Yes, pumping CO2 into greenhouses, to encourage faster plant growth, is a well known practice.
It's good to see this done efficiently, instead of by burning more fuel for the job.
However, this is what people should be wondering. If plant growth in greenhouses can use more CO2 than what is available in the ambient atmosphere, then why are we being told that the additional 3.1 percent of CO2 created by humans is too much for the environment to absorb? Why doesn't it instead encourage more plant growth, and compensate?
That link I listed above does show that there is a point at which additional CO2 no longer helps, in greehouses. However, we seem not to be close to that yet?
Or is it that the prevalent global vegetation is quite different from the mix of plants in your typical greehouse? Or is it that deforestation is too severe for the additional plants to grow at all?
Anyway, the good news is that the way you reduce CO2 emissions is simply to increase the efficiency of fuel-burning machines. So that's a good goal, no matter whether it does anything to global warming at all.
If that is true, it is probably mostly indirectly so: according to an article I read this morning, China is bring a new coal-fired power plant on-line every week. They are already the largest C02 emitter in the world and output is expected to increase 70% by 2020.
I'm pretty sure that number is the total output of CO2, because it compares with those numbers in the past. But in terms of "countering CO2 emissions," are you talking about planting more tress? Or sequestration of CO2?
I don't think the latter is being done, other than in words at meetings and symposiums.
In short, man-made CO2 is creeping up to over 3 percent of the total CO2 emissions into the ecosystem now. Would be nice to see more reforestation efforts, worldwide.
These findings are entirely to be expected.
In developed countries, the population of cars, air conditioned homes, and power plants, is more or less stable. So what you see is a reduction of CO2, resulting from all the fuel economy improvement initiatives.
In developing countries, not only can they often not afford the latest in fuel efficient technologies, but their populations are far from any point of equilibirum, in terms of cars or other energy-sucking amentities owned by the public.
Add to this that the population of just two countries, China and India, both so far very short on cars and other luxuries, account for 1 of every 3 people on the planet, and indeed the outlook is scary.
The per capital emission is an indication of how the economy goes. You entered the developed world when g.e. 6 tons/capital, otherwise, still developing.
The exception could be France, where more than 70% of electricity if from nuclear.
Recently I heard and then read a story about how Tokyo Gas Company along with Chiba University in Japan is using CO2 generated from the production of hydrogen for greenhouse cultivation of tomatoes. CO2 is a byproduct in the production of hydrogen, used for fuel cell vehicles, buses running from nearby Haneda Airport to main areas of Tokyo. Earlier Tokyo Gas was releasing the CO2 into the environment. But now Tokyo Gas ships about 320 kilograms of the liquid CO2 every month to Chiba University's botanical plant in Kashiwa for cultivating tomatoes in greenhouses. With higher concentration levels of CO2, tomato harvests have increased. The tomatoes thus produced are getting popular in the local malls.
This report is confusing to me. Is this estimate of the total CO2 emission (industrial or otherwise) or the surplus CO2 emission to the environment? The total CO2 emission represents the industrial activity but the surplus CO2 to the environment can tell about what the countries are doing to counter CO2 emission.