I have some ideas
Who gives up land for the world’s climate fixes?
Planting trees has become one of the most widely promoted responses to climate change. As forests grow, they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere while offering habitat for animals, plants and other organisms. The idea is straightforward: Expand forests, and the planet gains both climate mitigation and renewed biodiversity.
Yet the land required to remove large quantities of carbon from the atmosphere may place these goals in tension. Efforts to plant forests or cultivate bioenergy crops with carbon capture need vast areas. In some places, those projects could displace ecosystems that already support rich biodiversity. A recent analysis suggests that roughly 13% of globally important biodiversity areas overlap with land that climate models designate for carbon-removal projects, reports John Cannon.
The research, published in Nature Climate Change, examined five widely used models that outline pathways to limit global warming to 1.5° Celsius (2.7° Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels. Ruben Prütz of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and his colleagues mapped where these models anticipate land-intensive carbon dioxide removal, such as new forests or bioenergy plantations. They then compared those locations with important wildlife habitats.
How about we build a bunch of nuclear power plants to replace coal and petroleum, even natural gas?
The study also highlights an uneven geography. Many of the lands identified for carbon removal lie in the Global South. That distribution raises questions about fairness, since wealthy countries have produced most of the emissions now warming the planet.
I think we should take the land from so many Warmists and turn them into forests. How about all those rich folks and politicians who attended the Brazil climate (scam) conference? They can move into townhomes or something. We can take large government owned pieces of property and turn them into forests. Demolish the buildings, and the workers that are necessary can work in tiny buildings elsewhere. How about Obama’s seaside properties? Al Gore’s? Sheldon Whitehouse’s? Biden’s Rehoboth Beach home property is not that big. Let’s take the entire town.
Any good ideas for property we can turn into forests? And, did you notice that the doomsday cult is happy to simply take Other People’s property?
As I’ve mentioned before, we’ve planted trees on Old Creekmore Farm, several of them. We’ve also had crops and gardens, which also use carbon dioxide. Our riverbank has trees, and, of course, the Daniel Boone National Forest is just a couple hundred yards away.
Maybe the warmunists will let us keep our farm.
Funnily enough, our good friends on the left are mostly urbanists, wanting concrete and asphalt and a few decorative trees, as they live in their urban heat sinks, along with illegal immigrants to maintain their small flower gardens. If they’d get out in the country, they could have all of this, for far less money, but that might mean missing their Starbucks “coffee” in the morning and having to mow their own lawns.
Dana will you be planting another 30 acres of dog again this year?
People have been moving to urban areas for 1000d of years.
Better economic, educational, and social opportunities. This is especially true of younger people.
Kentucky especially the eastern part has a high rate of suicide. 3 times as high as NYC. Always a good indicator for general well being
The summary article concludes:
“For many researchers the message is simple. Carbon removal may play a role, but reducing emissions remains the central task.”
..
The author was NOT advocating seizing lands and planting trees.
The uuthors of the actual Nature paper “Biodiversity implications of land-intensive carbon dioxide removal” (Prütz et al, 2026. Nature Climate Change: 16, 55–163) are NOT advocating seizing lands for planting trees to support “carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from land-intensive methods such as forestation”. They OPPOSE the approach.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-026-02557-5
I didn’t stay up to Watch Trump speak. Past my bedtime.
But it was have been awesome. Dow futures dropped 600 points overnight before the opening bell rang
Tom Nichols:
“Trump’s critics have castigated him for refusing to go on television and provide a comprehensive explanation of the war to the American people. But given his performance this evening, perhaps he had the right instinct. His address did not come across as a wartime speech but instead was a disjointed series of complaints, brags, and exaggerations (along with a few outright lies) delivered by a man who looked and sounded tired. After his 19 minutes on the air Americans could be forgiven for being even more concerned now than they were only a few days ago.”
Low energy. Nothing new. It was like a hostage video.
Anyway, events are not going as imagined. Low energy Donnie boasted of his capture of Maduro, likely believing that he would have the same sudden success in Iran. Regime change! No nukes! Take their oil! Free the Iranians (or kill them)! An unimagined quagmire!
Meeting the netanyahu objectives requires a ground war.
TDS is now more acknowledged to be the mental illness of those still supporting their Messiah Trump