The global warming crowd could not get ordinary Americans to buy into their arrogant narrative that the globe is warming due to human activity such as industry, travel, car use, agriculture, breathing, flying, artificial lakes; so, they turned the Armageddon narrative into a profitable leftist climate change industry that has many allies among academics, public school teachers, the mainstream media, and crony corporatism. Who can deny that the climate changes and has done so for thousands of years?
It is not just the environmental
justice the Paris Accord and its previous U.N. Agenda 2030 goals, versions of controlling
how people live and make a living, every aspect, no matter how insignificantly
small. The narrative is now tied, like everything else the left says and does,
to one’s skin color. Apparently, the climate and how temperatures affect Mother
Earth due to solar flares, water currents around the earth, and volcanic oceanic
eruptions above and below earth are now caused by environmental racism.
(The chart above was found in the Nature and Science Museum in Denver, CO)
The left is quite poetic with its
definitions, creatively pulling out of the proverbial magician hat amazingly artistic
constructs that do not exist. They contort themselves verbally into impossible pretzeled
scenarios that bear no resemblance to reality or common sense.
Stating that “science tells us
unequivocally that the world is getting hotter: the past six years have been
the warmest on record,” Nat Geo devoted its July 2021 cover to “Beating the
heat.” The cover claims that “wealthy areas are shady and cool,” but “the tree
canopy decreases, and temperatures rise as you drive south,” at least in Los
Angeles. (One Nation, Under Heat and Shade)
The conclusion on the cover is, “on a
warming planet, this divide between rich and poor leaves many at risk.” There
is no denying that shade lowers temperatures, but how shade and the existence
or non-existence of trees becomes “environmental racism”, and a measure of “privilege”
is hard to understand without impossible mental gymnastics.
The climate change alarmist narrative
is that poor neighborhoods have less trees and are five degrees hotter than rich
neighborhoods. I have seen areas in western cities quite devoid of trees and
extremely hot, yet the residents did not seem to be poor at all. All inhabitants, rich or poor, white, or
black, suffered the same in the summertime heat. It is nobody’s fault that vast
flat prairies have fewer trees or that urban neighborhoods did not bother to
plant any.
“For most of the past 10,000 years, global average temperature
has remained relatively stable and low compared to earlier hothouse conditions
in our planet's history.” What’s
the hottest Earth has been “lately”? | NOAA Climate.gov
Nat Geo tells us in its July issue
that “ultimately, to solve global warming, we must drastically reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.” This is an interesting statement because CO2 is the gas
of plant life. If you reduce CO2 drastically, you are also drastically reducing
plant life. There is more CO2 in the Amazon area, as seen from satellite
photos, where there is an abundance of trees in the rainforest. Planting more
trees is good for the environment: they provide shade as well as convert CO2
into oxygen. Excess CO2 is pumped into
greenhouses to help plants grow faster. Would it not be logical to say that we
need more CO2 for plant life, not less?
Urban ecologists, who study “urban
forest equity,” claim that “redlined” areas do not have a lot of “green,” due
to a lack of public investment in trees. In richer communities, residents can use
their own funds to care for trees.
The solution is to have the government
step in and plant trees “equitably in all neighborhoods.” Urban canopies can
cool a town, but trees must be watered and cared for to thrive. And some adult trees
are unnecessarily cut down to make room for more urban development.
And the nagging question remains, how
is it racist if urban residents do not care for their own green spaces or the
climate is such that rainfall is insignificant, and water is hard to come by
and thus expensive? Then there are landscapes such as mountain-prairies and the
vast deserts around the globe that are devoid of trees. Is that environmental
racism as well?
Trees are certainly an excellent way
to absorb the excess CO2 the environmental armageddonists whine about. Can the
U.S. plant the trillion trees it has pledged by 2030? If so, would they survive
pests, disease, fire, and drought?
They would not survive in democrat controlled areas as forestry is not allowed to thin the forest to prevent fire...it would create a disaster in democrat controlled areas...guaranteed, and it is proven by the fires of WA, OR, and CA
ReplyDeleteThose are the same areas Democrats control the black population in...the Inner City...it has no trees on purpose...not the peoples fault...the politicians do not demand developers leave trees in place.
ReplyDeleteHi Ileana,
ReplyDeleteReally good article!
It’s good to remind people that rising CO2 increases food production significantly. Many experiments have proven this.
Their demand to add a trillion trees in the U.S. is totally absurd! Experts estimate that the world has about 3 trillion trees. With only ~ 2% of the world’s land area, our ‘share’ is 0.06 trillion. Their goal would be to add 16 times as many trees as our present share of all the world’s. Even if we covered the land from coast to coast with trees, we could not accommodate the 1 trillion additional trees demanded by the leftists. No room for crops and cattle, so the population dies off…..the environmentalists are cheering!
Keep writing!
Dr. David Sponseller