Plant a trillion trees: U.S. Republicans offer fossil fuel-friendly climate fix

[webfact]

Plant a trillion trees: U.S. Republicans offer fossil fuel-friendly climate fix

By Valerie Volcovici

 

FILE PHOTO: People plant trees on a sand mine on the dried lake bed of Poyang Lake, China's largest freshwater lake, in Jiujiang, Jiangxi province, China, December 11, 2019. REUTERS/Aly Song

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican lawmakers on Wednesday proposed legislation setting a goal for the United States to plant a trillion trees by 2050 to fight global warming, a plan intended to address climate change by sucking carbon out of the air instead of by cutting emissions.

 

The proposed legislation reflects an acknowledgement by some in the Republican Party of rising voter demand for action on climate change, even as it seeks to preserve the economic benefits of a historic drilling boom that has made the United States the world’s biggest oil and gas producer.

 

Republican President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly cast doubt on the science of climate change, had expressed support for the idea of a massive tree-planting campaign during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last month.

 

"Our part at home is a lot more than just planting trees. It's utilizing the full abilities of sustainable forestry," said congressman Bruce Westerman of Arkansas, a member of the House of Representatives' Natural Resources Committee who introduced the tree planting bill.

 

The bill was one of several elements of a broader proposal on climate change introduced by a half dozen House lawmakers on Wednesday.

 

Additional bills will be released over the coming weeks, focusing on expanding a tax credit to bolster carbon capture technology from power plants and directly from the air, creating a research hub to advance those technologies, and boosting "clean" energy, including natural gas and nuclear.

 

The bills focus on technology "innovation" and avoid setting a price for carbon pollution and setting or enforcing emission reduction mandates.

 

Democrats, including all the top presidential hopefuls in this year’s election, have made proposals for a rapid shift away from fossil fuels to help the United States and other countries avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

 

House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy told reporters on Wednesday their approach stands in contrast to "command-and-control" policy approaches introduced by some Democrats such as the Green New Deal, which calls for massive government investment in nationwide emissions-free infrastructure.

 

He and other lawmakers said they do not believe carbon taxes were needed to spur innovation.

 

Environmentalists argue that focusing on planting trees or investing in carbon sequestration technology while ignoring emission cuts from fossil fuel use is counterproductive. An overwhelming majority of scientists believe emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels are the main driver of climate change.

 

“Planting trees is good, of course, but it is nowhere near enough of what is needed, and it cannot replace real mitigation and rewilding nature,” Swedish teen activist Greta Thunberg said in Davos last month.

 

Nature-based carbon removal measures like tree planting have gained traction globally. Last July, for example, Ethiopia set a world record by planting over 350 million trees in 12 hours as part of a green campaign by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed.

 

James Mulligan, a senior associate at the World Resources Institute research organization, said mass tree planting could reduce between 180 million and 360 million tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2040 if implemented correctly.

 

"Funding is key," he said, adding that the program needs a "smart governance system."

 

U.S. Representative Garret Graves, a Louisiana Republican who serves on the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, said focusing on natural and technological sequestration would enable the United States to reduce emissions without shutting down the energy industry.

 

"Those who have labeled fossil fuels the enemy have misidentified the enemy," he told reporters, saying emissions were the true enemy.

 

The American Energy Alliance, a free-market energy industry group, panned Wednesday's Republican proposal as a "climate messaging exercise" that mimics Democratic proposals.

 

"His (McCarthy's) costly proposal is a slippery slope to a slightly less intrusive Green New Deal,” said AEA President Thomas Pyle.

 

(Reporting by Valerie Volcovici; Editing by Dan Grebler and Jonathan Oatis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-02-13

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Tug]

But Donald who will rake to prevent forest fires?just lip service no more than that

[DrTuner]

Idea is good, but trees need water to grow. Meaning they compete with farmlands for fertile ground. If they are willing to commit to reducing farmed area and/or building large scale irrigation systems, cool. Just remember you need a smaller population if you got less food.

[klauskunkel]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

Republican lawmakers on Wednesday proposed legislation setting a goal for the United States to plant a trillion trees by 2050

So who is going to plant one trillion trees? Latino migrants?

[blazes]

“Planting trees is good, of course, but it is nowhere near enough of what is needed, and it cannot replace real mitigation and rewilding nature,” Swedish teen activist Greta Thunberg said in Davos last month.

 

Ah, such mature wisdom out of the mouths of babes.....let's hear it for "mitigation" and "rewilding".....

[Boon Mee]

Sounds like a much better plan than anything Greta has come up with. 

 

MAGA 

[Emdog]

Plant where? On public lands? Trump administration has been reducing public lands, opening wildernesses to mining, fracking, etc.

Some on roofs of Trump Towers?

[JCauto]

1 hour ago, blazes said:

“Planting trees is good, of course, but it is nowhere near enough of what is needed, and it cannot replace real mitigation and rewilding nature,” Swedish teen activist Greta Thunberg said in Davos last month.

 

Ah, such mature wisdom out of the mouths of babes.....let's hear it for "mitigation" and "rewilding".....

As someone working in this field (forest conservation), allow me to provide my input.

 

Yes, Greta is correct. We are facing several crises with respect to the environment, one of which is carbon sequestration. Another, which receives far less attention, is biodiversity conservation. I would expect that they would address the carbon issue through a technological fix - think drones dropping tree seedlings rather than people with feet on the ground. And indeed, this would be a pretty good idea as trees don't require a lot of maintenance and this would be far more efficient in terms of costs and in terms of reaching remote and difficult areas to access. 

On the other hand, you just end up with a large monoculture plantation forest, usually acacia or eucalyptus or some other fast-growing species (in the sub-tropics, that is). If you've ever been in any of these sorts of "forest", you'll already know how barren of life and lacking in ecological services these "forests" are.

The problem with biodiversity conservation is that once it's gone, it's not coming back and you can't artificially recreate it. This is a critical issue, but one that is very difficult to explain to laypeople. Why should you care if some exotic beetle dies in a rainforest? As we observe the start of the next great extinction event, this casual attitude to the environment ensures that Greta's generation is going to be deep in the stuff we've left for them.

[PumpkinEater]

All <deleted> as usual from money grabbing corporations.

 

The Chinese actually came up with this Idea 10 years ago to reduce their pollution..

Did it work? 

[Dionigi]

one per second 1,000,000,000,000 / 60 = minutes /60 = hours / 24 = days / 365 = years = 31,709.8 years

Can't be bothered to work out how large an area would be required. Who are the Republicans going to get to allow this land, which is not forested at present, to be used for planting trees?

[mickey rat]

The locals can burn more as a way to offset US efforts. Maybe Greta could sail over and give them a good scolding. That'll fix it!

[blazes]

12 hours ago, JCauto said:

As someone working in this field (forest conservation), allow me to provide my input.

 

Yes, Greta is correct. We are facing several crises with respect to the environment, one of which is carbon sequestration. Another, which receives far less attention, is biodiversity conservation. I would expect that they would address the carbon issue through a technological fix - think drones dropping tree seedlings rather than people with feet on the ground. And indeed, this would be a pretty good idea as trees don't require a lot of maintenance and this would be far more efficient in terms of costs and in terms of reaching remote and difficult areas to access. 

 

 

Just to take up one of your points, about "tree maintenance".  I have not myself been a planter of trees, but many of my students in British Columbia spent long summers earning good money planting seedlings of pine, spruce, fir and hemlock in areas that had been clear-cut.  A year later, maybe the same student would go out and inspect the condition of last year's planting.  (Seedlings would, left unattended, be threatened by weeds.)

I remember one student describing his second summer's work checking for the seedling's health.  He said he had to fill in his map of the planted hectares as 80% NFG.  Puzzled, I had to ask him, NFG???? 
No fking good. 

  

[Chomper Higgot]

13 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Sounds like a much better plan than anything Greta has come up with. 

 

MAGA 

It’s not actually.

[JCauto]

On 2/14/2020 at 3:55 AM, blazes said:

 

Just to take up one of your points, about "tree maintenance".  I have not myself been a planter of trees, but many of my students in British Columbia spent long summers earning good money planting seedlings of pine, spruce, fir and hemlock in areas that had been clear-cut.  A year later, maybe the same student would go out and inspect the condition of last year's planting.  (Seedlings would, left unattended, be threatened by weeds.)

I remember one student describing his second summer's work checking for the seedling's health.  He said he had to fill in his map of the planted hectares as 80% NFG.  Puzzled, I had to ask him, NFG???? 
No fking good. 

  

Okay...so there is a certain survival rate among replanted trees, something you would expect. As I don't work in replanting, I don't know what the typical survival rates are, but I'm quite sure they're well known - this is why they were going back and measuring the survival rates. This is normal.

Do you have any other minor quibbles with my points?

[winslowsjardine]

On 2/13/2020 at 3:08 PM, Emdog said:

Plant where? On public lands? Trump administration has been reducing public lands, opening wildernesses to mining, fracking, etc.

Some on roofs of Trump Towers?

Funny & perceptive.