Bummer: Planting Trees Won’t Save The World From Burning

This is the second opinion piece that’s been run in the NY Times in the last week over the Trillion Trees Initiative. Why? Because President Trump is in favor of it, so, the Trump hating Warmists have to poo-poo the idea

Planting Trees Won’t Save the World

One trillion trees.

At the World Economic Forum last month, President Trump drew applause when he announced the United States would join the forum’s initiative to plant one trillion trees to fight climate change. More applause for the decision followed at his State of the Union speech.

The trillion-tree idea won wide attention last summer after a study published in the journal Science concluded that planting so many trees was “the most effective climate change solution to date.”

If only it were true. But it isn’t. Planting trees would slow down the planet’s warming, but the only thing that will save us and future generations from paying a huge price in dollars, lives and damage to nature is rapid and substantial reductions in carbon emissions from fossil fuels, to net zero by 2050.

Focusing on trees as the big solution to climate change is a dangerous diversion. Worse still, it takes attention away from those responsible for the carbon emissions that are pushing us toward disaster. For example, in the Netherlands, you can pay Shell an additional 1 euro cent for each liter of regular gasoline you put in your tank, to plant trees to offset the carbon emissions from your driving. That’s clearly no more than disaster fractionally delayed. The only way to stop this planet from overheating is through political, economic, technological and social solutions that end the use of fossil fuels.

Here’s an idea: every Warmist should immediately give up their own use of fossil fuels. Show they rest of us that they can walk the talk, and that it is viable to give up their own use of fossil fuels.

Still, carbon pollution from fossil fuels remains the greatest regulatory challenge ever. Globally, fossil fuels provide about 80 percent of the energy powering the global economy today. Yet ending fossil fuel use could also provide huge economic and employment opportunities. Through new spending on infrastructure and research for energy and transportation, the American economy could be transformed for the better and for the long run. For example, all internal flights between American cities less than 600 miles apart could be replaced by high-speed electric ‘bullet’ trains traveling over 200 miles per hour, providing a quicker, safer and cleaner way to get around and built with American technology, steel and workers. The battle against carbon pollution is also a battle for a better America and a better world.

So, what, exactly, does it look like to replace 80% of energy generation with energy sources that can’t compete in any form? Further, where’s the energy coming from for all these trains? And will Warmists mandate these types of trips?

Everyone loves a simple solution, but it is just too tempting to say “let’s plant trees” while we continue to burn fossil fuels. We must not play foolish games with the Earth’s climate: We will all end up paying for it in the end. Regulating carbon pollution down to net zero emissions by 2050 will end the global climate crisis for good.

For all this high falutin talk, this really all boils down to “Trump likes this idea, so, we don’t”.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “Bummer: Planting Trees Won’t Save The World From Burning”

  1. ChumpChange says:

    What is their plan to solve AGW?

    Other than massive taxes. They don’t have a plan. They have ideas. Even going so far as to scrubbing co2 from the air. Bill Gates has bought and paid for a facility in Canada to do that very thing. He will scrub 1 molecule of c02 from the air in about 10 years.

    Now if they just build 1000 of these plants then they will scrub the planet clean and all of life will die. Then they will find a reason to blame Trump and the Republicans for that too!

  2. ChumpChange says:

    Just for Zach and John and Elwood.

    From the Huffington post.

    Dr. Sten Odenwald

    Astronomer, NASA Heliophysics Education Consortium
    Waiting For The Next Sunspot Cycle: 2019-2030
    09/02/2016 04:19 pm ET Updated Dec 06, 2017

    Forecasters are already starting to make predictions for what might be in store as our sun winds down its current sunspot cycle in a few years. Are we in for a very intense cycle of solar activity, or the beginning of a century-long absence of sunspots and a rise in colder climates?

    Spaceweather live: You can go visit them or you can visit NASA’s website and you will find one thing. There are currently as of TODAY………..ZERO…00000000000000000000000 Sunspots on the face of the Sun.

    what does that mean. Some russian physcists suggest it means colder temperatures. Historical data concurs. But dont let science dissuade you guys. We know NOTHING WILL STAND IN THE WAY OF SAINT GRETA and the APOCALYPSE.

  3. liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    What crisis?

    I have always assumed that we are on track for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (“2XCO2”), if not 3XCO2 or 4XCO2. After all, humanity’s CO2 emissions continue to increase, and even if they stop increasing, won’t atmospheric CO2 continue to rise?
    It turns out, the answer is probably “no”.


    Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  4. david7134 says:

    Notice that the only solution to this hoax is crippling taxes, global communistic government, and destruction of the US economy, exclusively.

    • Kye says:

      That’s always their solution to any problem real or make believe (or in the case of “climate emergency” made up). Only socialism-communism, taxes and gun confiscation along with limited speech an property rights can cure what ails us.

      That’s why the leaders in the Dem race are two red fuks, Buttpeg and Bernie The Red. The bolshevicks having made Gramsci’s “long march through the institutions”, are now out in the open. Still not referring to themselves as commies but by now most people know who they are. I think that’s why Elwood refuses to say who he endorses for the Dem candidate. It would most likely be Soviet Sanders and that would tip Elwood’s hand. There would be no going back from an outright admission as a commie, pinko, America hating motherfuker.

      Trump 2020 Keep the Reds OUT!(and their mooslem comrades too)

  5. Dana says:

    Our host quoted:

    For example, all internal flights between American cities less than 600 miles apart could be replaced by high-speed electric ‘bullet’ trains traveling over 200 miles per hour, providing a quicker, safer and cleaner way to get around and built with American technology, steel and workers.

    Technically true, but we have the example of the Pyrite State, where the way over budget and long delayed project just added yet another $1.3 billion to its price tag.

    Put into practice by bureaucrats, it’s failing.

    Of course, a 600-mile rail line is going to require lots and lots of land, land which will have to be bought, some seized via eminent domain, and all of it tempting targets for terrorists. And while you can argue that a three hour train ride can easily replace a three hour flight, the train will be making stops all along the route.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9771 access attempts in the last 7 days.