentrate for livestock feeding." What
is more, the biomass of the CO2-enriched wheat, rice and legumes was found by
Jablonski et al. to be significantly increased above that of the same crops grown in
normal air. Hence, there will likely be a vast increase in the total amount of protein
that can be made available to humanity in a future CO2-enriched world, both directly
via food crops and indirectly via livestock.
Increased CO2 concentrations contributes to growth and production of rice plants
Neue, Ziska, Matthews, and Dai 5 (Heinz-Ulrich, Lewis, Robin, and Qiujie, International Rice
Research Institute, “Reducing Global Warming-The Role of Rice”, SPRINGERLINK,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/vw288845t3273164/, January 10, 2005)
Activities to provide energy for an expanding population are increasingly disrupting and
changing the concentration of atmospheric gases that increase global temperature.
Increased CO2 and temperature have a clear effect on growth and production of rice as
they are key factors in photosynthesis. Rice yields could be increased with increased
levels of CO2, however, the rise of CO2 may be accompanied by an increase in global
temperature. The effect of doubling CO2 levels on rice production was predicted using
rice crop models. They showed different effects of climate change in different countries. A
simulation of the Southeast Asian region indicated that a doubling of CO2 increases
yield, whereas an increase in temperature decreases yield. Enhanced UV-B radiation
resulting for stratographic ozone depletion has been demonstrated to significantly reduce
plant height, leaf area and dry weight of two rice cultivars under glasshouse conditions.
Rice – Impact – 3 Billion
Rice shortages risk 3 Billion lives
The Guardian Online 8 (April 6,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/06/food.foodanddrink)
With rice stocks at their lowest for 30 years, prices of the grain rose more than 10 per cent on Friday to record highs and are expected to
soar further in the coming months. Already China, India, Egypt, Vietnam and Cambodia have imposed tariffs or export bans, as it has
become clear that world production of rice this year
will decline in real terms by 3.5 per cent. The impact
will be felt most keenly by the world's poorest populations, who have become
increasingly dependent on the crop as the prices of other grains have become too
costly.
Rice is the staple food for more than half the world's population. This is the second year running
in which production - which increased in real terms last year - has failed to keep pace with population growth. The harvest has also been
hit by drought, particularly in China and Australia, forcing producers to hoard their crops to satisfy local markets.
The increase in rice prices - which some believe could increase by a further 40 per cent in coming months - has matched sharp inflation
in other key food products. But with
rice relied on by some three billion people, the impact of a
prolonged rice crisis for the world's poor - a large part of whose available income is
spent on food - threatens to be devastating.
AT: Rice Crisis Disproves CO2 Good
Rice supplies are adequate, the current price rise is caused by excessive stockpiling and
reduced exports.
Asia Times 8 (April 22, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JD22Dj01.html)

Never before in history has hunger become a global threat in a period of plentiful harvests.
Global rice production will hit a record of 423 million tons in the 2007-2008 crop year,
enough to satisfy global demand. The trouble is that only 7% of the world's rice
supply is exported, because local demand is met by local production. Any significant
increase in rice stockpiles cuts deeply into available supply for export, leading to a
spike in prices. Because such a small proportion of the global rice supply trades, the
monetary shock from the weak dollar was sufficient to more than double its price
Winter Wheat – Shell 1/2
A. Uniqueness: Winter wheat production is at its highest in ten years.
Perkins June 10 (2008, John, http://www.brownfieldnetwork.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=736C8215-BD6C-4E88-

1DE68524C502B7C1)
The United States Department of Agriculture projects the 2008 U.S. winter wheat
crop at 1.817 billion bushels, making it potentially the largest crop since 1998. That's
compared to the May estimate of 1.778 billion bushels and the 2007 total of 1.516 billion
bushels. Prior to the report, analysts were expecting the figure to be around 1.813 billion
bushels, with a range of estimates running from 1.774 billion to 1.850 billion bushels.
The increase in production is attributable to two factors: larger harvested area and
improved yields. The USDA expects producers to collect winter wheat on 40.162
million acres this year, compared to 2007's 35.952 million. The average yield as of June 1
is seen at 45.3 bushels per acre, up 1 from May and 3.1 above 2007's average.
U.S. hard red winter production is pegged at just over 1.029 billion bushels, compared to
the May guess of 1.011 billion and the year ago total of 961.588 million. Analysts were
expecting production to be between 1 billion and 1.073 billion bushels, for an average of
1.038 billion. Soft red winter wheat production is placed at 571.627 million bushels, up
substantially from last year's total of 357.897 million. The average pre-report estimate was
562 million bushels, with expectations ranging from 550 million to 605 million bushels.
The total white winter wheat crop is seen at 216.214 million bushels, compared to
May's projection of 215 million and last year's figure of 196.504 million; hard white is
placed at 23.212 million bushels and soft white is pegged at 193.002 million. Estimates
ranged from 190 million to 228 million bushels, for an average of 213 million.
B. Link: The plan’s reduction of carbon eliminates an increase in winter wheat.
Watson et al. ’98 (Robert T, Marufu C. Zinyowera, Richard H. Moss, The Regional Impacts of
Climate Change, Chapter 5, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/regional/index.htm)
Accounting for the enhancement of growth resulting from increasing CO2
concentrations, the potential yield of winter crops (assuming that neither precipitation
nor irrigation is limiting) would increase almost everywhere (with central or southern
Europe experiencing the highest winter wheat yield boosts, depending on the climatic
scenario). If water limitations are considered, crop response apparently would depend on
the scenario chosen for the time evolution of CO2 concentrations. In the case of winter
wheat, there is some indication that the rate of increase in yields across Europe could be
0.2-0.36 T/ha/decade under the IS92a emission scenario and 0.13 T/ha/decade with the
IS92d emission scenario, under both the UKTR3140 and the UKTR6675 climate scenarios.
The largest increases would occur in central and eastern Europe (regardless of changes in
management practices that may occur in some countries as a result of changes in economic
structure) and in southern Europe (see Table 5-2). All winter crops probably would
follow the pattern of winter wheat yield changes. The largest increases per country
might occur in northern Europe because of increased possibilities for taking winter
cereals into cultivation.
Winter Wheat – Shell 2/2
C. Wheat is critical to global food prices
Launois 8 (Anne, Food Production Daily, Staff, http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?id=84950-wheat-prices-harvest)

Wheat is a key driver of global food inflation. The prospect of a large increase in
global wheat production this year could help to prevent further food tensions in
several regions of the world, which have been severely hit by sharp rises in the cost of
staple foods such as rice and bread.
D. Increasing food prices kills billions.
Earth Policy Institute 4 (“Outgrowing the earth”, book, http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/Out/index.htm)

“Many Americans see terrorism as the principal threat to security,” said Brown, “but for
much of humanity, the effect of water shortages and rising temperatures on food security
are far more important issues. For the 3 billion people who live on 2 dollars a day or
less and who spend up to 70 percent of their income on food, even a modest rise in
food prices can quickly become life-threatening. For them, it is the next meal that is
the overriding concern.”
Winter Wheat – UQ – Wheat Up
Winter wheat is up
Economist 4-18-8
In the short run, humanitarian aid, social-protection programmes and trade policies will
determine how well the world copes with these problems. But in the medium term the
question is different: where does the world get more food from? If the extra supplies come
mainly from large farmers in America, Europe and other big producers, then the new
equilibrium may end up looking much like the old one, with world food depending on a
small number of suppliers and—possibly—trade distortions and food dumping. So far,
farmers in rich countries have indeed responded. America's winter wheat plantings
are up 4% and the spring-sown area is likely to rise more. The Food and Agriculture
Organisation forecasts that the wheat harvest in the European Union will rise 13%.
More evidence…
US Wheat Associates 6-12 (http://www.uswheat.org/wheatLetter/doc/B87AF01465FB788E8525746600713272?OpenDocument)

The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) increased its production
forecast this week for U.S. winter wheat classes with total 2008/09 winter wheat
estimated up 11 million metric tons (MMT) or 20 percent higher than last year. The
revised NASS forecast pegs soft red winter (SRW) production at 15.6 MMT, up 7.9 MMT
(60 percent) from last year. Hard red winter (HRW) production is forecast up 2.5 MMT (7
percent) while SW production is projected to grow by 660,000 MT (10 percent).
More evidence…
The Dawn Media Group 5-26 (http://www.dawn.com/2008/05/26/ebr12.htm)

Global wheat production for 2008/09 is projected at a record 656 million tons, up
eight perc ent from 2007/08, and five per cent above the previous record in 2004/05.
Higher production is projected for most of the world’s major exporting countries
including Australia, Canada, EU-27, Russia, and Ukraine. Strong world prices and
favorable weather in most of EU-27 and FSU-12 raised production for 2008. Production is
also projected higher in Brazil, China, and India. This will partly offset reductions in
Argentina and Kazahkstan. The only significant weather problems for winter wheat remain
in drought stricken Middle East and North Africa countries.
Wheat prices are down
Launois 8 (Anne, Food Production Daily, Staff, http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?id=84950-wheat-prices-harvest)

As a result, wheat prices reached a record high above $13 per bushel on the Chicago
Board of Trade in late February. According to the first edition of the Rabobank's Soft
Commodities Monthly Report (April 2008), world wheat prices have now fallen by
more than 40 per cent at $8.01 a bushel in early trade on 25 April, their lowest level
since November.
Wheat production will increase solving shortages
Foodnavigator-use.com 8 (April 28, http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=84950-wheat-prices-harvest)

Wheat is a key driver of global food inflation. The prospect of a large increase in
global wheat production this year could help to prevent further food tensions in
several regions of the world, which have been severely hit by sharp rises in the cost of
staple foods such as rice and bread.
Several factors have triggered the current food crisis: unfavourable weather conditions
leading to poor harvests in major producing countries, steady international demand, the
increased use of crops for biofuels, etc.
As a result, wheat prices reached a record high above $13 per bushel on the Chicago
Board of Trade in late February. According to the first edition of the Rabobank's Soft
Commodities Monthly Report (April 2008), world wheat prices have now fallen by more
than 40 per cent at $8.01 a bushel in early trade on 25 April, their lowest level since
November.
World crops appear to be in 'good condition'
Rabobank reports that world wheat crops appear to be in good condition at this stage
of the season, particularly in the EU-27, Black Sea and soft red winter wheat areas of
the US.
The IGC April Grain Market Report confirms that the outlook for the next wheat crop
looks favourable in most major producing countries. The IGC forecasts world wheat
production to reach 645m tons in the 2008/09 season, up from 604m tons in 2007/08.
Wheat crop will increase in ’09 to a world record
Deltafarmpress.com 8 (June 11, http://deltafarmpress.com/wheat/wheat-outlook-0611/)

With prospects for a record 2008-09 world wheat crop looming over the market, wheat
prices are likely to trend lower in the short-term, barring unforeseen production or
harvesting problems, says analyst Jon Marcus, Lakefront Futures, Chicago, Ill.
Marcus says he has heard “nothing but positive news about the size of the world wheat
crop,” which is expected to top out at around 656 million metric tons for 2008-09,
according to USDA’s latest production estimate. That’s an 8 percent increase over last
year and would be a world record if realized.
The largest expected increases in production among wheat-producing countries are:
Canada, up 25 percent; the European Union, up 17 percent; the United States, up 16
percent; China, up 3 percent; the Black Sea region, up 7 percent; and India, up 1 percent.
In addition, Australia’s wheat production is forecast 83 percent higher than last year’s
drought-ravaged crop, although several months remain before harvest.
Australia is also experiencing a rise in winter wheat.
Lewis June 18 (2008, Daniel, Regional Reporter, http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/record-

wheat-planting-forecast/2008/06/17/1213468423179.html)
DESPITE a very dry autumn over much of the eastern grain belt, Australian farmers are
still forecast to sow a record 14 million hectares of wheat as they chase high prices
created by the global food shortage.
Widespread rain this month has also encouraged many farmers to sow. But good follow-up
rain will be essential to ensure a decent yield because many areas still lack subsoil
moisture.
The latest crop report from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource
Economics forecasts a wheat harvest of 23.7 million tonnes, an increase of 82 per cent
on last season's disastrous harvest.
NSW's total winter crop is forecast to reach 10.45 million tonnes, almost 2½ times
more than last season's.
Winter Wheat – CO2 Increases Yields
CO2 increases wheat yields 64%
Avery and Burnett 5 (Dennis NCPA adjunct scholar and Sterling, Senior Fellow at NCPA, May 19,
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba517/)
Continued warming should increase rainfall, rather than reduce it. And even if some areas do experience greater aridity under warmer
conditions, both nature and humans have been through it many times before. Modern transportation helps avoid food shortages. Higher
CO2 Levels. Whether as a natural reaction to warming in the early part of the 20th century, or the result of human activities — including
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by
energy use and tropical forest conversion —
more than 30 percent during the past half-century. CO2 is a critical component of
photosynthesis, the process by which plants use sunlight to create carbohydrates — the material that makes up their root and
body structures. Increasing CO2 levels both speeds the growth of plants and improves the
efficiency of their water use. More CO2 also decreases water loss in plants, which is
beneficial in arid climates or during droughts. Botanists have long realized that CO2 enhances plant growth,
which is why greenhouse owners pump large volumes of CO2 into their sheds — to grow more tomatoes or carnations. This was
confirmed by 55 experiments conducted by research scientist Sherwood Idso, formerly of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. For
example: Increasing CO2 by 300 parts per million (ppm) above the current atmospheric level of more than 370ppm enhanced plant
growth by 31 percent under optimal water conditions, and 63 percent under water scarcity. [See the figure.] With a 600 ppm CO2
increase, plant growth was enhanced 51 percent under optimal water conditions and an astonishing 219 percent under conditions of
water shortage. CO2 enrichment also causes plants to develop more extensive root systems, with important results: 1) Larger root
systems allow plants to reach additional pockets of both water and nutrients in the soil, reducing the metabolic energy required to
capture vital nutrients. 2) More extensive, active roots also stimulate and enhance the activity of bacteria and other organisms in the soil
that are beneficial to plants. When dinosaurs walked the Earth (about 70 to 130 million years ago), there was from five to 10 times more
Since many of
CO2 in the atmosphere than today. The resulting abundant plant life allowed the huge creatures to thrive.
today’s plants evolved when CO2 levels were much higher, some scientists fear
today’s plants are literally starving from CO2 deprivation. Based on nearly 800
scientific observations around the world, a doubling of CO2 from present levels
would improve plant productivity on average by 32 percent across species. Controlled
experiments have shown that: Under elevated CO2 levels, average yields of cereal grains — including rice,
wheat, barley, oats and rye — are 25 percent to 64 percent higher. Tubers and root crops, including
potatoes, yams and cassava, yield 18 to 75 percent more. And yields of legumes, including peas, beans and soybeans, increase 28 to 46
percent. Humans can help nature along. Recently, Egypt genetically engineered a drought-tolerant wheat plant — containing a gene from
the barley plant — that needs to be irrigated only once, rather than eight times per season. The new wheat is expected to dramatically
increase food production in semi-arid climates.
Winter Wheat – Key to Food Prices
US winter wheat is checking food prices
Bloomberg 5-27 (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=as1iADXtX6eY&refer=home)

Price gains prompted U.S. farmers to increase seeding of winter wheat last fall. The
harvesting season starts in May.
``That is typically a period when you have the biggest pressure on wheat,'' Peterson said
yesterday during a trip to Tokyo to visit buyers. ``There is more new wheat coming into the
market.'' The U.S. Wheat Associates is an Arlington-based market development
organization for American growers.
U.S. farmers will harvest 17 percent more winter wheat than last year and the largest
crop in five years after planting more of the grain in October and November to capitalize
on high prices, the Department of Agriculture said in a May 9 report.
``The market is responding to the demand, and responding to the shortage of supply
by increasing production,'' Peterson said.
Only wheat checks food prices

The rising cost of food has increased the awareness that global solutions should be sought
in order for new crop production not only to meet annual consumption, but also to rebuild
stock levels. This could lead to a partial recovery in world wheat stocks in 2008, with
production forecast to exceed consumption by over 12m tons. The prospect of a record
world wheat crop is likely to keep prices that have already fallen sharply from all-
time highs under pressure, putting a temporary brake on a key driver of global food
inflation.
Wheat is critical to world food availability

The prospect of a large increase in global wheat production this year could help to
prevent further food tensions in several regions of the world, which have been severely
hit by sharp rises in the cost of staple foods such as rice and bread. Many factors have
triggered the current food crisis. These include unfavourable weather conditions leading to
poor harvests in major producing countries, steady international demand and increased use
of crops for biofuels. As a result, wheat prices, which had risen to a record high above
$13 per bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade in late February, have now fallen by more
than 40 per cent at $8.01 a bushel by end- April, their lowest level since November.
Winter wheat is critical to all wheat
NYT 89 (1-23, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEED6113DF930A15752C0A96F948260)

Winter wheat, planted in the fall, lies dormant through the winter and matures in the
spring. It accounts for about 75 percent of the country's wheat crop, and the hard red
variety accounts for more than 70 percent of all winter wheat.
Winter Wheat - AT: Turn – Temp Extremes (Drought, etc.)
Winter wheat in the US is adapted to weather changes
Easterling 3 (Penn St, Congressional Testimony, http://www.climateadaptation.net/docs/papers/Easterling%20paper.pdf)

Most crop species have been successfully translocated thousands of miles from their
regions
of origin by resourceful farmers, thus exposing them to a climate change by virtue of
changing geography. Translocation requires that plant material and cultural practices be
adapted to climatic conditions that are often significantly different from those in regions of
origin. The translocation of hard red winter wheat across the prairies of the American Great
Plains is a case in point.
Hard red winter wheat consistently accounted for about half of all wheat produced
annually
in the United States in the 20th century (Briggle and Curtis, 1987). Rosenberg (1982)
tracked the geographic distribution of winter wheat in the Great Plains from 1920 to 1980.
We updated the distribution to the current time (Figure 4). Over the period 1920 to 1999
the
northern boundary of the winter wheat zone migrated northward into a climate that was
about 4.5°C cooler and 20% drier than the climate for the wheat zone in 1920. The
southward expansion of winter wheat has not been as extensive as the northward one.
However, average annual temperatures at the current southern boundary of the winter
wheat
production zone are more than 2°C higher than those of the 1920 southern boundary. Thus,
winter wheat was adapted both to cooler and warmer climates in its century-long
expansion.
What happened to encourage this expansion? Dalrymple (1988) demonstrated a steady
increase in the diversity of winter wheat cultivars being planted by American farmers
throughout the 20th century. Increasing diversity was a trait of success in adapting wheat
cultivars to local environments. Selective breeding for cold-hardy varieties of winter wheat
helped the expansion of wheat to the north. Savdie et al. (1991) found that direct, no-till
seeding of winter wheat into stubble immediately after harvest of the previous crop
(stubbling-in) and snow trapping reduced the risk of winterkill and permitted expansion of
the crop northeastward to include most of western Canada’s agricultural area. Breeding for
disease resistance helped the expansion to the south. Cox et al. (1986) traced the historical
genetic diversity of winter wheat and found that diversity is increasing; they argue that
greater genetic diversity provides raw material for further genetic progress.
Winter Wheat – Impact - Pakistan Instability
A decrease in imports of wheat to Pakistan would result in greater famine and instability.
Gera 4 (Nina, Asian Survey, Vol. 44, No. 3, JSTOR , “Food Security under Structural
Adjustment in Pakistan”)
Consider the case of Pakistan. During the early 1980s, the country was almost self-
sufficient in wheat and was a leading rice exporter. Over time, domestic demand for food
increased steadily because of rapid population growth. The growth in food grain
production fell behind demand because of the consistent decline in world prices of food
grains and a shortfall of investment in agricultural infrastructure and technology to
improve production. As a result, domestic demand for food grains exceeded the
domestic supply, and annual imports rose to 2.5 million tons in the late 1990s. Even
with these imports, food security is a growing concern in Pakistan, given inequitable
access to food and the declining purchasing power of the poor.
Terrorists have made Pakistan their haven. It cannot afford any more instability.
Mazetti and Rohde June 30 (2008,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/washington/30tribal.html)
Intelligence reports for more than a year had been streaming in about Osama bin
Laden’s terrorism network rebuilding in the Pakistani tribal areas, a problem that
had been exacerbated by years of missteps in Washington and the Pakistani capital,
Islamabad, sharp policy disagreements, and turf battles between American counterterrorism agencies.
The new plan, outlined in a highly classified Pentagon order, was intended to eliminate some of those battles. And it was meant to pave a
smoother path into the tribal areas for American commandos, who for years have bristled at what they see as Washington’s risk-averse
attitude toward Special Operations missions inside Pakistan. They also argue that catching Mr. bin Laden will come only by capturing
some of his senior lieutenants alive. But more than six months later, the Special Operations forces are still waiting for the green light.
The plan has been held up in Washington by the very disagreements it was meant to eliminate. A senior Defense Department official said
there was “mounting frustration” in the Pentagon at the continued delay. After the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush committed the nation
to a “war on terrorism” and made the destruction of Mr. bin Laden’s network the top priority of his presidency. But it is increasingly
clear that the
Bush administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully
relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan’s tribal areas, where it has rebuilt
much of its ability to attack from the region and broadcast its messages to militants
across the world. A recent American airstrike killing Pakistani troops has only inflamed tensions along the mountain border
and added to tensions between Washington and Pakistan’s new government. The story of how Al Qaeda, whose name is Arabic for “the
base,” has gained a new haven is in part a story of American accommodation to President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, whose advisers
played down the terrorist threat. It is also a story of how the White House shifted its sights, beginning in 2002, from counterterrorism
Just as it had on the day before 9/11, Al
efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan to preparations for the war in Iraq.
Qaeda now has a band of terrorist camps from which to plan and train for attacks
against Western targets, including the United States. Officials say the new camps are smaller than the ones the group used prior to 2001.
However, despite dozens of American missile strikes in Pakistan since 2002, one retired C.I.A. officer estimated that the makeshift training compounds now
have as many as 2,000 local and foreign militants, up from several hundred three years ago.Publicly, senior American and Pakistani officials have said that
the creation of a Qaeda haven in the tribal areas was in many ways inevitable — that the lawless badlands where ethnic Pashtun tribes have resisted
government control for centuries were a natural place for a dispirited terrorism network to find refuge. The American and Pakistani officials also blame a
disastrous cease-fire brokered between the Pakistani government and militants in 2006. But more than four dozen interviews in Washington and Pakistan tell
another story. American intelligence officials say that the Qaeda hunt in Pakistan, code-named Operation Cannonball by the C.I.A. in 2006, was often
undermined by bitter disagreements within the Bush administration and within the C.I.A., including about whether American commandos should launch
ground raids inside the tribal areas. Inside the C.I.A., the fights included clashes between the agency’s outposts in Kabul, Afghanistan, and Islamabad. There
were also battles between field officers and the Counterterrorist Center at C.I.A. headquarters, whose preference for carrying out raids remotely, via Predator
missile strikes, was derided by officers in the Islamabad station as the work of “boys with toys.”An early arrangement that allowed American commandos to
join Pakistani units on raids inside the tribal areas was halted in 2003 after protests in Pakistan. Another combat mission that came within hours of being
launched in 2005 was scuttled because some C.I.A. officials in Pakistan questioned the accuracy of the intelligence, and because aides to Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld believed that the mission force had become too large. Current and former military and intelligence officials said that the war in Iraq
consistently diverted resources and high-level attention from the tribal areas. When American military and intelligence officials requested additional
Predator drones to survey the tribal areas, they were told no drones were available because they had been sent to Iraq. Some former officials say Mr. Bush
Western
should have done more to confront Mr. Musharraf, by aggressively demanding that he acknowledge the scale of the militant threat.
military officials say Mr. Musharraf was instead often distracted by his own political
problems, and effectively allowed militants to regroup by brokering peace agreements
with them.
Winter Wheat – Impact - Pakistan Instability
A collapse of Pakistan would result in the rise of terrorism in the Middle East.
Kagan and O’Hanlon 2007 (November 18, Fred and Michael, New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18kagan.html?ref=opinion)
AS the government of Pakistan totters, we must face a fact: the United States simply
could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss. Nor would
it be strategically prudent to withdraw our forces from an improving situation in Iraq to
cope with a deteriorating one in Pakistan. We need to think — now — about our feasible
military options in Pakistan, should it really come to that.
We do not intend to be fear mongers. Pakistan’s officer corps and ruling elites remain
largely moderate and more interested in building a strong, modern state than in exporting
terrorism or nuclear weapons to the highest bidder. But then again, Americans felt similarly
about the shah’s regime in Iran until it was too late.
Moreover, Pakistan’s intelligence services contain enough sympathizers and
supporters of the Afghan Taliban, and enough nationalists bent on seizing the
disputed province of Kashmir from India, that there are grounds for real worries.
The most likely possible dangers are these: a complete collapse of Pakistani
government rule that allows an extreme Islamist movement to fill the vacuum; a total
loss of federal control over outlying provinces, which splinter along ethnic and tribal
lines; or a struggle within the Pakistani military in which the minority sympathetic to
the Taliban and Al Qaeda try to establish Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism.
CO2 Bad – Agriculture
Global warming will drastically hurt US agriculture
McBroom 07 UC Berkeley Campus News
online: http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2001/08/07_warm.html
The impact of global warming on U.S. agriculture appears to be much larger and
more negative than has been recognized, according to a new analysis by agricultural
experts at the University of California, Berkeley. Moreover, the impact is unambiguously
negative. There is little chance that a significant rise in global temperature could benefit U.S. agriculture, reported the UC Berkeley scientists at the
annual meeting in Chicago of the American Agricultural Economic Association.
They estimate that a five degree temperature rise -projected to occur in the next 30-50
years at current rates of carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere - could result in
$15 billion to $30 billion in annual damage to American crops. "People have postulated a wide range of
possible impacts on agriculture from global warming. Some even believe there might be benefits. But our results show we can
expect damage, not benefits," said Anthony Fisher, chair of UC Berkeley's Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics.
Fisher said mistakes have been made because people did not factor in the cost of
providing a water supply in areas of the country that depend on natural rainfall for
growing crops. Some two thirds of American counties, mainly in the eastern and midwestern parts of the country, do not have
irrigation systems for agriculture. Past projections also have been based on the value of agricultural land that is close to urban areas. That value goes up as
people optimize choices during rising temperatures, said Fisher.
By analyzing agricultural values in non-irrigated, rural areas of the country, the UC Berkeley team reached quite different, more certain conclusions, about
.
the damage from global warming, he said
"Non-irrigated U.S. agriculture is unambiguously damaged under the CO2 doubling
scenario, and the damages are quite large relative to other estimates," the team
concluded in a summary to the paper.
Global warming severely hurts crops

Garber 08 (US News and World Report)
The global food supply, as recent events have shown all too clearly, is threatened by
many problems. Some of them are man-made; some are natural. The natural ones tend to be obvious—droughts, floods, hurricanes,
earthquakes—and, in the past year alone, they have been notably devastating. Searing droughts in Australia and central
Europe have squandered wheat supplies; more recently, Cyclone Nargis destroyed
rice stocks for millions of people in Myanmar. Historically, the damage to food
supplies by bad weather has been regarded as fleeting: catastrophic in the short term but ultimately remitting.
Droughts ease, floodwaters recede, and farmers replant their crops. But as a new government report indicates, such views are
increasingly narrow and outdated, in that they fail to acknowledge the creeping reach
of global climate change.
Warming reduces yields
Cline 08, (Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and the Center for
Global Development) Finance and Development: “Global Warming and Agriculture”
online: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2008/03/cline.htm
In the long list of potential problems from global warming, the risks to world
agriculture stand out as among the most important. Yet there has been a tendency in the
climate economics literature in recent years to downplay this risk, and even to argue that a
couple of degrees Celsius warming might benefit world agriculture. But such studies
typically have too short a time horizon (generally out to about 2050). They also focus on
overall temperature change (which includes oceans), rather than on the changes that will
occur over land (which warms more easily and quickly than water)—and specifically
agricultural land.
It has been widely recognized that developing countries in general stand to lose more from
the effects of global warming on agriculture than do industrial countries. Most developing
countries have less capacity to adapt than do their wealthier neighbors. Most are in
warmer parts of the globe, where temperatures are already close to or beyond
thresholds at which further warming will reduce rather than increase agricultural
output. And agriculture is a larger share of developing economies than of industrial
economies. But it has been difficult to estimate just how much individual countries are
likely to be affected.
Warming decreases global agriculture production, especially in developing countries
Eccleston 07, “Global Warming ‘Will Damage, Not Benefit’ Agriculture”, online:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/09/13/eawrm113.xml
Global warming will hit agricultural production across the world unless greenhouse
gases are cut, a new study warns. Developing countries which already have high
temperatures will be most affected with agricultural productivity cut by an average 10-
25 per cent. India could see a drop of up to 40 per cent by 2080 if world CO2 emissions
continue unchecked. Sudan, already wracked by civil war, could suffer a 56 per cent
fall and Senegal 52 per cent. The richer northern countries which typically have lower temperatures will experience a milder effect
ranging from an eight per cent increase to a six per cent decline. The UK at worst could see a drop of four per cent but production may even rise by 11 per
cent. The world's two biggest producers of greenhouse gases, China and the USA, offenders, will also be affected, according to the report. China, further
from the equator than most developing countries, could escape major damage on average, although its south central region would be in jeopardy. The picture
is similar in the United States, with projected reductions of 25 to 35 per cent in the southeast and the southwestern plains but significant increases in the
Overall the prediction is for agricultural productivity for the whole world to
northern states.
decline by between three and 16 per cent by the 2080s as a consequence of global
warming. The damages would continue to deepen in the following century in the face
of still greater warming. The projections are made in a new book by William Cline, a senior fellow at the Center for Global
Development (CGD) and the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He is a pioneer in the study of the economic impact of global warming, and
published an early study of the issue in 1992. His book, Global Warming and Agriculture: Impact Estimates by Country, builds on climate models used by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He combined six climate models with other modelling techniques and statistical tools relating
agricultural productivity to climate to produce what is claimed to be the most comprehensive estimates available. "Some analysts have suggested that a
small amount of global warming could actually increase global agricultural productivity. My work shows that while productivity may increase in a minority
he global impact of climate change on agriculture will be negative by
of mostly northern countries, t
the second half of this century," Cline said. "There might be some initial overall benefit
to warming for a decade or two but-because future warming depends on greenhouse gas
emissions today-if we delay action it would put global agriculture on an inexorable
trajectory to serious damage," he added. In the book he presents a range of estimates to reflect uncertainty about plant-growth
benefits from an atmosphere richer in carbon dioxide. Because plants absorb carbon dioxide (C02) from the air in the growth process, scientists have
suggested that as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rise, plant growth will increase. This carbon fertilisation effect has been demonstrated in
laboratories, but recent open-air field experiments have indicated smaller gains. The alternative set of estimates of less serious impacts in developing
countries and slightly positive impacts in some rich countries assumes that there will be a substantial carbon fertilisation effect. Cline says that although a
carbon fertilisation effect of the magnitude he uses (+15 per cent by the 2080s) is plausible, it remains uncertain. "I think it would be extremely risky to
assume that carbon fertilisation is the solution to this problem," Cline said. He dismisses the idea that advances in technology will boost agricultural yields
by the end of the century making up for losses caused by global warming. Cline claims that annual global yield gains have fallen from 2.8 per cent per year
Higher population, the rush to convert land for
in the 1960s and 1970s to 1.6 per cent in the past 25 years.
biofuel crops and a shortage of water for crop irrigation will also add to the problem,
he claims. Nancy Birdsall, president of the Center for Global Development, said: "Bill's
projections are sobering and alone they understate the potential problem.
"Governments and millions of poor people in developing countries have limited
ability to cope with such changes. At least a billion people live in the poorest countries
that are likely to be worst hit by this slow-moving crisis. This will be a serious
problem for us all." She added: "Policymakers in rich countries and developing countries
are only now beginning to understand that the impact of climate change will be profoundly
unequal. "These alarming new projections are yet another indication that people who
are concerned about global poverty also need to be deeply concerned about global
warming."
CO2 Bad - Agriculture – Storms
Storms will wreck global agriculture
Australian Associated Press 6 (4-27, http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=97558)

Some scientists are worried category five cyclones could become an even more common
phenomenon in Australia, strengthened by seas warmed by climate change.
They believe agriculture will need to move to areas that are not prone to storms, rising sea
levels will make island communities unlivable, and insurance companies will be unable to
cope with the demand for cyclone damage claims.
It's a frighteningly bleak vision of the future, particularly given that some scientists say we
have already crossed the threshold into a climactically altered world.
Some scientists argue the general increase in storm intensity proves that gradually
warming seas are fuelling bigger cyclones and hurricanes, like Katrina which last year
devastated the United States city of New Orleans.
"As individual cyclones (Larry and Monica), we cannot say they were caused by global
warming but if we look at a pattern in recent years we are definitely getting more category
four and five cyclones which point to climate change," said Dr Roger Stone of
Queensland's Department of Primary Industries.
"It's a serious problem and while there may not have been an increase in the number of
cyclones, their extremity is intensifying.
"And it's also a global problem. This will have an impact on many things, such as
agriculture, across the world."
CO2 Bad – Agriculture – Pests/Disease
Warming leads to pests and diseases which wreck agriculture
Harvard Medical School 3 (http://www.resultsforamerica.org/media/press_030929.php)

Eric Chivian, director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard
Medical School said: "Since the 1970s, U.S. agricultural productivity has grown, but it
has also experienced greater variability that has been, in part, climate-related.
Extreme weather events (very high temperatures, torrential rains and flooding, and
droughts) and crop diseases and pests have taken a heavy toll. Greenhouse warming is
expected to lead in future years to even more intense and frequent extreme weather
events, and to greater losses from diseases and from pests that may multiply more
rapidly and expand their ranges."
More evidence on pests

Among the big concerns for farmers when it comes to climate change: more pests and
diseases. X.B. Yang, associate professor of plant pathology at Iowa State University said:
"Climate change will greatly impact plant diseases and pests because climate dictates
their occurrence. Literature in plant pathology has shown that pandemics of pests are
associated with extreme weather events. Recently, increased large scale epidemics of
new and old diseases have been recorded in our nation's major crops. Pandemics of
wheat stripe rust occurred in The Great Plains during the 2001 and 2003 growing seasons.
In 2002, U.S. soybean farmers experienced epidemics of soybean sudden death syndrome,
and various viral diseases, costing them nearly 2 billion dollars. This summer, mass
outbreaks of Asian aphids occurred in Iowa, Illinois, and Minnesota, the three largest
soybean production states, after cool July weather suddenly turned into a record dry
August. Farmers in the North Central Region, which includes our nation's Corn Belt
and Soybean Belt, are experiencing increasing outbreaks of crop diseases and pests."
CO2 Bad – Agriculture – Pests/Disease
More evidence on disease

Yang added: "Before the mid-80s, no more than four major diseases affected soybean
production. Now the number has more than doubled, with annual losses totaling almost
two billion dollars. Range expansions northward of southern diseases or in the
distribution of warm-temperature diseases have been attributed to these new disease
problems. Recent warmer winters in northern production regions have increased
winter pest survival and outbreaks of insect-borne viral diseases associated with
them."
And…
USDA 0 (http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/programs.htm?docid=312&np_code=204&page=4)
Almost no data are available concerning whether carbon dioxide could directly affect
diseases or spread of fungi, bacteria, or viruses. Studies have shown that fungal infection
increases with increased water content of plant tissues. Consequently, carbon dioxide-
induced increases in water-use-efficiency could increase the occurrence of fungal
infections. Overall, carbon dioxide enrichment could modify susceptibility to
pathogen attack because of carbon dioxide-induced changes in the biochemistry or
structure of the host plant.
The growth and rate of increase of crop pathogens will depend on temperature,
precipitation, humidity, radiation, wind direction and the occurrence of extreme events.
Higher temperatures and precipitation are conducive to the spread of plant diseases
since hot, humid conditions are ideal for spore germination and the proliferation of
bacteria and fungi.
CO2 Bad – Agriculture – Irrigation
Warming reduces irrigation critical to ag

The demand for water for irrigation is projected to rise in a warmer climate, bringing
increased competition between agriculture--already the largest consumer of water
resources in semiarid regions--and urban as well as industrial users. Falling water
tables and the resulting increase in the energy needed to pump water will make the
practice of irrigation more expensive, particularly when with drier conditions more
water will be required per acre. Some land--such as the region of the U.S. supplied by
the Ogallala aquifer (including parts of Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, and New
Mexico)--may be taken out of irrigation, following a trend that has already begun, with
loss of considerable prior investment. Peak irrigation demands are also predicted to rise
due to more severe heat waves. Additional investment for dams, reservoirs, canals, wells,
pumps, and piping may be needed to develop irrigation networks in new locations. Finally,
intensified evaporation will increase the hazard of salt accumulation in the soil.
CO2 Bad – Agriculture – Fertilizer/Pesticides
Adaptations require fertilization which produces pollution, killing ag

Higher air temperatures will also be felt in the soil, where warmer conditions are likely to
speed the natural decomposition of organic matter and to increase the rates of other soil
processes that affect fertility. Additional application of fertilizer may be needed to
counteract these processes and to take advantage of the potential for enhanced crop growth
that can result from increased atmospheric CO2. This can come at the cost of
environmental risk, for additional use of chemicals may impact water and air quality. The
continual cycling of plant nutrients--carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and sulfur--
in the soil-plant-atmosphere system is also likely to accelerate in warmer conditions,
enhancing CO2 and N2O greenhouse gas emissions.
And, pesticides do the same

Conditions are more favorable for the proliferation of insect pests in warmer climates.
Longer growing seasons will enable insects such as grasshoppers to complete a greater
number of reproductive cycles during the spring, summer, and autumn. Warmer winter
temperatures may also allow larvae to winter-over in areas where they are now limited by
cold, thus causing greater infestation during the following crop season. Altered wind
patterns may change the spread of both wind-borne pests and of the bacteria and fungi that
are the agents of crop disease. Crop-pest interactions may shift as the timing of
development stages in both hosts and pests is altered. Livestock diseases may be similarly
affected. The possible increases in pest infestations may bring about greater use of
chemical pesticides to control them, a situation that will require the further development
and application of integrated pest management techniques.
CO2 Bad - ↑ Drought
Global warming causes severe drought
Revkin 08 (The New York Times – Environment)
The rise in concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from human activities
is influencing climate patterns and vegetation across the United States and will
significantly disrupt water supplies, agriculture, forestry and ecosystems for decades,
a new federal report says. The changes are unfolding in ways that are likely to produce an uneven
national map of harms and benefits, according to the report, released Tuesday and posted online at climatescience.gov.
The authors of the report and some independent
experts said the main value of its projections was the
level of detail and the high confidence in some conclusions. That confidence comes in part
from the report’s emphasis on the next 25 to 50 years, when shifts in emissions are unlikely
to make much of a difference in climate trends.
The report also reflects a recent, significant shift by the Bush administration on climate science. During Mr. Bush’s first term, administration officials
worked to play down a national assessment of climate effects conducted mainly during the Clinton administration, but released in 2000.
The new report, which includes some findings that are more sobering and definitive than those in the 2000 climate report, holds the signatures of three
cabinet secretaries.
, Western states will face substantial challenges because of growing
According to the report
demand for water and big projected drops in supplies.
Warming cuts global food production through droughts.
Parry 6/4 (Dr. Martin, co-chair of IPCC working group II, “CLIMATE CHANGE AND
WORLD FOOD SECURITY”, 08, http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/speeches.htm)
Firstly, some of the recent shortfalls in food output have been due to weather,
especially drought in southern Europe and Australia. This is not the main cause of
food shortage at present, but it is a contributory factor. For example, maize output in
Europe this year was a quarter down on normal. Secondly, some of this drought,
especially in Australia may (though this is not clearly demonstrated) represent an early
signal of global warming; that is, it may be attributable to increases in greenhouses in the
atmosphere. If this is true, then these kinds of effects may be expected to occur with
increased severity in the future. Third, policies to encourage biofuels production have
unexpectedly reduced food output due to land switches from food to industrial crops. Thus
climate change, both through its impacts and our policy has, in combination with more
important factors such as increasing demand and stagnating production, had a global
impact of availability of food. Fourth, what about future climate change? The IPCC in
its Fourth Assessment last year has projected important increases in drought risk in
some parts of the world, a trend expected to become apparent in the coming two
decades. These include: increasing drought intensity in southern Europe, western
Australia, southern Africa, Africa north of the Sahara and the Middle East, and
central western USA. The first two of these (western Australia and southern Europe)
are important food exporting areas. Climate change is, overall, likely to reduce food
production potential, especially in some already food-short areas.
CO2 Bad - ↓ Food Production
Warming decreases global food production, causing widespread starvation.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis

Report”, 12/12-17, p. 26)
At lower latitudes, especially in seasonally dry and tropical regions, crop productivity
is projected to decrease for even small local temperature increases (1 to 2°C), which
would increase the risk of hunger (medium confidence). {WGII 5.4, SPM} _ Globally,
the potential for food production is projected to increase with increases in local
average temperature over a range of 1 to 3°C, but above this it is projected to
decrease (medium confidence). {WGII 5.4, 5.5, SPM}
Warming devastates Latin American food security.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis

Report”, 12/12-17, p. 28)
By mid-century, increases in temperature and associated decreases in soil water are
projected to lead to gradual replacement of tropical forest by savanna in eastern
Amazonia. Semiarid vegetation will tend to be replaced by arid-land vegetation. {WGII
13.4, SPM} _ There is a risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in
many areas of tropical Latin America. {WGII 13.4, SPM} _ Productivity of some
important crops is projected to decrease and livestock productivity to decline, with
adverse consequences for food security. In temperate zones, soybean yields are projected
to increase. Overall, the number of people at risk of hunger is projected to increase
(medium confidence). {WGII 13.4, Box TS.6} _ Changes in precipitation patterns and
the disappearance of glaciers are projected to significantly affect water availability
for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation. {WGII 13.4, SPM}
Warming cuts crop yields by up to 50%, spreading food insecurity and malnutrition.
Pauchari 07 (R.K., IPCC chairman, “Acceptance Speech for the Nobel Peace Prize Awarded to
the [IPCC]”, 12/10, p. 6, http://www.ipcc.ch/)
Climate change could further adversely affect food security and exacerbate
malnutrition at low latitudes, especially in seasonally dry and tropical regions, where
crop productivity is projected to decrease for even small local temperature increases
(1–2 °C). By 2020, in some African countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be
reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including access to food, in many
African countries is projected to be severely compromised.
Warming cuts food production with heat waves and floods.
Brown 08 (Lester R., Earth Policy Institute, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, p. 48-
49)
Today not only do we know that the earth is getting warmer, but we can begin to see some
of the effects of higher temperatures. Mountain glaciers are melting almost
everywhere. Himalayan glaciers that feed the rivers that irrigate the rice fields of
China and the wheat fields of India are fastdisappearing.1The attention of climate
scientists is turning to the melting ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica. If we
cannot cut carbon emissions quickly enough to save these, then sea level will rise 12
meters (39 feet). Many of the world’s coastal cities will be under water; over 600 million
coastal dwellers will be forced to move.2 The destructive effects of higher temperatures are
visible on many fronts. Crop-withering heat waves have lowered grain harvests in key
food-producing regions in recent years. In 2002,record-high temperatures and
drought reduced grain harvests in India, the United States, and Canada, dropping the
world harvest90 million tons, or 5 percent below consumption. The record-setting 2003
European heat wave contributed to a world harvest that again fell short of
consumption by 90 million tons. Intense heat and drought in the U.S. Corn Belt in
2005 contributed to a world grain shortfall of 34 million tons.3
Warming devastates crop yields, especially in areas with burgeoning populations; this
evidence accounts for your turns.
Brown 08 (Lester R., Earth Policy Institute, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, p. 52-53)
Agriculture as it exists today has been shaped by a climate system that has changed
little over farming’s 11,000-year history. Crops were developed to maximize yields in
this long-standing climatic regime. As the temperature rises, agriculture will be
increasingly out of sync with its natural environment. Nowhere is this more evident than in the
relationship between temperature and crop yields. Since crops in many countries are grown at or near
their thermal optimum, even a relatively minor increase during the growing season of
1 or 2 degrees Celsius can shrink the grain harvest in major food-producing regions,
such as the North China Plain, the Gangetic Plain of India, and the U.S. Corn Belt.16 Higher temperatures can
reduce or even halt photosynthesis, prevent pollination, and lead to crop dehydration.
Although the elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2 that raise temperature can
also raise crop yields, the detrimental effect of higher temperatures on yields
overrides the CO2 fertilization effect for the major crops. In a study of local ecosystem sustainability,
Mohan Wali and his colleagues at Ohio State University noted that as temperature rises, photosynthetic activity in
plants increases until the temperature reaches 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit). The
rate of photosynthesis then plateaus until the temperature hits 35 degrees Celsius (95 degrees
Fahrenheit), whereupon it begins to decline, until at 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees
Fahrenheit), photosynthesis ceases entirely.17 The most vulnerable part of a plant’s life cycle is the pollination
period. Of the world’s three food staples—rice, wheat, and corn—corn is particularly vulnerable. In order for
corn to reproduce, pollen must fall from the tassel to the strands of silk that emerge from the
end of each ear of corn. Each of these silk strands is attached to a kernel site on the cob. If the kernel is to develop, a grain of pollen
must fall on the silk strand and then journey to the kernel site.When temperatures are uncommonly high,
the silk strands quickly dry out and turn brown, unable to play their role in the
fertilization process. The effects of temperature on rice pollination have been studied in detail in the Philippines. Scientists there report that the
pollination of rice falls from 100 percent at 34 degrees Celsius to near zero at 40 degrees Celsius, leading to crop failure.18 High temperatures can also
a wilted
dehydrate plants. While it may take a team of scientists to understand how temperature affects rice pollination, anyone can tell that
cornfield is suffering from heat stress. When a corn plant curls its leaves to reduce
exposure to the sun, photosynthesis is reduced. And when the stomata on the underside of the leaves close to
reduce moisture loss, CO2 intake is reduced, thereby restricting photosynthesis. At elevated temperatures, the corn plant,
which under ideal conditions is so extraordinarily productive, goes into thermal
shock. Within the last few years, crop ecologists in several countries have been focusing
on the precise relationship between temperature and crop yields. One of the most comprehensive of
these studies was conducted at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines. A team of eminent crop scientists using crop yield data
a 1-degree Celsius rise
from experimental field plots of irrigated rice confirmed the rule of thumb emerging among crop ecologists— that
in temperature above the norm lowers wheat, rice, and corn yields by 10 percent. The
IRRI finding was consistent with those of other recent research projects. The scientists concluded that “temperature
increases due to global warming will make it increasingly difficult to feed Earth’s
growing population.”19 Two scientists in India, K. S. Kavi Kumar and Jyoti Parikh, assessed the effect of higher temperatures on wheat and
rice yields. Basing their model on data from 10 sites, they concluded that in north India a 1-degree Celsius rise in
mean temperature did not meaningfully reduce wheat yields, but a 2-degree risen
lowered yields at almost all the sites. When they looked at temperature change alone, a 2-degree Celsius
rise led to a decline in irrigated wheat yields ranging from 37 percent to 58 percent.
When they combined the negative effects of higher temperature with the positive effects of CO2 fertilization, the decline in yields
among the various sites ranged from 8 percent to 38 percent. For
a country projected to add 500 million
people by midcentury,this is a troubling prospect.20
CO2 Bad – Famine
Global warming results in famine in developing nations
Mittlestaedt 07, Climate Change: “How Global Warming Goes Against the Grain” online:
ttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070223.wclimatestarve0224/BNStory/ClimateChange/home
"The impacts on agriculture in developing countries, and particularly on countries
that depend on rain-fed agriculture, are likely to be devastating," says Dr. Louis
Verchot, principal ecologist at the World Agroforestry Centre in Nairobi, Kenya.
Wheat, the source of one-fifth of the world's food, isn't the only crop that could be
clobbered by climate change. Cereals and corn production in Africa are at risk, as is
the rice crop in much of India and Southeast Asia, according to Dr. Verchot.
In a cruel twist of fate, most of the hunger resulting from global warming is likely to
be felt by those who haven't caused the problem: the people in developing countries. At
the same time, it may be a boon to agriculture in richer northern countries more responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate instability.
"With climate change, the agricultural areas in Canada, Russia and Europe will expand, while the areas suited for agriculture in the tropics will decline," Dr.
Verchot says. "Basically, the situation is that those who are well off now will be better off in the future, and those who are in problems will have greater
problems."
Agriculture is vulnerable to global warming because the world's most widely eaten
grains — corn, wheat, and rice — are exquisitely sensitive to higher temperatures. In the
tropics and subtropics, many crops are already being grown just under the maximum temperatures they can tolerate.
Over the 10,000 years that humans have farmed, temperatures have been remarkably stable, at current levels or slightly cooler, and plants are finely attuned
to this climate regimen.
Although it doesn't work exactly the same for each crop, a rough rule of thumb developed by crop scientists is that, for every 1-degree Celsius increase in
temperatures above the mid-30s during key stages in the growing season, such as pollination, yields fall about 10 per cent.
Global warming causes global famine
Mittlestaedt 07, Climate Change: “How Global Warming Goes Against the Grain” online:
ttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070223.wclimatestarve0224/BNStory/ClimateChange/home
Agricultural researchers with the CGIAR thought the decline in wheat-growing capacity of the plain, which includes the Punjab, was so worrisome they
hurriedly made the finding public, although the full study in which it is described, called "Can Wheat Beat the Heat?" is not going to be released until later
this year.
That such a fabled agricultural region — source of one-sixth of the global wheat crop — could be severely affected by rising temperatures holds symbolic
.
importance, because the Indo-Gangetic Plain represents one of the world's most significant victories against food shortages
The area "really is the epicentre of the green revolution in the 1970s, where wheat
and rice scientists saw the first big gains that were coming out of modern plant-
breeding techniques," says Nathan Russell, a spokesman at the CGIAR, which is based in
Washington.
The worry is that climate change might "erase all of these gains," he says.
Perhaps the best-known worrier about climate change and its impact on agriculture is Lester Brown, founder of the Earth Policy Institute, a U.S.
environmental think tank, and proponent of the view that global warming and agriculture are on a collision course.
"It certainly looms large," Mr. Brown says of the threat posed to farming by a warmer world.
the global food larder is already so bare that the impact of global warming
Mr. Brown says
could be felt at any time — even as early as this summer — if it causes rising
temperatures or changing precipitation patterns that lead to a crop failure in any
major agricultural region.
The food surpluses of yesteryear have been nibbled down to the point where
practically nothing is left in the bin for coping with even one disappointing harvest, he
says.
"The unfortunate reality is that the cushion for dealing with climate change now is less than it's been for 34 years, because in six out of the last seven years
world grain production has fallen short of consumption."
Furthermore, one of the solutions to global warming — using crops to produce clean-
burning bio-fuels such as ethanol — would accentuate any harvest shortfalls because
so much corn, sugar, and soybeans is now being diverted from the dinner plate to the
gas tank.
CO2 Bad – Famine
Global warming causes starvation of 20 million people
Bradsher 08, (Hong Kong New York Times Chief Editor, “A Drought in Australia, a Global
Shortage of Rice”)
Lindsay Renwick, the mayor of this dusty southern Australian town, remembers the constant whir of the rice mill. “It was our little heartbeat out there,
the largest rice mill
tickety-tick-tickety,” he said, imitating the giant fans that dried the rice, “and now it has stopped.” The Deniliquin mill,
in the Southern Hemisphere, once processed enough grain to meet the needs of 20
million people around the world. But six long years of drought have taken a toll,
reducing Australia’s rice crop by 98 percent and leading to the mothballing of the mill
last December. Ten thousand miles separate the mill’s hushed rows of oversized silos and sheds — beige, gray and now empty — from the
riotous streets of Port-au-Prince, Haiti, but a widening global crisis unites them. The collapse of Australia’s rice
production is one of several factors contributing to a doubling of rice prices in the last
three months — increases that have led the world’s largest exporters to restrict
exports severely, spurred panicked hoarding in Hong Kong and the Philippines, and set off violent protests in
countries including Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia, Haiti, Indonesia, Italy, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, the Philippines, Thailand, Uzbekistan
and Yemen. Drought affects every agricultural industry based here, not just rice — from sheepherding, the other mainstay in this dusty
land, to the cultivation of wine grapes, the fastest-growing crop here, with that expansion often coming at the expense of rice. The
drought’s effect on rice has produced the greatest impact on the rest of the world, so far. It is one factor contributing to skyrocketing
prices, and many
scientists believe it is among the earliest signs that a warming planet is
starting to affect food production. It is difficult to definitely link short-term changes in
weather to long-term climate change, but the unusually severe drought is consistent with
what climatologists predict will be a problem of increasing frequency. Indeed, the chief executive
of the National Farmers’ Federation in Australia, Ben Fargher, says, “Climate change is potentially the biggest risk to Australian agriculture.” Drought has
already spurred significant changes in Australia’s agricultural heartland. Some farmers are abandoning rice, which requires large amounts of water, to plant
less water-intensive crops like wheat or, especially here in southeastern Australia, wine grapes. Other rice farmers have sold fields or water rights, usually to
grape growers. Scientists and economists worry that the reallocation of scarce water resources — away from rice and other grains and
toward more lucrative crops and livestock — threatens poor countries that import rice as a dietary staple. The global agricultural crisis is
threatening to become political, pitting the United States and other developed countries against the developing world over the need for
affordable food versus the need for renewable energy. Many poorer nations worry that subsidies from rich countries to support biofuels,
which turn food, like corn, into fuel, are pushing up the price of staples. The World Bank and the United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization called on major agricultural nations to overhaul policies to avoid a social explosion from rising food prices.
With rice, which is not used to make biofuel, the problem is availability. Even in normal times, little of the world’s rice is actually
exported — more than 90 percent is consumed in the countries where it is grown. In the last quarter-century, rice consumption has
outpaced production, with global reserves plunging by half just since 2000. A plant disease is hurting harvests in Vietnam, reducing
supply. And economic uncertainty has led producers to hoard rice and speculators and investors to see it as a lucrative or at least safe bet.
All these factors have made countries that buy rice on the global market vulnerable to extreme price swings. Senegal and Haiti each
import four-fifths of their rice, and both have faced mounting unrest as prices have increased. Police suppressed violent demonstrations
in Dakar on March 30, and unrest has spread to other rice-dependent nations in West Africa, notably Ivory Coast. The Haitian president,
René Préval, after a week of riots, announced subsidies for rice buyers on Saturday. Scientists expect the problem to worsen. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, set up by the United Nations, predicted last year that even slight warming would lower agricultural
output in the tropics and subtropics. Moderate warming could benefit crop and pasture yields in countries far from the Equator, like Canada and Russia. In
fact, the net effect of moderate warming is likely to be higher total global food production in the next several decades. But the scientists said the effect
would be uneven, and enormous quantities of food would need to be shipped from areas farther from the Equator to feed the populations of often less-
The panel predicted that even greater warming, which might
affluent countries closer to the Equator.
happen by late in this century if few or no limits are placed on greenhouse gas
emissions, would hurt total food output and cripple crops in many countries.
CO2 Bad – AT: Water Efficiency
CO2 fertilization has negative effects on temperature and precipitation
Korner 0, Institute of Botany, University of Basel and Ph. D., 2000 (Christian, “Biosphere
Responses to CO2 Enrichment,” Ecological Applications, Vol. 10, No. 6, (Dec., 2000), pp. 1590-
1619)
Given that stomata are often reported to reduce their conductance to half under twice
the current ambient CO2 the water savings in the above-mentioned studies were really
small. Even smaller, zero, or stimulating effects of CO, enrichment OD
evapotranspiration were reported for crops (see discussion by Amthor (1995) and
Field et al. (1995)). This has two major reasons. First, reduced leaf transpiration
increases leaf temperature. which in turn steepens the leaf to atmosphere vapor
pressure gradient (Idso et al, 1993). Second, growth responses to CO; may enhance
root soil exploration and lead to earlier canopy closure or bigger plants (Hilentan et al,
1992). As small as the observed moisture savings under elevated CO; in grassland
might be, they would stimulate soil processes and improve nutrient availability. Whether
such savings will generally be Well in a CO2 rich future is, however, uncertain. It will
depend on concurrent climate changes, hut, perhaps more importantly, on atmospheric
feedbacks to vegetation responses. If plants were indeed reducing their stomatal open-
ing and, thus, moisture loss, they would create a drier atmosphere around them
and/or leaf temperatures would rise, which in turn would enhance transpiration.
Such responses strongly depend on the aerodynamic coupling of plant canopies. The
denser and smoother a canopy, the less likely are stomatal resposes to elevated CO, to
translate into reduced evapotranspiration (Field et al. 1995). A drier atmosphere
would also reduce terrestrial contributions to cloud formation and precipitation.
C02 fertilization reduces the amount of water that plants can store.
Korner 0, Institute of Botany, University of Basel and Ph. D., 2000 (Christian, “Biosphere
Responses to CO2 Enrichment,” Ecological Applications, Vol. 10, No. 6, (Dec., 2000), pp. 1590-
1619)
Stomata, the variable leaf pores through which CO2 enters and water vapor leaves
plants, are responsive to CO2 They open when leaves suffer from CO, shortage and
they reduce their opening, when concentration is high (Francis Darwin [1898) as
quoted in Raschke [1986]). It is one of the classics in plant physiology that CO
enrichment reduces transpiration. Given that roughly 70% of all water vapor emitted
from terrestrial ecosystems plisses through leaf stomata, certainly this is one of the key
responses to be understood in global-change research. A reduction of plant
transpiration would riot only lead to higher moisture retention in soils, it would also
reduce the capacity to store additional water during high-rainfall events.
CO2 Bad – AT: Water Efficiency
Increased water efficiency is negated by higher temperatures.
Allen 96 (L. Hartwell Allen Jr., US Department of Agriculture, and Jeff T. Baker and Ken J.
Boote, Agronomy Department, University of Florida, “Overview of CO2 effects on plant growth
processes: Specific responses of crops to elevated CO2”)
Water-use efficiency (WUE) (ratio of CO2 uptake to evapotranspiration) will increase
under higher CO2 conditions. This increase is caused more by increased
photosynthesis than it is by a reduction of water loss through partially closed stomata.
Thus, more biomass can be produced per unit of water used, although a crop would still
require almost as much water from sowing to final harvest. If temperatures rise,
however, the increased WUE caused by the CO2 fertilization effect could be
diminished or negated, unless planting dates can be changed to more favourable seasons.
CO2 Bad – AT: Night Warming Good
Night warming increases respiration reducing crop yields

If nighttime temperature minima rise more than do daytime maxima--as is expected from
greenhouse warming projections--heat stress during the day may be less severe than
otherwise, but increased nighttime respiration may also reduce potential yields. Another
important effect of high temperature is accelerated physiological development, resulting in
hastened maturation and reduced yield.
CO2 Bad – AT: Increased Growing Season
Their growing season arg is offset by increased inefficient respiration and suboptimal
growing conditions

In middle and higher latitudes, global warming will extend the length of the potential
growing season, allowing earlier planting of crops in the spring, earlier maturation and
harvesting, and the possibility of completing two or more cropping cycles during the same
season. Crop-producing areas may expand poleward in countries such as Canada and
Russia, although yields in higher latitudes will likely be lower due to the less fertile soils
that lie there. Many crops have become adapted to the growing-season daylengths of the
middle and lower latitudes and may not respond well to the much longer days of the high
latitude summers. In warmer, lower latitude regions, increased temperatures may accelerate
the rate at which plants release CO2 in the process of respiration, resulting in less than
optimal conditions for net growth. When temperatures exceed the optimal for biological
processes, crops often respond negatively with a steep drop in net growth and yield.
Ag expansion will destroy ecosystems, halting their offense and rolling back ag gains

Climate change can impact agricultural sustainability in two interrelated ways: first, by
diminishing the long-term ability of agroecosystems to provide food and fiber for the
world's population; and second, by inducing shifts in agricultural regions that may
encroach upon natural habitats, at the expense of floral and faunal diversity. Global
warming may encourage the expansion of agricultural activities into regions now occupied
by natural ecosystems such as forests, particularly at mid- and high-latitudes. Forced
encroachments of this sort may thwart the processes of natural selection of climatically-
adapted native crops and other species.
CO2 Bad – AT: Adaptation
Adaptations fail

The potential for adaptation should not lead to complacency. Agricultural adaptation to
climatic variation is not now and may never be perfect, and changes in how farmers
operate or in what they produce may cause significant disruption for people in rural
regions. Indeed, some adaptive measures may have detrimental impacts of their own. For
example, were major shifts in crops to be made, as from grain to fruit and vegetable
production, farmers may find themselves more exposed to marketing problems and credit
crises brought on by higher capital and operating costs. The considerable social and
economic costs that can result from large- scale climatic extremes was exemplified by the
consequences of the Mississippi River flood of 1993.
While changes in planting schedules or in crop varieties may be readily adopted,
modifying the types of crops grown does not ensure equal levels of either food production
or nutritional quality. Nor can it guarantee equal profits for farmers. Expanded irrigation
may lead to groundwater depletion, soil salinization, and waterlogging. Increased demand
for water by competing sectors may limit the viability of irrigation as an adaptation to
climate change. Expansion of irrigation as a response to climate change will be difficult
and costly even under the best circumstances. Mounting societal pressures to reduce
environmental damage from agriculture will likely foster an increase in protective
regulatory policies that can further complicate the process of adaptation.
Present agricultural institutions and policies in the U.S. tend to discourage farm
management adaptation strategies, such as altering the mix of crops that are grown. At the
policy level, obstacles to change are created by supporting prices of crops that are not well
suited to a changing climate, by providing disaster payments when crops fail, and by
restricting competition through import quotas. Programs could be modified to expand the
flexibility allowed in crop mixes, to remove institutional barriers to the development of
water markets, and to improve the basis for crop disaster payments.
CO2 Bad – A2: Disease Resistance
Disease resistance effects are short-term
Runion 3 (Brett, USDA, New Phytologist, #159)

The authors noted that aggressiveness increased over the course of the infection cycles on
both cultivars when grown under ambient CO2. They also note that this study is the first to
document a change in pathogen aggressiveness when inoculated onto host plants and
grown under elevated CO2 - overall aggressiveness of both isolates was reduced on both
resistant and susceptible cultivars. This suggests that host plants may benefit from future,
higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations through a reduction in damage from this
pathogen. However, the overall reduction in pathogen aggressiveness resulted from an
initial lag phase of 10 infection cycles, after which aggressiveness increased on both
cultivars. Presumably, during this initial period the pathogen was adapting to whatever
CO2-induced changes in the host led to the initial decrease in aggressiveness, after which
aggressiveness increased in a manner similar to that which occurred on plants grown under
ambient CO2. It has been suggested that an increase in production of defensive compounds
and/or other changes in host physiology, morphology, or anatomy under elevated CO2
could lead to
reductions in incidence or severity, a t least for some pathosystems (Runion et al., 1994;
Hibberd et al., 1996;
Chakraborty et al., 2000; Hartley et al., 2000). By carrying this pathosystem through
numerous infection cycles, the authors correctly note that enhanced resistance at elevated
CO2 may not result in reduced host damage in the long term.
CO2 Bad - Hurts Plant Reproduction
CO2 fertilization decreases plant reproduction
Curtis, ‘02
(Pete, Ohio State Research news, “INCREASED CO2 LEVELS ARE MIXED BLESSING FOR
AGRICULTURE”, 10-2-02, http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/co2plant.htm)
“Wild plants are constrained by what they can do with increased CO2,” he said. “They may
use it for survival and defense rather than to boost reproduction. Agricultural crops, on the
other hand, are protected from pests and diseases, so they have the luxury of using extra
CO2 to enhance reproduction.” Even though seed size increased, the amount of
nitrogen in the seeds didn’t. Nitrogen levels decreased by an average of 14 percent
across all plants except cultivated legumes, such as peas and soybeans. For example, the
total number of seeds in wheat and barley plants increased by 15 percent, but the amount
of nitrogen in the seeds declined by 20 percent. “That’s bad news,” Curtis said.
“Nitrogen is important for building protein in humans and animals. If anything, plant
biologists want to boost the levels of nitrogen in crops.
“A growing global population demands more food, but humans would have to eat
more of the food to get the same nutritional benefits.”On the flip side, legumes are able
to use a rise in CO2 to increase the amount of nitrogen they take in. The result is that these
plants maintain their nutritional quality during conditions of high CO2 levels.
“Ecologically speaking, changes in the number of flowers, fruits and seeds and their
nutritional quality could have far-reaching consequences,” Curtis said. “Changes in
the amount of nutrients in seeds could affect reproductive success and seedling
survival. Such changes could also have long-term effects on ecosystem functioning.”
CO2 Bad - Plants Will Acclimatize
Plants acclimatize to CO2 fertilization and stop responding
Wayne 99 (P. M. Wayne, A. L. Carnelli, J. Connolly, F. A. Bazzaz, The Journal of Ecology, Vol. 87, No. 2, (Apr., 1999), pp. 183-192)
The importance of making sequential observations during stand development for understanding the processes
of interference has long been acknowledged (Milthorpe 1961; Connolly et a!. 1990; Weiner 1990), and is
especially relevant for understanding the density-dependent nature of CO2, responsiveness. Growth
analysis studies of individual plants suggest that, in most ease, the magnitude of the
direct effects of CO2, varies considerably through time (Bazzaz 1993; Loeble 1995). Many
species show decreasing photosynthetic and growth responsiveness to CO2 over time,
a phenomenon broadly referred to as acclimation {DeLucia .et al 1985; Arp 1991; Bowes 1991;
Bazzaz et al. 1993). Because both density-dependent interactions and the magnitude of growth stimulation
caused by elevated CO2, vary through time, sequential observations are necessary to characterize accurately
the responses of a plant populations to CO2..
CO2 Bad – Disparate Impacts
CO2 Fertilization depends on optimal conditions unavailable many places and
accompanied by dangerous fertilizes and herbicides
Baskin 94 (Yvette, 10-1, Discover, Staff)

But a completely free lunch is hard for ecologists to swallow, and with good reason.Those bumper yields occur
when crops are not only lavished with fertilizers and water but also protected by
herbicides and pesticides from weeds,insects, and disease. The Third World can't afford this sort of
chemical-intensive farming, and the developed world is ever more troubled by it. Besides, says Strain, CO2 experiments
with crops--most of which are conducted in labs or enclosed spaces--tell us next to
nothing about the future of forests and rangelands, where plants must compete with
one another for light, water, and nutrients.
The harms will be targeted at developing countries and the benefits will be concentrated in
the U.S. – The places that need CO2 wont get it

Modeled studies of the sensitivity of world agriculture to potential climate change
have suggested that the overall effect of moderate climate change on world food
production may be small, as reduced production in some areas is balanced by gains in
others. The same studies find, however, that vulnerability to climate change is
systematically greater in developing countries--which in most cases are located in
lower, warmer latitudes. In those regions, cereal grain yields are projected to decline
under climate change scenarios, across the full range of expected warming. Agricultural
exporters in middle and high latitudes (such as the U.S., Canada, and Australia) stand to gain, as their national production is predicted to
expand, and particularly if grain supplies are restricted and prices rise. Thus, countries with the lowest income
may be the hardest hit.
More evidence…
NYT 94 (1-18, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03E4D81630F93BA25752C0A962958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)

USING a combination of computer models, an international team of scientists
investigating the effects of global warming on agriculture has summoned up a
detailed vision of the future that will cheer farmers and commodity traders in the
northern latitudes, but not people in developing countries.
Experts say the three-year study is apparently the first in what is likely to be a torrent of interdisciplinary, computer-assisted projections
of the myriad biophysical and socioeconomic consequences of climate change.
The study predicts that rising temperatures resulting from greenhouse gas emissions
will cause only a "slight to moderate" decline in world grain production, causing
prices to rise, but leaving most industrial nations more or less unharmed -- and
actually increasing crop production in some.
But people in already impoverished tropical and subtropical countries are likely to
face more starvation and malnutrition than ever before, despite the best efforts of
farmers to counter the effects of rising temperatures on their harvests, according to
the study's principal authors, Dr. Cynthia Rosenzweig of Columbia University and the Goddard
Institute for Space Studies, and Prof. Martin L. Parry, director of the Environmental Change Unit at Oxford University in England.
Efforts to Assess Risks
CO2 Bad – Site Selection
Best open-air studies reveal no advantages for major crops
Kloeppel 6 (6-29, Joe, U of Ill-U-C, http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/06/0629soyface.html)

Open-air field trials involving five major food crops grown under carbon-dioxide levels
projected for the future are harvesting dramatically less bounty than those raised in earlier
greenhouse and other enclosed test conditions – and scientists warn that global food
supplies could be at risk without changes in production strategies.
The new findings are based on on-going open-air research at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign and results gleaned from five other temperate-climate locations around
the world. According to the analysis, published in the June 30 issue of the journal Science,
crop yields are running at about 50 percent below conclusions drawn previously from
enclosed test conditions.
Results from the open-field experiments, using Free-Air Concentration Enrichment
(FACE) technology, “indicate a much smaller CO2 fertilization effect on yield than
currently assumed for C3 crops, such as rice, wheat and soybeans, and possibly little or no
stimulation for C4 crops that include maize and sorghum,” said Stephen P. Long, a U. of I.
plant biologist and crop scientist.
Best studies prove no fertilization – Their greenhouse sites are poor replicas for natural
conditions
Older, closed-condition studies occurred in greenhouses, controlled environmental

chambers and transparent field chambers, in which carbon dioxide or ozone were easily
retained and controlled.
Such tests provided projections for maize, rice, sorghum, soybean and wheat – the world’s
most important crops in terms of global grain production.
By 2050 carbon dioxide levels may be about 1.5 times greater than the current 380 parts
per million, while daytime ozone levels during the growing season could peak on average
at 80 parts per billion (now 60 parts per billion).
Older studies, as reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, suggest that
increased soil temperature and decreased soil moisture, which would reduce crop yields,
likely will be offset in C3 crops by the fertilization effect of rising CO2, primarily because
CO2 increases photosynthesis and decreases crop water use.
Although more than 340 independent chamber studies have been analyzed to project yields
under rising CO2 levels, most plants grown in enclosures can differ greatly from those
grown in farm fields, Long said. FACE has been the only technology that has tested effects
in real-world situations, and, to date, for each crop tested yields have been “well below
(about half) the value predicted from chambers,” the authors reported. The results
encompassed grain yield, total biomass and effects on photosynthesis.
CO2 Bad – Short-Term
Fertilization is short-term – Nitrate incorporation effects counteract it
Bailey 2 (Patricia, 2-4, UC-Davis, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-02/uoc--hcl013102.php)

Rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide that are associated with global warming can
interfere with plants' ability to incorporate certain forms of nitrogen, dramatically altering
the plant life worldwide and forcing significant changes in agricultural fertilizer use,
according to a plant physiologist at the University of California, Davis.
These findings will be reported by lead author Arnold Bloom and colleagues in the Feb. 5
issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"It's been known for some time that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere initially boost carbon intake and growth in plants but eventually the
accelerated carbon assimilation declines," said Bloom, a professor in the UC Davis
vegetable crops department. "The results from our study indicate that carbon dioxide
inhibition of nitrate assimilation contributes to this phenomenon and suggest two
physiological mechanisms that may be responsible."
CO2 Bad - Increases Air Pollution
Increased CO2 acclimatizes plants to high temperatures, increasing nitrogen production
and air pollution
Wittwer 92 (prof of emeritus of horticulture, Mich State U, (Sylvan H, “Rising Carbon Dioxide Is Great for Plants”, From the Fall 1992 issue of Policy
Review, http://www.purgit.com/co2ok.html)
Enrichment of the air by carbon dioxide also appears to offer some protection to
plants against both extremely hot and cold temperatures. There is also evidence that
high atmospheric levels of CO2 raise the optimal temperature for plant growth. The
implication of this for the global warming debate is significant: if the higher-CO2
world of the future leads to higher temperatures, plants will respond favorably both
to increases in carbon dioxide and to the warmer conditions.
Plant responses to a higher carbon dioxide concentration do appear to be limited by
deficiencies in nitrogen and other mineral nutrients. If plants are to take full advantage
of future CO2 -enriched atmospheres, it may be necessary to apply more fertilizer in
many parts of the world. Even so, higher CO2 levels have a remarkably stimulatory
effect on biological nitrogen fixation by legumes, such as soybeans. A classic study by
Ralph Hardy and U. D. Havelka, published in Science in 1975, showed that a tripling of
atmospheric CO2 results in a six-fold increase in biological nitrogen fixation--from 75
to 425 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare--by rhizobial bacteria in nodules attached to the
roots of soybeans.
Elevated concentrations of CO2 also offer protection against air pollutants. The partial
closing of the stomata at higher CO2 levels reduces the exposure of both C3 and C4
plants to ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, and other harmful substances in the air.
The benefits are particularly pronounced for soybeans and other legumes that are
especially sensitive to air pollutants.
CO2 Bad – AT: C3/C4 – Weeds
C3 weeds will become more resistant, net decreasing ag
Woodsen 7 (Mary, Rodale Inst, 6-15, http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/nf/future_weeds)

In just the past decade, some weeds have become glyphosate-resistant all on their own. Meanwhile, other more-
invasive weeds may have become more competitive with crops. Coincidentally perhaps,
atmospheric CO2 has begun increasing at ever-accelerating rates.
And coincidence it may be. But Ziska’s research suggests that in some cases the connection might be causal. He has tested how some of
North American’s most notorious annual and perennial weeds might respond to glyphosate at the CO2 levels anticipated planet-wide by
2100. He has looked at the larger context, too, to get a feel for whether rising atmospheric CO2 gives invasive weeds their edge.
To understand the different ways these weeds have responded, it helps to understand what botanists mean when they toss around phrases
like “C3” and “C4” plants. These labels tell how certain types of plants assimilate carbon in photosynthesis: C3 plants form a pair of
three carbon-atom molecules, and C4 plants form four carbon-atom molecules.
C3 plants are the ones that, since carbon levels plummeted, are still managing at half throttle. They get stoked when CO2 goes up. C4
plants—there’s only a handful of them, about 4 percent of all plants—have evolved ways to concentrate CO2. Being well-adapted to
today’s CO2 levels tends to give them a competitive edge with crops. By and large, they don’t get much of a boost off higher CO2.
The Greening Earth Society—an industry-backed think-tank that questions the relationship between CO2 and global warming—will be
the first to tell you that most crops are C3 plants and most weeds are C4 plants, and they have a point.
Back in the day, before weed scientists took a closer look, it made perfect sense: Overall, crops will do better, not worse, in the war with
weeds. And early research bore out those assumptions.
while farmers grow about 45 major crops, 410 weeds
When you dig deeper, though, you notice that
reduce yields in these crops. That’s a lot of weeds, a big enough number that C3
plants don’t need to be in the majority to outclass the competition, particularly when you
consider who’s on the team. What’s your worst weed nightmare? Canada thistle or bindweed, perhaps? Star thistle or cheatgrass?
Quackgrass, lambsquarter, spotted knapweed? C3s all.
More evidence…

Soaring CO2, of course, is also expected to disrupt climate, entailing further
environmental stress and change. Predictions range from shifts in temperature and
rainfall to more hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters. Frequent upheavals favor
the appearance of plants early in the regrowth cycles of woods and other ecosystems,
giving fast-growing opportunistic plants the edge over slower-maturing ones. One
category that usually benefits from disturbance is invasive weeds. Most likely C3
weeds will be the biggest winners. Strain's previous Phytotron studies show that the
weedy vegetable okra may become a bigger nuisance in cotton fields; cheatgrass will most
likely edge out native grasses on the western range; pondweeds like hydrilla and water
hyacinth could clog wetlands; and, if warmer temperatures prevail, kudzu and Japanese
honeysuckle vines could blanket the landscape from the Deep South to the Great Lakes.
"The net result," says Strain, "could be ecosystem simplification and loss of diversity,
with increasing dominance of weedy types and aggressive C3 plants." Other ecologists
have even predicted that ecosystems might turn over too quickly to allow slow-maturing
"climax" vegetation-- such as Duke's oaks and hickories--to gain a proper foothold.
CO2 Bad – AT: C3/C4 – Process Drainage
CO2 increases drain other limited resources in C3 plants, causing ripple effects that
undermine overall food production

But a completely free lunch is hard for ecologists to swallow, and with good reason. Those
bumper yields occur when crops are not only lavished with fertilizers and water but also
protected by herbicides and pesticides from weeds,insects, and disease. The Third World
can't afford this sort of chemical-intensive farming, and the developed world is ever more
troubled by it. Besides, says Strain, CO2 experiments with crops--most of which are
conducted in labs or enclosed spaces--tell us next to nothing about the future of forests and
rangelands, where plants must compete with one another for light, water, and nutrients.
Theoretically, then, C3s should do better than C4s when carbon dioxide rises, but it's not
that simple. Even when plants respond by revving up photosynthesis, a lack of some other
factor--water, sunlight, nitrogen and phosphorus in the soil--can throw a wrench in the
assembly line. Take nitrogen, for example, which plants need to make protein to build
more roots, stems, and leaves. Without adequate nitrogen, a plant can't use the
carbohydrate it makes to stoke the building process. Instead the plant may stockpile
carbohydrate as starch grains, clogging its photosynthetic machinery and turning its leaves
a chlorotic yellow like those of the creosote plant in the Phytotron chamber. Even if the
plant keeps growing, starch deposits raise the ratio of carbon to nitrogen in plant leaves,
reducing their protein content and nutritional quality.
These effects will radiate up and down the food chain. For example, plants that are poor in
nutrients may force herbivores to eat more to get the same level of protein. This indeed
was the result when Strain and his colleagues fed soybean leaves to pests called soybean
loopers: when leaves were grown in double CO2, they found, the creatures gobbled 80
percent more of them. No one has yet tried the experiment with cattle and the grasses they
graze on, much less with vegetables bound for human tables.
CO2 Bad - Fertilization= Superweeds
CO2 fertilization creates super weeds that will overtake crops
The New York Times 8, (June 29, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29weedst.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=magazine

Not only did the weeds grow much larger in hotter, CO2-enriched plots — a weed
called lambs-quarters, or Chenopodium album, grew to an impressive 6 to 8 feet on the
farm but to a frightening 10 to 12 feet in the city — but the urban, futuristic weeds
also produced more pollen. Even more alarming was the way that the increased heat
and CO2 accelerated and perverted the succession of species within the plots.
Typically, a cleared area in the Eastern United States, if left to itself, returns to native
woodland. This process varies with the site and circumstances, but in its archetypical form
fast-growing annual weeds cover the soil first, playing the role of what ecologists classify
as “pioneer plants.” These gradually give way to longer-lived perennial weeds, which are
in turn replaced by shrubs and trees. Continues “When you change a resource in the
environment,” Ziska said recently, sitting in his compact office, “you are going to, in
effect, favor the weed over the crop. There is always going to be a weed poised
genetically to benefit from almost any change.” Ziska, together with Bunce, has been
testing the effects of changing CO2 concentrations on a range of crop and weed species.
Wending his way through a basement full of pumps, filters and boxlike aluminum growth
chambers, Ziska showed himself to be a connoisseur of atmospheres. Peering at the
instrument panel outside one growth chamber, he noted a CO2 concentration of 310 p.p.m.
“That’s a 1957 atmosphere, the year of my birth,” he said. What he and his colleagues have
found, he said, is that weeds benefit far more than crop plants from the changes in
CO2 and that the implications of this for agriculture and public health are grave.
CO2 makes weeds resistance and hurt nearby plants
The New York Times 8 (June 29, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29weeds-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=magazine)

Tests with common agricultural weeds like Canada thistle and quack grass found
them more resistant to herbicides when grown in higher concentrations of CO2,
making them harder to control. Ziska hypothesizes that this may be a result of faster
growth; the weeds mature more rapidly, leaving behind more quickly the seedling
stage during which they are most vulnerable. This promises to be an expensive
problem for farmers, who will have to spend more on chemicals and other anti-weed
measures to protect their crops. (Herbicides already cost farmers more than $10 billion
annually worldwide.) But enhancing CO2 levels, Ziska has found, not only augments
the growth rate of many common weeds, increasing their size and bulk; it also
changes their chemical composition. When he grew ragweed plants in an atmosphere
with 600 p.p.m. of CO2 (the level projected for the end of this century in that same
climate-change panel “B2 scenario”), they produced twice as much pollen as plants grown
in an atmosphere with 370 p.p.m. (the ambient level in the year 1998). This is bad news for
allergy sufferers, especially since the pollen harvested from the CO2-enriched chamber
proved far richer in the protein that causes the allergic reaction. Poison ivy has also
demonstrated not only more vigorous growth at higher levels of CO2 but also a more
virulent form of urushiol, the oil in its tissue that provokes a rash.
CO2 Bad - Fertilization= Superweeds
C02 lets weeds thrive and push out crops
Van Wychen 8 (National Science Policy Director of Weed Science Societies, March 25, (Lee, “Weeds Won’t Wait: Don’t Hesitate,”
http://www.wssa.net/WSSA/PressRoom/WSSA_Global_Warming_Release.pdf)
Is global warming fueling a new generation of more aggressive weeds? According to
recent research, the answer may be yes. One of the major characteristics of a warming
planet is an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Rising
carbon dioxide has been shown to help vegetable and grain crops grow more quickly,
become more droughtresistant and produce potentially higher yields. Unfortunately,
though, the impact of rising carbon dioxide seems to be far more pronounced in the
weeds that compete with crops than in the crops themselves. “Weeds are survivors,”
said Lee Van Wychen, director of science policy for the Weed Science Society of America.
“They can fill various niches and thrive under a wide range of conditions. While we
have about 45 major crops in the U.S., there are more than 400 species of different
weeds associated with those crops. There is always another weed species ready to
become a major competitor with a crop if growing conditions change, such as an
increase in carbon dioxide levels.” The impact of rising carbon dioxide levels on
weeds can be striking. In a study conducted by Dr. Lewis Ziska of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service, weeds grown under urban conditions of
warmer temperatures and more carbon dioxide – conditions anticipated for the rest of
the world in 50 years – grew to four times the height of those in a country plot 40 miles
outside the city, where carbon dioxide and temperature reflected background
conditions.
C02 Bad – CO2 Good Studies Flawed
Fertilization studies flawed- plants grown in groups are less receptive to CO2
Wayne 99(P. M. Wayne, A. L. Carnelli, J. Connolly, F. A. Bazzaz, The Journal of Ecology, Vol.
87, No. 2, (Apr., 1999), pp. 183-192)
The current anthnopogenica really induced rise in the concentration of atmospheric CO- has the
potential to increase plant productivity significantly (Strain & Cure 1985 ; Bazzaz et 1995a;
Ciais et al 1995; Houghton era& 19%). Recent literature reviews suggest that an increase
in C02 concentration to double the current levels would result in average biomass
enhancements or 30-40% (Kimball 1983; Cure & Acock 1986; Hunt et al 1991; Lawlor &
Mitchell 1991; Poorter 1993: Ceulmans & Mousseau [1994; Wullschleger et al 1995). However,
these estimates are based largely on studies characterizing the responses or
individually grown plants that have been raised in the absence of competition. Improved
pre dictions of the effects or elevated and the consequences of the potential increases
in productivity for terrestrial communities and ecosystems requires that the
influences of neighboring plants are considered. Studies that have incorporated such
density-dependent interactions suggest that CO2-induced growth enhancements are
generally lower when individuals arc grown in the presence of neighbouring plants
(du Cloux et al ed. 1987; Ackerly & Bazzaz 1995; Razzaz et al. 1995b.: Retuerto et al
1996). For instance, yellow birch seedlings exposed to elevated CO2 concentrations
increased in biomass by 49% when grown individually but only by 14% when grown
in dense stands (Wayne & Bazzaz 1995. 1997). However, such studies .offer only limited
insight into the effects of density-dependent processes on C02. responsiveness For two
reasons. First, the designs of these experiments rarely include more than two
densities, one of which is individually grown plants, and secondly, studies
investigating the interactions between density and CO, rarely characterize growth
responses over the time-course of individual-plant or whole-stand ontogeny.
CO2 fertilization studies flawed- don’t assume the world of rapid climate change
Allen 96 (L. Hartwell Allen Jr., US Department of Agriculture, and Jeff T. Baker and Ken J.
Boote, Agronomy Department, University of Florida, “Overview of CO2 effects on plant growth
processes: Specific responses of crops to elevated CO2”)
The simulated crop yield responses to climatic changes provided by Peart et al. (1989) and Curry et al. (1990a,b, 1995) manifest two
main points: (a) the serious adverse impact of inadequate rainfall scenarios on crop production coupled with rising temperature
scenarios, and (b) the importance of beneficial CO2 fertilization effects in the face of elevated temperatures. However, the climate
change for an effective doubling of CO2 may occur at CO2 concentrations less than those used in this simulation, if radiatively active
trace gases other than CO2 play a large role in the greenhouse effect. In that case, the direct CO2 effects would be somewhat lower than
shown in the example of Tables 4.10 and 4.11 for an equivalent climate change. All of the simulations assumed that
climatic changes would occur simultaneously with increasing concentrations of CO2
and other trace greenhouse-effect gases. If global warming lags the increases of atmospheric CO2, then some
beneficial effects of CO2 fertilization are likely to occur before the full impact of climate change is manifested. However,
Broecker (1987) and others caution that climate changes have not always been
gradual during interglacial periods of the Pleistocene Era. There is clear evidence of
relatively rapid climatic oscillations in the northern hemisphere during the previous
interglacial period 110000 to 140000 years before present based on Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) records (Anklin et al.,
1993). These oscillations produced cold periods that were as severe as the proceeding glacial period.
AT: Corn - Production Low Now
Corn Production Low
Barrett 8 (Rick, JS Online, http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=767623, June 30, 2008)

Even with heavy rains and flooding this year, many Wisconsin farms will have corn
that’s knee high by the Fourth of July, according to a statewide crop report released
Monday. But some fields had total losses, and others still have short, damaged plants.
Overall, the losses could add up to tens of millions of dollars in some counties,
according to University of Wisconsin Extension agricultural extension agents. Instead of
cashing in on the harvest this fall, many farmers will be turning to crop insurance to
cover their losses. “There are a lot of claims and calls coming in for the insurance. As you
drive through the countryside, you can see nice fields with big centers of nothing growing
in them because they were drowned out,” said Gary Sellen, a vice president at Badgerland
Farm Credit Services, a farm lender. Statewide, it’s too early to assess the total crop
damage from the floods. But last weekend’s rain and hail in some counties increased the
damage just as fields were starting to dry out. Wheat and corn were damaged in Dodge
County, said Nancy Kavazanjian with the Wisconsin Corn Growers Association. “Just
when the corn was starting to get a better shade of green where the water had
receded, it definitely got hurt a little,” she said. Statewide, corn is averaging about 21
inches in height, compared with 41 inches a year ago and 30 inches for the five-year
average, according to the weekly crop report issued Monday by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture in Madison.
AT: Corn – CO2 Decreases Production
Carbon fixation substantially decreases corn production
De Jong et al 01 (Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre, (R. de Jong, K. Y. Li, A. Bootsma, T. Huffman, G. Roloff and S. Gameda, “Crop Yield and
Variability under Climate Change and Adaptative Crop Management Scenarios,” Final Report for Climate Change Action Fund Project A080,
adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/projdb/pdf/6_e.pdf)
Corn was simulated at 6 stations in central Canada. The annual planting and harvest
dates were simulated as a function of air temperature and consequently, under a
warmer 2xCO2 climate, planting dates were advanced (by approximately 9 days) and
harvest dates were delayed (by approximately 12 days), leading to a growing season
which was on average 20.7 days longer than under the baseline scenario (Table 15).
Average temperature stress during the growing saeson decreased from 15.5 to 12.5 days
under the 2xCO2 climate scenario. The average water stress, which was high already
under the baseline scenario, increased by 60% (from 36.5 to 57.3 stress days) under
the 2xCO2 climate. This, along with increased N stress, not only reduced the average
total biomass production from 14.38 to 13.43 Mg ha-1 ( a 7% decrease), but it also
decreased the harvest index by 6%. The radiation use efficiency of corn was increased
by 10% under the 2xCO2 climate scenario, but this did not offset the negative impacts of
the warmer climate: yields decreased on average from 5.65 to 5.01 Mg ha-1, i.e. a
decrease of 11% (Table 16).
C02 fertilization hurts corn production
Allen et al, 96 (L. Hartwell Allen Jr., US Department of Agriculture, and Jeff T. Baker and Ken J. Boote, Agronomy Department, University of Florida,
“Overview of CO2 effects on plant growth processes: Specific responses of crops to elevated CO2”)
Yields of maize were simulated for doubled-CO2 fertilization effects at only four
weather station locations (Charlotte, North Carolina; Macon, Georgia; Memphis,
Tennessee; Meridian, Mississippi). For climatic change effects alone, predicted maize
yields declined only 6% in the GISS scenario, but declined 73% in the GFDL scenario
(Table 4.11). Although irrigation increased predicted crop yields, the GISS and GFDL
climate scenarios gave yield decreases of 18 and 27%, respectively, with respect to the
irrigated baseline weather. The yield reduction of the GFDL scenario with respect to the
GISS scenario was 10%, attributable to slightly higher temperatures. Including the CO2
fertilization effects with climatic change scenarios had little effect on the predicted
yields of maize because it is a C4 plant
Moisture stress from warming kills corn

Agriculture of any kind is strongly influenced by the availability of water. Climate change
will modify rainfall, evaporation, runoff, and soil moisture storage. Changes in total
seasonal precipitation or in its pattern of variability are both important. The occurrence of
moisture stress during flowering, pollination, and grain-filling is harmful to most crops and
particularly so to corn, soybeans, and wheat. Increased evaporation from the soil and
accelerated transpiration in the plants themselves will cause moisture stress; as a result
there will be a need to develop crop varieties with greater drought tolerance.
AT: Corn – CO2 Decreases Production
CO2 substantially decreases corn yields – multiple test sites prove.
De Jong et al 1 [R., Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre, K. Li, A. Bootsma, T. Huffman, G. Roloff, S. Gameda, “Crop Yield and
Variability under Climate Change and Adaptative Crop Management Scenarios,” Final Report for Climate Change Action Fund Project, A080,
adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/projdb/pdf/6_e.pdf]
Corn was simulated at 6 stations in central Canada. The annual planting and harvest
dates were simulated as a function of air temperature and consequently, under a warmer
2xCO2 climate, planting dates were advanced (by approximately 9 days) and harvest
dates were delayed (by approximately 12 days), leading to a growing season which
was on average 20.7 days longer than under the baseline scenario (Table 15). Average
temperature stress during the growing saeson decreased from 15.5 to 12.5 days under the
2xCO2 climate scenario. The average water stress, which was high already under the
baseline scenario, increased by 60% (from 36.5 to 57.3 stress days) under the 2xCO2
climate. This, along with increased N stress, not only reduced the average total
biomass production from 14.38 to 13.43 Mg ha-1 ( a 7% decrease), but it also decreased
the harvest index by 6%. The radiation use efficiency of corn was increased by 10%
under the 2xCO2 climate scenario, but this did not offset the negative impacts of the
warmer climate: yields decreased on average from 5.65 to 5.01 Mg ha-1, i.e. a decrease
of 11% (Table 16).
Increasing CO2 levels can reduce corn yields by as much as 73%.
Allen Jr. et al 96 [L. Hartwell, US Department of Agriculture, Jeff T. Baker, Ken J. Boote, Agronomy Department at University of
Florida, “Overview of CO2 effects on plant growth processes: Specific responses of crops to elevated CO2”,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/w5183e/w5183e06.htm]
Yields of maize were simulated for doubled-CO2 fertilization effects at only four
weather station locations (Charlotte, North Carolina; Macon, Georgia; Memphis,
Tennessee; Meridian, Mississippi). For climatic change effects alone, predicted maize
yields declined only 6% in the GISS scenario, but declined 73% in the GFDL scenario
(Table 4.11). Although irrigation increased predicted crop yields, the GISS and GFDL
climate scenarios gave yield decreases of 18 and 27%, respectively, with respect to the
irrigated baseline weather. The yield reduction of the GFDL scenario with respect to the
GISS scenario was 10%, attributable to slightly higher temperatures. Including the CO2
fertilization effects with climatic change scenarios had little effect on the predicted
yields of maize because it is a C4 plant.
AT: Corn - Weeds Decrease Production
Increased CO2 exposure creates superweeds, decreasing corn production
Science Daily, June 28, 2008

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080629074053.htm
Although neither species is native to the United States, purple and yellow nutsedge can be
found all over the country. Purple nutsedge can tolerate extremely high temperatures and is
a major problem in the southern United States, whereas yellow nutsedge is better suited to
more temperate climates. Both species displace native plants and reduce yields in a
variety of important agricultural crops, including corn, cotton and rice. Purple and
yellow nutsedge spread via rhizomes and underground tubers, and are extremely difficult
to control. The Auburn scientists observed that both species grew larger in the
elevated CO2 chambers than in control chambers. The plants had more tubers and
greater water use efficiency, indicating that they could become increasingly
competitive in an elevated-CO2 environment. This could result in reduced crop yields
and displaced native flora.
Increasing CO2 makes nutsedge a threat to corn yields.
Science Daily 8 [June 28, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080629074053.htm]

Although neither species is native to the United States, purple and yellow nutsedge can
be found all over the country. Purple nutsedge can tolerate extremely high temperatures
and is a major problem in the southern United States, whereas yellow nutsedge is better
suited to more temperate climates.
Both species displace native plants and reduce yields in a variety of important
agricultural crops, including corn, cotton and rice. Purple and yellow nutsedge spread
via rhizomes and underground tubers, and are extremely difficult to control.
The Auburn scientists observed that both species grew larger in the elevated CO2
chambers than in control chambers. The plants had more tubers and greater water
use efficiency, indicating that they could become increasingly competitive in an
elevated-CO2 environment. This could result in reduced crop yields and displaced
native flora.
Increasing CO2 will make weeds more competitive with corn
Patterson and Flint 80 [D. T., Plant Physiologist, E. P., “Potential Effects of Global Atmospheric CO₂ Enrichment on the Growth
and Competitiveness of C₃ and C₄ Weed and Crop Plants,” Weed Science, Vol. 28, No. 1, January, pp. 71-75]
From these studies, we conclude that the increase in atmospheric C02 concentration
predicted for the next 50 to 100 yr will have significant effects on the growth of crop
plants and associated weeds. Increasing the C02 concentration probably will make
weeds with the C3 photosynthetic pathway more competitive with crops such as corn
and sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moenchl which have the C4 pathway. It is possible,
likewise, that weeds with the C4 pathway will become less competitive with C3 crop
species. However, the responses to C02 enrichment do not depend on the photosynthetic
pathway alone. Further studies are needed to examine the effects of C02 concentration on
the growth of other important crop plants and associated weeds.
AT: Rice–Price Up
Rice prices are up – Trade bans
Reuters 4-28-8
Spot rice prices are up about 80 percent so far in 2008.
"Some of the main rice producing countries have imposed export curbs ... and this has
combined with low global stocks to drive rice higher," said Kenji Kobayashi, a grains
analyst at Kanetsu Asset Management in Tokyo.
"Rice has been hitting successive records. It's neared $25 and I think $30 is now on our
horizon," Kobayashi said.
AT: Rice - Warming Decreases Supply
Global warming is responsible for current rice shortages and riots
International Herald Tribune 8, April 17, 2008 http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/17/business/17warm.php?page=1

The collapse of Australia's rice production is one of several factors contributing to a
doubling of rice prices in the last three months - increases that have led the world's
largest exporters to restrict exports severely, spurred panicked hoarding in Hong Kong and
the Philippines, and set off violent protests in countries including Cameroon, Egypt,
Ethiopia, Haiti, Indonesia, Italy, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, the Philippines, Thailand,
Uzbekistan and Yemen. Drought affects every agricultural industry based here, not just
rice - from sheepherding, the other mainstay in this dusty land, to the cultivation of wine
grapes, the fastest-growing crop here, with that expansion often coming at the expense of
rice. The drought's effect on rice has produced the greatest impact on the rest of the
world, so far. It is one factor contributing to skyrocketing prices, and many scientists
believe it is among the earliest signs that a warming planet is starting to affect food
production. While a link between short-term changes in weather and long-term climate
change is not certain, the unusually severe drought is consistent with what
climatologists predict will be a problem of increasing frequency.
Warming is responsible for rice emergencies

Bloomberg.com 8 (April 3, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&refer=home&sid=acnqou1542Qs)
``In the world market over the last four or five years, we've had generally a drop in
production because of weather and diseases,'' LSU's Salassi said today on Bloomberg
radio. ``World demand for rice increases every year.'' Global production will rise to a
record 422.9 million metric tons this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said on
March 11. Consumption may increase to 422.5 million tons, also the most-ever, leaving
75.2 million tons stored globally at the end of the year, the USDA said.
Grain Rallies Eroding global inventories also have fueled rallies in corn, wheat and
soybeans.
Corn has gained 73 percent in the past year, touching a record $6.0275 a bushel today in
Chicago. Soybeans are up 65 percent in the past 12 months, reaching $15.8625 on March
3, the highest ever. Wheat rose to a record $13.495 a bushel on Feb. 27 and has more than
doubled in the past year. Indonesia, the world's third-largest rice producer, may join
China, India, Vietnam and Egypt in curbing exports to secure domestic supplies,
Agriculture Minister Anton Apriyantono said yesterday in a text message to Bloomberg
News. Consumer prices in China rose 8.7 percent in February, an 11-year high, and
reached a 13-month peak in India. Food prices in China, based on a government index,
jumped 28 percent in February, the most since July. The UN warned in February that 36
countries, including China, face food emergencies this year, as stockpiles of grains
such as rice drop to a 26-year low.
AT: Rice - CO2 Decreases Production
Japan proves: warmer temperatures decrease rice yields
BBC news, ’07 (Dec 29, 07, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/7148662.stm)

In Japan government scientists are trying to find ways to reduce the impact of global
warming on the country's rice crop.
There are fears that the extremes of temperature that some researchers are predicting
could affect both the yield and the quality of rice, a staple of the Japanese diet.
Flowering grain crops like maize, wheat and rice are particularly vulnerable to
changes in temperature. Rice is believed to have been cultivated in Japan for more than
2,500 years. Although people are eating less than they used to, on average each person
here still eats more than a kilogramme a week. Japan is getting warmer. In the last
decade or so the country's annual average temperature has been between 0.2 and one
degree higher than the average recorded in the last 30 years of the 20th Century. Research
being carried out by Japanese government scientists suggests that if this trend continues,
rice yields and quality could suffer. "Global warming can affect rice in many ways,"
says Toshihiro Hasegawa, a senior researcher at the National Institute of Agro-
Environmental Sciences near Tokyo. "The plant itself can be very sensitive to
temperature at any time of the growth stages. But the most devastating effect can be
seen in the late stage of the rice growth." The pollination stage for rice can last as
little as an hour. That is why extremes of heat can do such damage.
Experiments carried out in controlled conditions in laboratories suggest that if it is warmer
than 36C pollination fails.
Rice is grown at maximum temperatures now – Heat from warming cant be absorbed

Extreme meteorological events, such as spells of high temperature, heavy storms, or
droughts, disrupt crop production. Recent studies have considered possible changes in the
variability as well as in the mean values of climatic variables. Where certain varieties of
crops are grown near their limits of maximum temperature tolerance, such as rice in
Southern Asia, heat spells can be particularly detrimental. Similarly, frequent droughts not
only reduce water supplies but also increase the amount of water needed for plant
transpiration.
AT: Rice - CO2 Decreases Nutritional Value
Increase CO2 decreases the nutritional value of rice
Science and Development Network 5 (March 4, http://www.scidev.net/en/news/rising-carbon-dioxide-could-make-crops-less-nutrit.html)

Rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could make rice and wheat grow
faster but be less nutritious, say Chinese scientists. The impact on agriculture could
be profound. “The protein level will decrease by ten per cent by about 2050, and
elements such as iron and zinc will also decline,” says Zhu Jianguo, a senior scientist
with the Nanjing-based Institute of Soil Sciences, part of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Researchers led
by Zhu spent three years studying the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the growth of rice and wheat crops. A technique called
free-air carbon dioxide enrichment allowed the researchers to create an artificial local atmosphere around crops growing in open fields.
By surrounding the study plants with pipes emitting carbon dioxide, they mimicked conditions
predicted for 2050 if
current levels of increasing carbon dioxide emissions are not checked. This equates to a 50
per cent increase in the current concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The researchers found that, under these conditions,
crop yields increased by 15 per cent for rice and 14 per cent for wheat. The crops also grew more rapidly: 10-14 per cent faster in
the case of rice, and 12-20 per cent faster for wheat. However, protein levels in both rice and wheat grains
dropped by about ten per cent. Plants take up carbon dioxide and combine it with water to create carbohydrates that
are essential for growth, so increased concentrations allow them to grow faster. But by growing faster, the rice and
wheat grains accumulate less protein and other nutrients, Zhu told SciDev.Net.
Increased CO2 decreases rice nutrition- increased production would be moot
Curtis 2 (Pete, Ohio State Research news, “INCREASED CO2 LEVELS ARE MIXED BLESSING FOR AGRICULTURE”, 10-2-02,
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/co2plant.htm)
COLUMBUS, Ohio – A new study suggests that rising levels of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere could be a boon for agricultural crops, as this greenhouse gas helps crop
plants grow and reproduce more.
But that boon comes with a price, said Peter Curtis, a professor of evolution, ecology and
organismal biology at Ohio State University. Greater growth and reproduction may
hurt the nutritional value of crops.
“If you’re looking for a positive spin on rising CO2 levels, it’s that agricultural production
in some areas is bound to increase,” Curtis said. “Crops have higher yields when more
CO2 is available, even if growing conditions aren’t perfect. “But there’s a tradeoff
between quantity and quality. While crops may be more productive, the resulting
produce will be of lower nutritional quality.” Nutritional quality declines because while
the plants produce more seeds under higher CO2 levels, the seeds contain less nitrogen.
“The quality of the food produced by the plant decreases, so you’ve got to eat more of
it to get the same benefits,” Curtis said. “Nitrogen is a critical component for building
protein in animals, and much of the grain grown in the United States is fed to
livestock.“Under the rising CO2 scenario, livestock – and humans – would have to
increase their intake of plants to compensate for the loss.”
The research appears in the current issue of the journal New Phytologist.
AT: Rice - Riots Inevitable
Supply and demand imbalance make rice riots inevitable
Korea Times 8, June 18, 2008 (Jet Damazo, Rice Shortage: Crisis or Hype?,
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2008/06/160_26095.html)
So was the rice shortage real or perceived? Adam Barclay, a spokesperson for the
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), based in the Philippines, maintains that the
real underlying cause of the rice price increase is the long-term imbalance between
demand and supply, which has gradually pushed up prices since 2001. ``The long-
term demand and supply imbalance implies that we have been consuming more than
what we have been producing. This gap between demand and supply was met by
depleting rice stocks which are now down to a 20-year low," Barclay said. ``This rise in
price accelerated towards the end of 2007 as traditional exporting countries such as
India and Vietnam imposed export restrictions." The problem was exacerbated by
the disastrous results of Cyclone Nargis in Burma, which virtually destroyed the rice
production capability of the Irrawaddy River Delta.
Riots inevitable- rice shortages occurring now
Libcom.org 8, April 16, 2008 http://libcom.org/news/a-world-food-crisis-empty-rice-bowls-fat-

rats-16042008
Rice is the staple food of poor Bangladeshis, along with billions of others - half the
world's population - and now the world faces a global grain shortage and soaring
prices. Last December's Sidr Cyclone in Bangladesh destroyed $600 million worth of the
country's rice crop, and prices have doubled in the past year. A kilo of rice now costs
30p ($0.60).The government has tried to import rice stocks, but now the major
exporting countries, such as neighbouring India, have severely restricted their exports
to try and limit price rises for their domestic consumers. Long queues form daily
outside shops where soldiers sell government-subsidised rice at three quarters of the
market price. It used to be only the poorest queueing, but now they are joined by the
lower middle classes - teachers, government workers etc. But this is far from a local
problem... there have been food riots recently in Egypt, Argentina, Ivory Coast,
Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, the Philippines, Indonesia and elsewhere - while in Haiti last
week protesters blocked roads, shot at UN peacekeeping troops and then tried to
storm the Presidential Palace. Several factors have combined to create the present
shortages. Hoarding by suppliers to further push up prices is a factor. There are the
consequences of global warming; abnormal weather conditions have led to severe
crop damage and drought, while increased planting of bio-fuel crops has taken land out
of food production. In the rapidly developing ecomomies of Asia greater consumer
spending power has changed diets, particularly among the emerging affluent middle
classes; a growing demand for more meat means cattle and poultry feed crops take over
agricultural lands, feeding far fewer mouths from the same acreage. As the economies
industrialise, migration to the cities causes a labour shortage in the countryside; rice is a
labour-intensive crop. Industrialisation also eats up farmland and government policies try
to push small farmers off the land into urban wage labour and proletarianisation.
AT: Winter Wheat – N/U – Supply Low Now
Political problems, increased demand will reduce wheat supply, stocks at a 30-year low
Deltafarmpress.com 8 (June 11, http://deltafarmpress.com/wheat/wheat-outlook-0611/)

Production is expected lower in Argentina, because of reduced plantings due to
political problems.
Marcus noted that $7.70 prices (as of mid-May) “seemed a little high,” given forecasts for
higher world production.
When asked about the widening basis for the soft red winter wheat produced in the
Mid-South, Marcus noted, “I think the wide basis is the residual from the fear of
‘what if.’ The last 18 months have really put some concern in people’s minds about
how to look at this cash versus futures issue.
“Having a wide basis is a sort of protection for both sides in case the market does decide to
get irrational again.”
World wheat consumption is forecast at a record 642 million metric tons, up 4 percent
over the previous year.
According to U.S. Wheat Associates, high corn prices may shift wheat to feed use in the
United States and Europe.
Wheat currently is used as biofuel feedstock in Europe and Canada.
Wheat trade is expected to increase 7 percent to a new record of 118 million metric tons.
Imports are projected higher than last year for Iran, Syria and Israel. Imports for India are expected to fall near zero after imports totaled
8 million metric tons over the last two years. EU-27 purchases are expected to decline due to higher production.
Current world wheat stocks are estimated at a 30-year low and exportable supplies
are estimated at 38 percent below the 10-year average. But prospects for increased global production in
2008-09 are expected to increase export competition.
Non-Unique: Wheat stock is at a 30-year low and faces threats from a fungus.
Drinkard June 1 (2008, Jim, Associated Press,

http://lubbockonline.com/stories/060108/bus_285046301.shtml)
Jin and other plant scientists have watched in alarm as mutant spores carried by the
wind have spread a new strain of fungus from Africa across the Red Sea to infect
wheat fields in Yemen and Iran, following a path predicted to lead to the rich wheat-
growing areas of South Asia.
Most of the wheat varieties grown worldwide - including the vast bulk of those
planted in the United States - are vulnerable.
The threat of an epidemic only adds to a global food crisis brought on by drought, floods, high food and fuel prices and a surge in
demand. But despite the emergency, Associated Press interviews and a review of budget and research documents show that spending for
Jin's laboratory and others where breeders develop disease-resistant wheat plants are being reduced this year, their money diverted to
other programs and earmarked for special causes of members of Congress.
"Earmarking has been going up, and our discretionary funds have been going down," said Henrietta Fore, the administrator of the U.S.
Agency for International Development, which has long provided much of the money for international agriculture research labs.
Most policymakers weren't around the last time wheat stem rust disease attacked the U.S. crop. It was in the early 1950s, and nearly half
the crop was lost in parts of the upper Midwest as wheat plants developed brown patches that choked off their water and nutrients. Plant
scientists responded by developing new wheat varieties with genes that made them immune to the fungus.
That worked for more than four decades, but now the new strain of the disease has
surfaced. It's known as Ug99, named for where (Uganda) and when (1999) it was
discovered. There's an even more frightening development: The disease is evolving
and infecting even wheat strains that had been thought to be resistant.
It's much like what is happening in hospitals, where doctors are running out of options to treat infections caused by antibiotic-resistant
bacteria. The wheat threat comes with world stockpiles already at a 30-year low.
AT: Winter Wheat – N/U – Supply Low Now
Winter wheat down
ReliefWeb 8 (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/MMAH-7EL8DU?OpenDocument)
They said politically inspired farm invasions and violence, coupled with a chronic
shortage of seed and Fertilizer, could turn the 2008 wheat farming season into a
disaster.
'The winter wheat cropping season will be a disaster because of the disturbances at
the farms coupled with the shortage of farm inputs, such as seeds and fertilizer,' said
Marc Crawford, who is president of the Southern Africa Commercial Framers Alliance
(SAFCA).
Prices Up

However, wheat prices still remain very high as global wheat stocks remain low.
Unfavorable weather conditions could trigger further price increases. High prices have
already stimulated an increase in wheat sowing. Global wheat stocks remain low
however and any recurrence of the unfavourable weather which devastated crops in
several key regions last year could see prices shooting back up again. Soaring wheat
prices have sparked increases in the price of staples such as bread, helping spark riots
in several developing countries whose populations were already struggling to cope
with living cost increases linked to record high energy markets. High prices have also,
however, sparked a response from farmers with an increase in plantings.
AT: Winter Wheat – CO2 Decreases Production
CO2 decreases winter wheat crop yield
Allen Jr. et al 96 [L. Hartwell, US Department of Agriculture, Jeff T. Baker, Ken J. Boote, Agronomy Department at University of
Florida, “Overview of CO2 effects on plant growth processes: Specific responses of crops to elevated CO2”,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/w5183e/w5183e06.htm]
The CO2 fertilization effect begins with enhanced photosynthetic CO2 fixation. Non-
structural carbohydrates tend to accumulate in leaves and other plant organs as starch,
soluble carbohydrates or polyfructosans, depending on species. In some cases, there may
be feedback inhibition of photosynthesis associated with accumulation of non-
structural carbohydrates. Increased carbohydrate accumulation, especially in leaves,
may be evidence that crop plants grown under CO2 enrichment may not be fully
adapted to take complete advantage of elevated CO2. This may be because the CO2-
enriched plants do not have an adequate sink (inadequate growth capacity), or lack
capacity to load phloem and translocate soluble carbohydrates. Improvement of
photoassimilate utilization should be one goal of designing cultivars for the future (Hall
and Allen, 1993). In the process of growth, photoassimilates are allocated to the vegetative
shoots, root system or reproductive organs. In some cases, more photoassimilate of CO2-
enriched plants is partitioned to the root system than to the shoots. Above ground, more
photoassimilate usually goes into stems and supporting structures than into leaves. This
phenomenon may not be an inherent response to elevated CO2, but may be a by-product of
the larger size of plants often found in CO2-enriched atmospheres, especially by species
that produce branch stems along the aerial mainstems (Allen et al., 1991). Reproductive
biomass growth as well as vegetative biomass growth are usually increased by elevated
CO2. However, the harvest index, or the ratio of seed yield to above-ground biomass
yield, is typically lower under elevated CO2 conditions (Allen, 1991; Baker et al.,
1989), which may also be evidence of the lack of capacity to utilize completely the more
abundant photoassimilate. In many cases, both the amount and the carboxylation activity
of ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase-oxygenase enzyme (rubisco) is decreased in
leaves of plants grown under elevated CO2 This acclimation phenomenon may produce
'downregulation of photosynthesis'; however, this is not universally the case.
AT: Winter Wheat – CO2 Bad - Drought
Warming is hurting wheat in the SQ bc of drought-like temperatures – Outweighs the link

William Easterling, professor of agronomy and director of the Institutes of the
Environment at Penn State University said: "Climate variability continues to exert large
year-to-year swings in U. S. crop yields and production in spite of technology-driven
gains in crop productivity over the 20th century. Recent persistent drought conditions
in the western Corn Belt states have particularly affected wheat production. While
experiments persuasively demonstrate the positive effects of rising atmospheric CO2
concentrations on photosynthesis of major crops such as soybeans and wheat and on
the drought-tolerance of all crops, these effects are not likely to fully offset the
potential stresses of warmer temperatures and drier soils, especially as the warming
progresses. Crop modeling results...paint a consistent picture of crop yields being
lower than today even in an environment with higher rainfall than now."
More evidence…

Agriculture of any kind is strongly influenced by the availability of water. Climate change
will modify rainfall, evaporation, runoff, and soil moisture storage. Changes in total
seasonal precipitation or in its pattern of variability are both important. The occurrence of
moisture stress during flowering, pollination, and grain-filling is harmful to most crops and
particularly so to corn, soybeans, and wheat. Increased evaporation from the soil and
accelerated transpiration in the plants themselves will cause moisture stress; as a result
there will be a need to develop crop varieties with greater drought tolerance.
AT: Winter Wheat – CO2 Bad - Asia
Warming kills Asian winter wheat
APEC 97 (Asia Pacific Econ Comm, http://www.epcc.pref.osaka.jp/apec/eng/earth/global_warming/dounaru.html)

Global warming will seriously affect agriculture as well. Some species of agricultural
crops will be adversely affected by higher temperatures, increased weeds and harmful
insects. It is also possible that global warming will lead to global food shortages. An
investigation conducted by Nagoya University and the National Institute for
Environmental Studies predicts that rice production will increase slightly in some
countries, but that a substantial drop in output of wheat and corn is likely in major
production sites such as China and India. It is estimated, for example, that the
production of winter wheat will decrease by 55% in India and 15% in China by the
year 2100. This will in turn have serious impact on Japan, which depends heavily on
other countries for its food supply.
AT: Winter Wheat – CO2 Bad - Weeds
Weeds are a special threat to winter wheat
Manitoba Dept of Ag 8 (1-1, http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/cereals/bfg01s01.html)

Since fall tillage is not an option, fields infested with perennial grass weeds, such as
quackgrass, should be avoided. Control of winter annual weeds, such as stinkweed,
shepherd’s purse, flixweed and narrow-leaved hawk’s beard, is particularly important in
winter wheat. Best control of winter annual weeds with herbicides is achieved in the fall
after the weeds have germinated and right before freeze-up. They may also be treated the
following spring, but must be sprayed before the weeds bolt, which occurs in late April or
early May.
AT: Winter Wheat - Pakistan has extra crops
Pakistan is giving out wheat to Afghanistan. There is no shortage.
Asia World News June 23 (2008, http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/214214,afghanistan-
to-get-pakistani-wheat-despite-karzai-threats.html)
Pakistan is planning to export 50,000 tons of wheat to neighbouring Afghanistan
despite recent saber-rattling threats by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, media reports
said on Monday. The exports will be made from the stocks of state-owned Pakistan
Agriculture Storage and Supplies Corporation (PASSCO) at subsidized rates, English-
language daily Business Recorder said.
Last weekend Karzai threatened to invade Pakistan in pursuit of insurgent Talibans,
triggering new tensions between the two countries and causing a 7 per cent decline in the
country's main Karachi bourse.
But this did not impede Pakistan's willingness to supply wheat or flour at subsidized
rates to cash-strapped and food-hungry Afghanistan. Fifty thousand tons of the staple
will be sent in addition to the regular 600,000 tons annual export to the war-torn
country.

CO2 Ag - Scholars

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CO2 Ag - Scholars

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1

Scholars CO2 Fertilization

Climate & Environment Weekly 6 (Jan 12, http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060112/20060112_02.html)

Climate & Environment Weekly 6 (Jan 12, http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060112/20060112_02.html)

CO2 decreases transpiration and increases photosynthesis

CO2 increases photosynthesis

High CO2 concentrations increases water use efficiency

Increased CO2 causes efficient water use in plants

C02 reduces stomata conductance

Fungus Performs Critical Plant Functions- Helps Plants Resist Droughts

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education 96

C02 is good for mycorrhizal fungi

Plants are helped by both high temperatures and high C02.

CO2 leads to root growth in CAM plants

CO2 Science 99 (“Response of an Orchid to Super Elevated CO2”, co2science.org,

Ruttan & Easterling 95 (Vernon & William, U.Minn, U.Neb, Summer,

This solves their weeds turns

Wittwer 92 (Sylvan, MSU, Policy Review, http://www.purgit.com/co2ok.html)

New York Times 8 (June 29, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29weeds-t.html?pagewanted=7)

B. CO2 boosts corn production

C. Food price increases kill 800 million

Burns 96 (Business Week, Greg, 6-14)

Reuters June 30 [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7620295]

Corn Production High

ScienceDaily 3 (July 29, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030728080920.htm)

CO2 increases corn yield by 2030

CO2 increases corn water use efficiency.

Science Daily 3 [July 29, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030728080920.htm]

ScienceDaily 3 (July 29, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030728080920.htm)

Western Farm Press 8 (June 25, http://westernfarmpress.com/rice/rice-supply-0625/)

B. High CO2 levels are key to high rice yields.

Curtis 2(Pete, Ohio State Research news, 10-2-02, http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/co2plant.htm)

C. Enough rice stops 3 billion deaths.

Widespread rice growth

FAO Newsroom 8 (May, “Strong signs of record rice production,”

CO2 Science 0 (“Subambient CO2 Increases Rubisco Content in Plants”, co2science.org,

The Guardian Online 8 (April 6,

Asia Times 8 (April 22, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JD22Dj01.html)

Perkins June 10 (2008, John, http://www.brownfieldnetwork.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=736C8215-BD6C-4E88-

B. Link: The plan’s reduction of carbon eliminates an increase in winter wheat.

Launois 8 (Anne, Food Production Daily, Staff, http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?id=84950-wheat-prices-harvest)

D. Increasing food prices kills billions.

Earth Policy Institute 4 (“Outgrowing the earth”, book, http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/Out/index.htm)

US Wheat Associates 6-12 (http://www.uswheat.org/wheatLetter/doc/B87AF01465FB788E8525746600713272?OpenDocument)

The Dawn Media Group 5-26 (http://www.dawn.com/2008/05/26/ebr12.htm)

Wheat prices are down

Launois 8 (Anne, Food Production Daily, Staff, http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?id=84950-wheat-prices-harvest)

Foodnavigator-use.com 8 (April 28, http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=84950-wheat-prices-harvest)

Wheat crop will increase in ’09 to a world record

Deltafarmpress.com 8 (June 11, http://deltafarmpress.com/wheat/wheat-outlook-0611/)

Lewis June 18 (2008, Daniel, Regional Reporter, http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/record-

Bloomberg 5-27 (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=as1iADXtX6eY&refer=home)

Only wheat checks food prices

The Dawn Media Group 5-26 (http://www.dawn.com/2008/05/26/ebr12.htm)

Wheat is critical to world food availability

The Dawn Media Group 5-26 (http://www.dawn.com/2008/05/26/ebr12.htm)

Winter wheat is critical to all wheat

NYT 89 (1-23, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEED6113DF930A15752C0A96F948260)

Easterling 3 (Penn St, Congressional Testimony, http://www.climateadaptation.net/docs/papers/Easterling%20paper.pdf)

Global warming severely hurts crops

Australian Associated Press 6 (4-27, http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=97558)

Harvard Medical School 3 (http://www.resultsforamerica.org/media/press_030929.php)

More evidence on pests

Harvard Medical School 3 (http://www.resultsforamerica.org/media/press_030929.php)