New US fuel economy rules could dramatically increase EV adoption and mortally wound ICE pickup trucks

[Redaktion]

The new US fuel economy rules proposed by the Biden administration would likely see EVs occupy 66% market share — an almost tenfold increase — by 2032, if passed. What's more, the new rules impose stricter regulations on pickup truck fuel economy, which have thus far been given more lenient rules under CAFE requirements thanks to "light truck" classifications.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/New-US-fuel-economy-rules-could-dramatically-increase-EV-adoption-and-mortally-wound-ICE-pickup-trucks.737077.0.html

[Mr Majestyk]

Too little too late. Te rules for pickups should have been introduced 20 years ago. Repugnant vehicles and now the rest of the world is seeing an upsurge in sales of these US gas guzzling behemoths

[julian.vdm]

Too little too late. Te rules for pickups should have been introduced 20 years ago. Repugnant vehicles and now the rest of the world is seeing an upsurge in sales of these US gas guzzling behemoths

Unfortunately, much of the US sees bigger vehicles as safer, despite the reality of it being a little more complex. It also doesn't help matters that you feel very unsafe in a small car when you're surrounded by giant SUVs and pickups.

[Anti-propaganda man]

A punishing trifecta for the American people. This is indistinguishable from Soviet policy. Why do government hate the people they represent? Force manufacturers to increase costs and truck weight, then ban heavy trucks, forcing people into small cars. Get a Yugo or a Lada for our greater Soviet cause?

Now... in the future we have massive environmental problems from the huge amount of minerals and metals required for batteries and "renewable" electrical generation. All the while, the idea that CO2 is warming the world is still an unproven hypothesis, the idea that that warming is bad is unproven, there is no increase in extreme weather, and crop production is increasing, mainly due to CO2 fertilisation. Ideal CO2 for plants is 1500ppm. Best way to help the planet is to keep your old gas-guzzling car. No mining or production needed, and you put plant food out the exhaust.

[JoeBlack]

IMHO, every change that reduces or regulates unnecessary usage of SUVs / trucks is never a bad thing. It is a bit too late, a bit too little, but every small change might at least help by a small portion or slow the process.
If every new truck or SUV be at least a hybrid, it would certainly do something as well.

[antipropaganda]

A punishing trifecta for the American people. This is indistinguishable from Soviet policy. Why do government hate the people they represent? Force manufacturers to increase costs and truck weight, then ban heavy trucks, forcing people into small cars. Get a Yugo or a Lada for our greater Soviet cause?

Now... in the future we have massive environmental problems from the huge amount of minerals and metals required for batteries and "renewable" electrical generation. All the while, the idea that CO2 is warming the world is still an unproven hypothesis, the idea that that warming is bad is unproven, there is no increase in extreme weather, and crop production is increasing, mainly due to CO2 fertilisation. Ideal CO2 for plants is 1500ppm. Best way to help the planet is to keep your old gas-guzzling car. No mining or production needed, and you put plant food out the exhaust.

So nice the Exxon CEO or antiscience or delusional Qanon angertainment fascist spews his carbon-industrial-complex propaganda.

[A]

A punishing trifecta for the American people. This is indistinguishable from Soviet policy. Why do government hate the people they represent? Force manufacturers to increase costs and truck weight, then ban heavy trucks, forcing people into small cars. Get a Yugo or a Lada for our greater Soviet cause?

Now... in the future we have massive environmental problems from the huge amount of minerals and metals required for batteries and "renewable" electrical generation. All the while, the idea that CO2 is warming the world is still an unproven hypothesis, the idea that that warming is bad is unproven, there is no increase in extreme weather, and crop production is increasing, mainly due to CO2 fertilisation. Ideal CO2 for plants is 1500ppm. Best way to help the planet is to keep your old gas-guzzling car. No mining or production needed, and you put plant food out the exhaust.

For someone calling themselves anti-propoganda you sure speak nothing but propoganda.

1) Nobody is banning anything, all it does is set emissions standards. How manufacturers go about it is up to them. Why do you think those people driving ICE cars should be privileged with the right to harm others?

2) Switch to EVs and renewables would actually reduce the amount of mining. And that is not factoring recycling, add in the fact that its all recycled and its a no brainer

3) CO2 and other GHG warming the world is pretty well known, you can do the test yourself as a science project. Fill up a closed area with same composition as our atmosphere and measure the temperature. GHG are insulators that trap more of the sun's energy on earth. You think that has no consequences? Currently our oceans are acting as a heatsink, but even that has a tipping point

4) Ideal amount varies by plant, but its funny and naive how you think things have no consequences. More CO2 does make plants grow more, but there is 1 problem. And that is all that CO2 just turns into more carbs but it doesn't have the nutritional balance. It's not a big issue for processed food as they can just add more artificial nutrients but what about wildlife? What would happen if they take in more carbs but less nutrients? Yeah, ecosystem collapse

[Anti-propaganda man]

So nice the Exxon CEO or antiscience or delusional Qanon angertainment fascist spews his carbon-industrial-complex propaganda.

Let's count. That's seven absurd slanderous attacks and no replies to any content. It seems you're the angry lunatic buddy.

[Anti-propaganda man]

For someone calling themselves anti-propoganda you sure speak nothing but propoganda.

1) Nobody is banning anything, all it does is set emissions standards. How manufacturers go about it is up to them. Why do you think those people driving ICE cars should be privileged with the right to harm others?

2) Switch to EVs and renewables would actually reduce the amount of mining. And that is not factoring recycling, add in the fact that its all recycled and its a no brainer

3) CO2 and other GHG warming the world is pretty well known, you can do the test yourself as a science project. Fill up a closed area with same composition as our atmosphere and measure the temperature. GHG are insulators that trap more of the sun's energy on earth. You think that has no consequences? Currently our oceans are acting as a heatsink, but even that has a tipping point

4) Ideal amount varies by plant, but its funny and naive how you think things have no consequences. More CO2 does make plants grow more, but there is 1 problem. And that is all that CO2 just turns into more carbs but it doesn't have the nutritional balance. It's not a big issue for processed food as they can just add more artificial nutrients but what about wildlife? What would happen if they take in more carbs but less nutrients? Yeah, ecosystem collapse

1. It's a de-facto ban. There is no environmental harm from CO2 emissions. If anything it's beneficial. There are other pollutants from vehicle exhaust which are harmful to human health in a busy city centre environment. These can be addressed through improvements in exhaust scrubbing, or by limiting older cars entering city centres.

2. Not true. See here: https://manhattan.institute/article/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-a-reality-check - wind turbine blades and solar panels are not recyclable. Battery and renewable production requires up to 10x the amount of mining.

3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas but the effect of increasing it is very small and not capable of doing the heavy lifting required to raise temperature. Doubling CO2 only increases its warming effect by 1%, as most warming is done within the first 50ppm concentration. This is never mentioned by media or government. Futhermore, most warming from CO2 occurs at night, when it's colder, so this is beneficial for nature. See here: https://clintel.org/carbon-dioxide-has-reached-a-point-of-diminishing-returns/

4. Yes, there is a slightly lower nutrient count but this is offset by the huge increase in production. This is really at the point of wanting to find something bad in every situation. It's a mindset that has been pushed on people by anti-scientific environmental propaganda: "Everything humans do is bad". The biosphere is more productive under high CO2 levels, as evidenced by the geological record. Rainforest soil is low in nutrients but is the most productive ecosystem due to very high vegetation growth.

[Wes]

IMHO, every change that reduces or regulates unnecessary usage of SUVs / trucks is never a bad thing. It is a bit too late, a bit too little, but every small change might at least help by a small portion or slow the process.
If every new truck or SUV be at least a hybrid, it would certainly do something as well.

Who defines what is unnecessary? I get you city boys don't need trucks. But a lot of the US is rural, farmland or forest. We do need trucks out here. Every week I'm hauling firewood, building materials or some other items that a little ev would not be able to carry in it's wildest dreams.

This kinda policy just punishes rural America, which is were your food comes from. So enjoy the massive increase in food prices, since it will be you guys paying the bill, not us.

[JoeBlack]

IMHO, every change that reduces or regulates unnecessary usage of SUVs / trucks is never a bad thing. It is a bit too late, a bit too little, but every small change might at least help by a small portion or slow the process.
If every new truck or SUV be at least a hybrid, it would certainly do something as well.

Who defines what is unnecessary? I get you city boys don't need trucks. But a lot of the US is rural, farmland or forest. We do need trucks out here. Every week I'm hauling firewood, building materials or some other items that a little ev would not be able to carry in it's wildest dreams.

This kinda policy just punishes rural America, which is were your food comes from. So enjoy the massive increase in food prices, since it will be you guys paying the bill, not us.

A regulation or a law usually defines such situations - I am well aware that farming, working in the woods and many others job require a big vehicle, everyone is aware of that.
You might not like it, but every step to sustainability is pretty much necessary. You might not agree with that, but hopefully a lot of others will adjust their lifestyle if it is required by regulation or simply because they feel like it.

[A]

1. It's a de-facto ban. There is no environmental harm from CO2 emissions. If anything it's beneficial. There are other pollutants from vehicle exhaust which are harmful to human health in a busy city centre environment. These can be addressed through improvements in exhaust scrubbing, or by limiting older cars entering city centres.

It isn't a defecto ban, the requirement is set to 43.5mpg by 2032. Even the cheapest ICE car the Mirage gets 39mpg with today's tech. Then there is always the option of adding a small battery and making it a hybrid like a Prius which gets 56mpg. Aka, you can reach that regulation without a single EV.

But do note that the requirement is fleet average. What that means is if you sell enough higher mpg cars, you can still have even a 10mpg car.

2. Not true. See here:  - wind turbine blades and solar panels are not recyclable. Battery and renewable production requires up to 10x the amount of mining.

Manhattan institute is a lobby group... weren't you anti-propaganda?

Wind turbine blades and solar panels are recyclable just fine.
Search for: "GE Renewable Energy Announces US Blade Recycling"

The confusion lies in the fact that at this time wind turbine blades aren't recycled into other wind turbine blades. Full loop is what is needed to achieve true sustainability, but that shouldn't be confused with "not recyclable" as they are recyclable into construction material just fine

Solar panels are also recyclable, they are mostly made of glass and aluminum,
Search for: "Solar Panel Recycling | US EPA"

The issue with solar panel recycling is it costs around $15-25 to recycle compare to $5 to dump them. And as modern crystalline solar panels sold in US pose little environmental risk, they are often times dumped. But that shouldn't be confused with impossible to recycle, that is a lie

It also does not take 10x more mining, your propaganda article claims 500k lb per battery of mining, but if you look at their details:
"Cobalt ore grades average about 0.1%, thus nearly 30,000 pounds of ore.(e)
Nickel ore grades average about 1%, thus about 6,000 pounds of ore.(f)
Graphite ore is typically 10%, thus about 1,000 pounds per battery.(g)
Copper at about 0.6% in the ore, thus about 25,000 pounds of ore per battery.(h)
"

It claims 30k for cobalt, 6k for nickel and 25k from copper and it just adds them all up. But what they don't tell you is cobalt, nickel and copper come from the same mines! That means if you mine 30k for cobalt, you will already get all the copper and nickel with it. Adding it up is simply deceptive.

Then they go into silly thing like claiming 1k for graphite ore. Graphite or if you don't know is fancy word for high purity coal. But nobody uses natural graphite in batteries as it isn't pure enough. It is made synthetically. The fact that they don't know this is already shows how shabby their research is, or they don't care and intentionally make it deceptive

They also don't mention at all how much mining goes into making a gasoline car, as those require a lot of elements much rarer than anything that goes into an EV, like platinum.

3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas but the effect of increasing it is very small and not capable of doing the heavy lifting required to raise temperature. Doubling CO2 only increases its warming effect by 1%, as most warming is done within the first 50ppm concentration. This is never mentioned by media or government. Futhermore, most warming from CO2 occurs at night, when it's colder, so this is beneficial for nature. See here

Clintel, another propaganda lobby group, you sure love those.

First of all, again as an insulator CO2, traps energy. And that heating effect stacks over time. This is why we aren't even seeing the full impact of climate change yet, we will only see it once we reach peak emissions and after a few decades pass

Second of all, the 50ppm is nonsense. Again, this is something anyone can test themselves via a simple science project. Currently, the earth's oceans are acting as a heatsink which is limiting the impact, but if you've ever worked with anything that overheats, once it reaches a tipping point things go down fast

4. Yes, there is a slightly lower nutrient count but this is offset by the huge increase in production. This is really at the point of wanting to find something bad in every situation. It's a mindset that has been pushed on people by anti-scientific environmental propaganda: "Everything humans do is bad". The biosphere is more productive under high CO2 levels, as evidenced by the geological record. Rainforest soil is low in nutrients but is the most productive ecosystem due to very high vegetation growth.

What do you mean "slightly"? This isn't magic, if your nutritional count is 1X and your carbs are 1Y, if you double your carbs, your nutrition count stays the same. You can't get nutrition out of nowhere. The soil doesn't magically become more nutritious. You can offset that with supplements as I pointed out but what about wildlife? Wildlife will have one of 2 options, either end up malnutrition due to lack of nutrients in their regular diet. Or eat more vegetation leading to obesity.

The problem isn't in the end goal of "more productive" but everything it takes to get to that end goal. The rate of change is the problem, any time in our history where rate of change was too fast, it has led to mass extinctions. Because it doesn't matter what the ideal is, what matters is whether or not whats living there now is capable of surviving the sudden switch.

Your logic of "it's ideal at the other side" is like telling someone to walk through a large high speed fan pointing to the other side and saying look see there are people just fine on the other side of the fan, so walking through that grinder should be perfectly fine right?

Any rapid change is bad, human caused or not

[A]

Just more hot air media propaganda lies! Battery powered vehicles are simply gimmicks and they will never replace gasoline powered vehicles!  Battery powered vehicles are simply junk ! Overpriced n overrated!   Stop trying to sell us on the fear n control that climate change is going to kill us all in 5 years!  One big Globalist government hoax!  Climate change is natural n not man made!  Wake up before its too late you WoKe Libtard idiots!

Horseless carriages are simply a gimmick and will never replace the horse /s

Even if we ignore climate change, EVs are superior in pretty much almost every single way as cars. It doesn't mean they don't have downsides like all tech, but little by little even those are getting less of a problem.

That said, again, nothing in the new rules mandates EVs.

[Anti-propaganda man]

It isn't a defecto ban, the requirement is set to 43.5mpg by 2032. Even the cheapest ICE car the Mirage gets 39mpg with today's tech. Then there is always the option of adding a small battery and making it a hybrid like a Prius which gets 56mpg. Aka, you can reach that regulation without a single EV.

But do note that the requirement is fleet average. What that means is if you sell enough higher mpg cars, you can still have even a 10mpg car.

Nit-picking. There's a plan to phase out (ban) the sale of internal combustion engines in light vehicles in the future. This is just a step to smooth the transition. As part of that, it's an unnecessary mandated imposition of cost on to the consumer.

Manhattan institute is a lobby group... weren't you anti-propaganda?

Wind turbine blades and solar panels are recyclable just fine.
Search for: "GE Renewable Energy Announces US Blade Recycling"

The confusion lies in the fact that at this time wind turbine blades aren't recycled into other wind turbine blades. Full loop is what is needed to achieve true sustainability, but that shouldn't be confused with "not recyclable" as they are recyclable into construction material just fine

Solar panels are also recyclable, they are mostly made of glass and aluminum,
Search for: "Solar Panel Recycling | US EPA"

The issue with solar panel recycling is it costs around $15-25 to recycle compare to $5 to dump them. And as modern crystalline solar panels sold in US pose little environmental risk, they are often times dumped. But that shouldn't be confused with impossible to recycle, that is a lie

It also does not take 10x more mining, your propaganda article claims 500k lb per battery of mining, but if you look at their details:
"Cobalt ore grades average about 0.1%, thus nearly 30,000 pounds of ore.(e)
Nickel ore grades average about 1%, thus about 6,000 pounds of ore.(f)
Graphite ore is typically 10%, thus about 1,000 pounds per battery.(g)
Copper at about 0.6% in the ore, thus about 25,000 pounds of ore per battery.(h)
"

It claims 30k for cobalt, 6k for nickel and 25k from copper and it just adds them all up. But what they don't tell you is cobalt, nickel and copper come from the same mines! That means if you mine 30k for cobalt, you will already get all the copper and nickel with it. Adding it up is simply deceptive.

Then they go into silly thing like claiming 1k for graphite ore. Graphite or if you don't know is fancy word for high purity coal. But nobody uses natural graphite in batteries as it isn't pure enough. It is made synthetically. The fact that they don't know this is already shows how shabby their research is, or they don't care and intentionally make it deceptive

They also don't mention at all how much mining goes into making a gasoline car, as those require a lot of elements much rarer than anything that goes into an EV, like platinum.

From an International Energy Agency report (2022) - "A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant." - https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/executive-summary

Have you ever dismissed an "environmental" lobby group for simply being a lobby group? Thought not. Cars in general are obviously resource intensive to produce. The best thing you can do for the environment is keep your old one running, not endlessly market, turn over, and sell unnecessary "new and better".

Solar panels contain toxic substances. Yes, technically recyclable but not actually recycled. Nit-picking. All current wind turbine blades go to landfill, lasting only 15 years! It's very wasteful. Maybe they could be recycled in the future. This is buried in small print and the average person doesn't know any of this because of the one-sided propaganda. They're not "sustainable", and like electric cars. also very expensive. Generation capacity will have to increase drastically to service electric vehicles, again pushing up costs.

Clintel, another propaganda lobby group, you sure love those.

First of all, again as an insulator CO2, traps energy. And that heating effect stacks over time. This is why we aren't even seeing the full impact of climate change yet, we will only see it once we reach peak emissions and after a few decades pass

Second of all, the 50ppm is nonsense. Again, this is something anyone can test themselves via a simple science project. Currently, the earth's oceans are acting as a heatsink which is limiting the impact, but if you've ever worked with anything that overheats, once it reaches a tipping point things go down fast

CO2 warms less and less in a logarithmic fashion as concentrations increase, as you can see from the graphs in that summary (and many others). It's not nonsense, it's basic radiation science. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is already saturated and it's hard to add any significant warming. I know this may sound shocking, but it only does so because it hasn't been mentioned in 30 years of propaganda. The IPCC models are based on shaky assumptions of feedback effects, not CO2 itself. After 30 years their temp range for doubling CO2 is still a wide 1.8C-5.7C, with other scientists outside the organisation saying it may be 0.8C. if that's the case it means most of the warming in the past 50 years has been due to other causes.

What do you mean "slightly"? This isn't magic, if your nutritional count is 1X and your carbs are 1Y, if you double your carbs, your nutrition count stays the same. You can't get nutrition out of nowhere. The soil doesn't magically become more nutritious. You can offset that with supplements as I pointed out but what about wildlife? Wildlife will have one of 2 options, either end up malnutrition due to lack of nutrients in their regular diet. Or eat more vegetation leading to obesity.

The problem isn't in the end goal of "more productive" but everything it takes to get to that end goal. The rate of change is the problem, any time in our history where rate of change was too fast, it has led to mass extinctions. Because it doesn't matter what the ideal is, what matters is whether or not whats living there now is capable of surviving the sudden switch.

Your logic of "it's ideal at the other side" is like telling someone to walk through a large high speed fan pointing to the other side and saying look see there are people just fine on the other side of the fan, so walking through that grinder should be perfectly fine right?

Any rapid change is bad, human caused or not

Slightly means less than 10% decrease in nutrition, whereas the increase in productivity is an average of 50% for food crops as a whole - https://co2coalition.org/facts/more-co2-means-more-plant-growth/

The rate of increase in photosynthesis and primary productivity across the whole biosphere is really striking. It should be reported by media every day. The increase in temperature also helps crop growth and biosphere productivity to a lesser extent - https://theconversation.com/yes-more-carbon-dioxide-in-the-atmosphere-helps-plants-grow-but-its-no-excuse-to-downplay-climate-change-130603

As I mentioned the rainforests prove that nutritional value is not a limiting factor for vegetation or animal life. The majority of Earth's history had much higher CO2 levels, dinosaurs existed in an atmosphere of 4000ppm CO2. They obviously got their nutrition! Remember plants grow in cracks in concrete. They will grow anywhere. You do NOT need more water and sunlight for more growth when CO2 levels are higher. CO2 is the limiting factor.

Changes in the CO2 level, no matter the rate of change, have never led to mass extinctions. Drastic temperature changes have, but there's no evidence any in history have been caused by changes in CO2 levels. There is no giant fan or grinder. This whole episode in history looks like it's been a hysteria over nothing.

[A]

Nit-picking. There's a plan to phase out (ban) the sale of internal combustion engines in light vehicles in the future. This is just a step to smooth the transition. As part of that, it's an unnecessary mandated imposition of cost on to the consumer.

There is currently no such plan. It might end up the end result, but there is no such plan for it. And overall EVs are cheaper to fuel, lower maintenance and once mass produced at same scale should be cheaper to build, so it is still a win-win.

From an International Energy Agency report (2022) - "A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant."

Yeah, when you cherry pick your minerals. did you know that gasoline cars use infinite times more minerals than EVs? (since EVs don't use platinum). The link you gave only talks about certain minerals, not all minerals. All that means is some minerals will see increase production, while others will see decrease

Have you ever dismissed an "environmental" lobby group for simply being a lobby group? Thought not. Cars in general are obviously resource intensive to produce. The best thing you can do for the environment is keep your old one running, not endlessly market, turn over, and sell unnecessary "new and better".

I simply pointed out that all your stuff comes from lobby groups, but notice how I still responded to every point? I didn't dismiss anything.

Solar panels contain toxic substances. Yes, technically recyclable but not actually recycled. Nit-picking. All current wind turbine blades go to landfill, lasting only 15 years! It's very wasteful. Maybe they could be recycled in the future. This is buried in small print and the average person doesn't know any of this because of the one-sided propaganda. They're not "sustainable", and like electric cars. also very expensive. Generation capacity will have to increase drastically to service electric vehicles, again pushing up costs.

Toxic substances such as? Do understand, solar panels is a term for multiple different technologies. And the media loves to pretend we all use multi-junction cells that NASA uses which have all the technologies in 1. That isn't realistic. The most common solar panels are Crystalline ones, they don't posses anything that toxic in them. At least not the ones sold in US. Outside US, or grey market ones, some use lead in their soldering, but even then very little. But the ones you get installed on your roof today are lead free.

For recycling, you need scale to make it economic. Prior there simply wasn't enough of them to warrant the cost. But as pointed out, GE is already recycling their blades, all of them are not being sent to landfills. From June 2022 release "Veolia's work to support the ecological transformation of the planet through the "repurposing" of wind turbine blades is bringing environmental and economic benefits to Missouri. Since the program began in 2020, Veolia has processes more than 1,500 blades which have reached the end of their life cycle, making it possible to reuse the blade materials instead of disposing of the blades in landfills"

There is few people who don't know that wind blades were being dumped, its actually the opposite, few know about it being recycled. You sure didn't until I gave it to you.

And they are working on full recyclability so that they can reuse in new wind turbines, Vestas has already found a way without changing the turbines but looking to make it more affordable. While others like GE are looking towards new wind turbine blades which are easier to recycle into new wind turbine blades

Adoption of EVs would actually help reduce the cost of the grid, even more so if they do vehicle to grid.

CO2 warms less and less in a logarithmic fashion as concentrations increase, as you can see from the graphs in that summary (and many others). It's not nonsense, it's basic radiation science. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is already saturated and it's hard to add any significant warming. I know this may sound shocking, but it only does so because it hasn't been mentioned in 30 years of propaganda. The IPCC models are based on shaky assumptions of feedback effects, not CO2 itself. After 30 years their temp range for doubling CO2 is still a wide 1.8C-5.7C, with other scientists outside the organisation saying it may be 0.8C. if that's the case it means most of the warming in the past 50 years has been due to other causes.

Again, you are free to try the experiment yourself. The so called unknowns are the sinks, but you understand that the moment you overflow that sink, there is going to be rapid collapse right? You are just playing Russian roulette

Slightly means less than 10% decrease in nutrition, whereas the increase in productivity is an average of 50% for food crops as a whole -

The rate of increase in photosynthesis and primary productivity across the whole biosphere is really striking. It should be reported by media every day. The increase in temperature also helps crop growth and biosphere productivity to a lesser extent

Nutrition is not brought to plants by magical faeries. Do you know what nutrition is? It is elements that are in the soil. It is impossible for the soil to magically become more nutritious. There is only one of 2 options, either you have faster soil depletion or you get less nutrients, all would be in same proportion to plant growth. You can't make something out of nothing

As I mentioned the rainforests prove that nutritional value is not a limiting factor for vegetation or animal life. The majority of Earth's history had much higher CO2 levels, dinosaurs existed in an atmosphere of 4000ppm CO2. They obviously got their nutrition! Remember plants grow in cracks in concrete. They will grow anywhere. You do NOT need more water and sunlight for more growth when CO2 levels are higher. CO2 is the limiting factor.

Again you keep jumping to end results forgetting about how to get there. Ecosystems evolve over time to facilitate the change, but rapid change meant mass extinctions along the way to that change. Dinosaurs put on lots of carbs to get their nutritional value, hence why they were so big. Cause they had to eat a lot to get the nutrients they needed. But current life isn't made for taking up lots of carbs, rainforests have their own ecosystems with organisms evolved for that ecosystem

Changes in the CO2 level, no matter the rate of change, have never led to mass extinctions. Drastic temperature changes have, but there's no evidence any in history have been caused by changes in CO2 levels. There is no giant fan or grinder. This whole episode in history looks like it's been a hysteria over nothing.

Any rapid change of anything has domino effect. That domino effect leads to changes elsewhere.

The point of the fan I am speaking of is for you to realize you don't just go from A straight to Z. There is B, C, D and etc. You only look at end result ignoring a giant spinning fan grinder simply because Z looks fine to you