Reposted from comments on the new Urban Future thread here
Originally from the blog Fightin’ Words
[picapp src=”b/2/3/7/IOC_2016_Olympic_c1a5.jpg?adImageId=5771484&imageId=6683524″ width=”500″ height=”361″ /]
Above: Obama’s last visit to Copenhagen didn’t work out so well for the USA.
The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.
A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention.
Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:
At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.
[laughter]
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.
So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.
But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.
So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:
Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from members of the audience. Among those questions were these relevent to the forthcoming Copenhagen treaty:
Question: The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that’s his agenda and he’ll do it.
I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to www.wattsupwiththat.com, they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.
[Update: this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don’t want at WUWT. If you want to see it and discuss it. Do it at the original blog entry Fightin’ Words – Anthony]
Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.
Edited to add @ 8:31 am:
Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:
38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
World Government (heading added)
a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)
b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the “climate debt” Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
With Enforcement Authority (heading added)
c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].
UPDATE: Thanks to WUWT reader “Michael” who post the URL on another unrelated thread, we now have video of Lord Monckton’s presentation:
Sponsored IT training links:
Join 1z0-053 online course to pass 642-812 exam plus get free link for 642-973 exam material.
I too think E.M.Smith (02:36:04) hit the nail on the head. There are two issues: science and politics. Ideally, these issues would be discussed separately. However, the warmists are using politics to achieve their goals. Since in the short term politics trump science, provided the anti-AGW response is clearly labeled as politics (which Anthony did when he placed this thread under the categories of “climate_change, politics”), I see nothing wrong with using politics to thwart the AGW alarmist goals. In the long run, science will triumph, but by then it may be too late for the USA, individual responsibility, and freedom–or if not too late, at least late enough to result in massive human suffering. In total, I applaud Anthony’s posting of this thread.
Elise (08:37:34) :
Unfortunately, our Constitution means no more and no less than what some court decides it means.
I am amused by the comments of “I am dismayed WUWT would post this” type. AGW is about politics, first of all and above all. Debunking the pseudo-science justifying the current environmentalist power grab is important but it’s only a part of the picture.
According to the Czech President Vaclav Klaus, modern environmentalist movement is the last refuge of the collectivist totalitarians. Lord Monckton does a good job fighting these totalitarians on their own political turf. Do you really think tobacco heir Al Gore and his buddies give a damn about science of this whole thing?
The other amusing typical comment is “if you are a birther, you are nuts, there’s no talking to you.” Reminds me of the “debate is over, global warming is real” argument.
I am not nuts. I am a well-informed, highly educated person fluent in several languages, able to land a plane and to play several musical instruments.
Nevertheless, being sanae mentis et bonae memoriae, I haven’t seen any convincing proof of Barack Obama’s birth place. Maybe he was born in Hawaii. Maybe not. Nobody really knows, since no real birth certificate has been ever produced. (Several forensic experts concluded that the one published on Internet is a crude forgery.) Why the mystery? What, exactly, is he hiding? It is a legitimate question.
“Birthers are not to be taken seriously” notion isn’t based on anything but a desire to ignore the problem instead of solving it. Calling people names is not an argument.
Well, this has been interesting. At this point, I have questions about the rationality of many of the posters and therefore of the science that I have seen expoused on thissite. Very revealing.
A friend wrote me in response to the article:
“The US Constitution allows no such thing. The language of Article VI is commonly misinterpreted that way by ignoramuses, but the historical record regarding the original intent is emphatically clear that the Constitution itself is the supreme law of the US, and no lesser law or treaty has the power to circumvent it. Which is in fact the originally intended semantics of the language in Article VI (read very carefully):
“****This Constitution****, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
The Constitution also states that the only way to change it is to officially amend it–and treaties are not, de jure, amendments.
Unless it is officially amended, treaties are subject to the same limitation as any Act of Congress: They must a) not violate the restrictions the Constitution places on government action, and b) be justified by an explicit enumerated power granted to the government by the Constitution. The power to make treaties does not grant any power to violate the Constitution itself, any more than the power to make laws does. Laws can be declared Unconstitutional in spite of the language of Article VI–and so can treaties, for the same reasons.”
Obama is the “front man”, the salesman for the Ideology of Change (aka Global Socialism). The man behind the curtain is George Soros.
Soros wants to change the world and has enough money to do it. He has funded the effort that in less than a year brought a little known “community activist/junior senator” from Chicago into the White House. There is no doubt that he has a brilliant mind.
Soros has funneled large sums of money into the Democratic Party. In reciprocation, the Democrats have allowed him to install a small army of true believers to execute his bidding. He has funded the campaigns of leftist politicians, MoveOn.org and a number of environmental front groups.
The Soros vision is of a one-world Socialist government ruled by a select elite that control the global financial system. He has euphemistically christened his Utopian vision as The Open Society.
The following paragraphs were extracted from an article that was recently published in a major business/economic oriented website. Herein are the marching orders for his surrogate-creation, Barack Hussein Obama. Especially note the paragraph regarding energy:
“To prevent the US economy from sliding into a depression, Mr. Obama must implement a radical and comprehensive set of policies. Alongside the well-advanced fiscal stimulus package, these should include a system-wide and compulsory recapitalization of the banking system and a thorough overhaul of the mortgage system – reducing the cost of mortgages and foreclosures.
Energy policy could also play an important role in counteracting both depression and deflation. The American consumer can no longer act as the motor of the global economy. Alternative energy and developments that produce energy savings could serve as a new motor, but only if the price of conventional fuels is kept high enough to justify investing in those activities. That would involve putting a floor under the price of fossil fuels by imposing a price on carbon emissions and import duties on oil to keep the domestic price above, say, $70 per barrel.
Finally, the international financial system must be reformed. Far from providing a level playing field, the current system favours the countries in control of the international financial institutions, notably the US, to the detriment of nations at the periphery. The periphery countries have been subject to the market discipline dictated by the Washington consensus but the US was exempt from it.
How unfair the system is has been revealed by a crisis that originated in the US yet is doing more damage to the periphery. Assistance is needed to protect the financial systems of periphery countries, including trade finance, something that will require large contingency funds available at little notice for brief periods of time. Periphery governments will also need long-term financing to enable them to engage in counter-cyclical fiscal policies.
In addition, banking regulations need to be internationally co-ordinated. Market regulations should be global as well. National governments also need to co-ordinate their macroeconomic policies in order to avoid wide currency swings and other disruption.”
The writer is chairman of Soros Fund Management and founder of the Open Society Institute. These are extracts from an e-book update to The New Paradigm for Financial Markets – The credit crisis of 2008 and what it means (Public Affairs Books, New York)
This treaty makes an excellent case for a Regent.
Would a King or Queen with power sign away thier own country?
Just a thought. Of course, Royalty can go bad for an entire lifetime or more, which is why we revolted in the 1st place.
How do you stop your government from ceding all power to another government once they start? Washington would ostensibly become merely a bureaucratic appointee outpost. Political Parties and Elections might vanish.
The history of civilization shows that the same old suspicions would tear the new government apart after so many years. But then, once that fails, the infrastructure of soverign government is also vanished.
Sounds like global chaos.
“At this point, I have questions about the rationality of many of the posters and therefore of the science that I have seen expoused on thissite. Very revealing.” Dan
What ever, Dan. Scientists have opinions too.
Frankly, I am not too impressed by scientists. I read “Science Daily” and regularly notice junk science mixed in with the genuine article.
There are other kinds of thinking than just the scientific method. With regard to economics, for instance, scientists seem to have a blind spot. If we have another depression induced world war, they will no doubt be designing weapons to kill the rest of us.
Kate (02:24:55) : “…We Can Lead, a broad-based corporation coalition of energy, technology and other companies, including Duke Energy, Hewlett Packard and Starbucks, is mounting a high-profile campaign to promote cap-and-trade legislation….”
Assuming this is true, here’s the lever we’ve been looking for. Let Starbucks know what you think of their political activity. Spread the word that Starbucks is supporting Cap & Tax. Let Nike know what you think, too. If you’re in any doubt about Starbucks, check
http://www.starbucks.com/sharedplanet/ourPartnerships.aspx
Has your coffee tasted like watermelon, lately?
An examination of the UNFCCC working document for Copenhagen can be found here: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/UNCopenhagenPrep.htm
The majority of the wording deals with wealth transfer from (mainly) the US to the overpopulating/deforesting nations. Only Annex I nations will have to pay – i.e. the world’s largest emitter – China – is exempt, that way they will support it.
The whole global warming issue was originally created to promote global governance. See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GlobalGovernance.htm
Ignorance is more powerful toll in decision making than people give it credit.
My strength is economics. I have spoken to many people on the environmental side of the agenda. None of them know anything about how free markets, trade, globalization help the plight of poor people and in turn can help the environment. I invariably know every argument they make about how international treaties are the ‘only’ solution to ‘pollution’ moving across national borders. There is no balanced discussion on these issues of environment in classrooms or conferences.
They than watch anti-globalization movies about how evil capitalism and western wastefulness robs culture and prosperity from other nations.
That is why Indur’s recent guest post was so important. Fact based discussion of economics and benefits to the poor from modern technology and trade is critical. I attended one of Bill Clintons recent seminars where he stated that America has to stop sending food to Africa and start shipping know-how and seeds. The problem with that is the North American Agricultural industry makes more money when CARE buys food: http://povertynewsblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/clinton-praises-bush-on-food-aid.html
I get a cheap chuckle out of Moncton’s Speeches and others who mock or demonize those they oppose. Maybe the Moncton’s are necessary, however, my personal public demeanour is to (try) to stick to the fundamentals. 99% of the people who back these world treaties see it as the only way to solve the problem. Even if you could prove that the other 1% were the most evil people in the world what difference would it make. This is the same argument of the far left hardcore environmentalist when they try to attach everyone who disagrees with them to evil oil and tobacco companies. Al Gore doesn’t see himself as doing anything wrong when he accuses people who read or contribute to sites like this as either evil, immoral, or stupid.
I believe Kevin Trenberth is being honest when he makes statements like “I have found that the only scientists who disagree with the IPCC report are those who have not read it and are poorly informed.” That is his belief he would pass a lie detector on that. When you only hang out with people who agree with you it’s hard to find someone who doesn’t. He is a victim of one of the greatest examples of group-think in history. That is why calling the AGW crowd malicious is counterproductive. They truly believe they are saving the earth. Anyone accused them of being evil is laughed of as extremist rhetoric and dismissed. They also see no irony in that they do it themselves.
Sites like this should continue to appeal to the logic of the people who are capable of learning and make people like Gore and Trenberth lonely.
Dan (10:37:35) :
Well, this has been interesting. At this point, I have questions about the rationality of many of the posters and therefore of the science that I have seen expoused on thissite. Very revealing.
Your comment is also very revealing Dan, with its numerous misspellings. Your interest in the science is highly doubtful anyway, since you just happened to pick a post based on politics to comment on. Very revealing indeed.
jorgekafkazar (11:11:12) : Has your coffee tasted like watermelon, lately?
LOL. Funny. For me, a foreigner, those one pint polyurethane cups diluted coffees and its “self service” custom it is abominable.
To taste a good coffee it must be, at least, a “spresso” or a “cafecinho”, seated in a table and served by a waiter.
Who knows, perhaps this is the root reason why you are in such troubles. Got to learn to live well…those “in a hurry fast drank coffees” and all that garbage food are crippling your well being and who knows even provoking climate change/global warming, and, last but not least, “el gordo’s” belly. 🙂
Tim Clark (08:17:44) :
Mod: Did my post go to spam?
REPLY: Yes it is restored, refresh and you’ll see it.
Maybe it should have stayed there. ;~P
My… The teeth gnashing in this thread looks like RC after MacIntyre spills the beans on shifty “research.” The good Lord Monckton correctly notes in the Q&A that he does not do politics. The climate debate is growing if anything, and the flimsy piece of paper that likely won’t get signed by G8 in Denmark has little real meaning. Certainly none scientifically. Politically, perhaps some good as movement away from ($700B annual) foreign oil imports is a good thing for the United States.
But let’s look at the observable world. Seems that all major indicators from solar minimum, to SST downward drift, to regional cold records, to Antarctic’s 5 percent growth, to lack of tropo heating – it all indicates a natural message. The Earth is NOT heating catastrophically. Man’s brief moment of fossil fuel burning this last century is coming to a close. There are viable nukes and alternatives on the way, relatively easy conversion of coal to NG and rapidly lowering demand as we electrify transportation.
Though not in keeping with WUWT empirical scrutiny – consider the cosmic meaning of this small band of skeptics standing athwart the climate train yelling, “Stop!”* And how the observable world is reacting. We probably don’t need it written in the stars to know the message is, “Stay calm, you’re not destroying the climate, they’re not castrating the Constitution – it’s natural variation.”
The Ringmasters will argue. Their business is your froth. The more you froth, the more fannies they get in seats. Hence, the famous quote from Alexander Graham Bell in his moment of pain:
“What hath God Froth?”
* Thanks Wm F. B.
jmbnf (11:29:26) :
Indeed. As for the rest of what you wrote, double-dog indeed. However, I think there are also those that are “evil” in the sense they know they are hypocritical, they know they are self-serving, and as well, they know their actions may be harmful to the very people they profess to be saving. Unfortunately, I also do not think it is an easy task to sort the true-believers from the others, or if it is even possible.
Mark
For Lord Monckton to accept a “birther” question and discuss it — that is disappointing and lowers my estimation of his judgement. (I do not know why Obama doesn’t simply obtain and display a copy of his actual birth certificate rather than a summary of it, and I do not know why he defers the question to a doctor who says that he has seen the actual certificate but cannot display it due to privacy practices. Nevertheless, there is no traction to be gained in the “birther” issue.)
I think that many commenters fail to see the difference between the constitution-as-practiced vs. the constitution-as-written. We continually ignore the 10th amendment. Also, we wage wars without the required declaration of war. About half of the Supreme Court members see the constitution as a living / flexible document. I have no doubt that Obama will be able to enforce the treaty without the ratification process spelled out in the constitution.
Speaking of ratification, one useful insight on Global Warming Treaties was offered by George Bush the 1st in the early 90s: If we ratify an environmental treaty, our courts will hold us to it; however, other countries can easily ignore the requirements and walk away from it.
rbateman (09:43:27) :
There’s a couple of things in that Treaty.
1.) The mention of a Secretariat (sounds highly Marxist)
Sounds highly bureaucratic to me.
2.) REDD’s – could not find the definition in the paper
The REDD’s under the bed perhaps. 😉
The New World Order has a plan to implement a global border-less government. A global border-less government requires funding with a global border-less taxation system. Tax laws will need to change. This could pose insurmountable problems because national and international tax laws are already highly complex and would surely become even more so with the imposition of a global border-less form of government.
What is required is a totally new form of taxation. One which is not concerned with issues such as whether the taxpayer is domicile or non-domicle or weather they are migrant workers moving from one place to another and thus hard to track and even harder to tax.
What is needed in a globalized world such as the one the New World Order of the Rothschild/Rockerfella clans have planned, is a one size fits all kind of taxation system. A border-less tax which is in essence a tax on life itself. Enter the CARBON TAX.
This form of tax is a centuries old wet dream of the ruling elite and they are just moments away from realising such a dream. The Climate Change summit at Copenhagen this coming December is set to be the platform from which this tax on life will be imposed.
The pseudo environmentalists will be cheering loudly, suffering under the illusion that a carbon tax will protect the environment from that nasty CO2 pollution that we are pumping into the atmosphere year in year out. Totally oblivious to the real implications of a border-less taxation system.
Global government is a direct threat to National sovereignty which in tern is derived from individual sovereignty. Individual sovereignty simply means individual freedom, or human rights. Global government and global taxation is a direct threat to the freedom of all the peoples of the world.
The only way to beat the New World Order is to deny them their funding. If these Nazi fools have to dig into their own pockets to fund their plans for world government, it will be far less likely to succeed. This can only be achieved by exposing the “Man Made Global Warming scam”.
If you would like to know more about the AGW fraud and carbon tax, download this free .pdf book
[snip – self promotion ]
Article VI of the U.S Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 27:
A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
In their introduction, the Children’s Rights Committee asserted that it was a “myth” that state sovereignty would be affected by the treaty. To refute this, we only need to re-read the balance of the Supremacy Clause of Article VI:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
We have previously quoted the text of Article VI of the Constitution [see quote below] to demonstrate that treaties prevail over state constitutions and state laws. So the claim that it is a “myth” that treaties will not affect state sovereignty is an unsophisticated lie.
http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B479C4F40-98CD-40B9-B8E5-7F1A7CF7E307%7D
An Inquirer (11:51:04) :
If we ratify an environmental treaty, our courts will hold us to it
That is because you take it seriously and you are used to fulfill the law while third world countries are not used to. You will not figure out how it works: If a law goes against what the majority of people thinks, feels or or are accustomed to, then everybody lends a blind eye !!, believe me!.
Of course, they will sign all the papers if needed, and follow just apparently all instructions given by, but nothing, really nothing will happend.
REDD=Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD).
You see already foreign and international laws are being cited in US courts.
Even without these monstrous treaties, we should all familiarize or re-acquaint ourselves with the term “judicial tyranny.”
Speaking of Monckton, I regularly visit his site.
His latest paper Sept. 09 report:
1.) The lifetime of C02 in atmosphere is 7%.
2.) What we have been looking at with the GISS (NOAA) and Hadley temp graphs is actually the UHI itself.
Figure how much of the landmass is urbanized, multiply into real global average, and you have your urban warming.
So, it’s not really global warming at all, it’s AUW.
That is what they did when they shut down all rural stations. They migrated thier sensors from measuring air temp to measuring asphalt/concrete temp.
That is what thier graphs represent, cities, not the globe.
Switcheroo.
Adolfo Giurfa (12:17:38) :
REDD=Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD).
Yes, but the Environmental Lawsuits shut down all efforts at Reforestation.
The brush grows faster than the trees, plus the dead trees from the last fires make for ever bigger forest fires. The money to Reforest comes from Salvage Sales, which are destroyed when the Env. Suits stop them long enough for the salvagable lumber to go bad.