Guest essay by Eric Worrall
What could be better than owning a large woodland estate, and making a steady income from harvesting timber? Harvesting an additional tithe of taxpayer’s money, of course.
According to the Huffington Post;
America’s Family Forests: Our Climate Change Solution
Last weekend, 195 nations reached a landmark agreement that will commit the world to limiting its greenhouse gas emissions. Throughout the two weeks of negotiations, we saw significant discussion about how investing in forests can be a low cost climate solution. Unfortunately, these discussions often focused on international forests, and assumed that U.S. forests’ ability to sequester carbon will remain the same without any special action.
That’s why today, the American Forest Foundation and The Trust for Public Land, co-chairs of the Forest Climate Working Group, a coalition of landowners, conservation organizations, forestry advocates, forest products companies and scientists delivered a letter to President Obama calling for increased recognition of the critical role American that forests must play in meeting our greenhouse gas reduction targets agreed to in Paris.
…
If we can continue to create incentives that encourage planting trees, managing existing forests, and increasing the demand for wood products, we can ensure we continue to have the necessary carbon sink needed to combat climate change.
We must keep our forests healthy if we are going to meet our emission reduction goals, and America’s forest owners are ready to be part of the climate solution.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-martin/americas-family-forests-o_b_8842240.html
Those selfless forest plantation owners are prepared to do their bit – to increase production, to help solve the climate “crisis”, if taxpayers provide “incentives” to help them maintain their plantations, and help them market and sell their products.
Just what America needs – more welfare payments for the already wealthy.
Update – my apology to land owners who are decent, hard working people who have never demanded a government handout, if you felt this post targeted you. That was not the intention.
The reference to “landed gentry” was intended as a critique of those members of the named organisations, who seem to expect the state and taxpayers to provide them with special consideration, because they own a bit of forest. I compared this demand, to the arrogant entitlements of the landed gentry of medieval times, receiving state enforced tithes from the peasants.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Brilliant idea given that over 1/3 of privately owned U.S. woodlands are owned by corporations, and will this also involve investment tax credits?
By the way, will all this allow me to fully deduct the cost of moving a 36 foot maple that my wife has decided is too close to a large oak?
John from the far west
I’ve got a chainsaw — moving a little Maple tree should not be a problem.
John I have several chainsaws, they’re not an option. My wife likes that tree, very much. She also has a free pistol expert rating, she could easily be a master, but only shoots about 10 or 12 times a year. She prefers smaller caliber, but as she always says “it’s the placement, not the size that matters.”
” not the size that matters”
Lucky for you?????
Easy solution:
Plant a new Maple where the wife wants it, harvest the old maple, turn it into Maple furniture effectively capturing the carbon, then apply for the appropriate tax credit
Then you could cut several rounds from the stump that could be used for target practice who knows, she could make Master yet
@Mark
…John I have several chainsaws, they’re not an option. My wife likes that tree, very much. She also has a free pistol expert rating, she could easily be a master, but only shoots about 10 or 12 times a year….
Er… if your wife shoots at the tree, but always hits it 6″ off centre to the left, moving the tree 6″ to the left sounds like a very expensive way to solve the problem….
For those that are not forest owners but think that trees are rather a good idea, they may like to subscribe to Cool Earth;
Their objective? “COOL EARTH IS THE CHARITY THAT WORKS ALONGSIDE INDIGENOUS VILLAGES TO HALT RAINFOREST DESTRUCTION.
We put local people back in control, giving them the resources they need to keep their forest intact. And by saving at-risk rainforest, we form shields for millions of acres of neighbouring forest.”
https://www.coolearth.org/
Over the years, people such as me have bought an acre or two in various tropical countries and thus help to preserve the rain forest.
tonyb
Cut down the oak?
If it’s a white oak, it might get diseased anyway.
Maple trees often run a large tap root, straight down.
Cutting the tap root impairs the tree’s health. To balance it out requires cutting a lot of the top back too.
Take a number of cuttings from the tree and root them. The rootings will happily grow wherever you plant them.
Just keep the Oak and Maple equal, by hatchet, axe, and saw …
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnC88xBPkkc&w=420&h=315%5D
Rush, “The Trees”
“Just what America needs – more welfare payments for the already wealthy.”
Exactly !!! – doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand what the entire scam is all about.
What a bunch of rent seeking bastards
Sounds like you are talking about most of the area of Canada.
1 – Most of the forests in Canada are not privately owned, they are on crown land (ie. owned by the government).
2 – According to maps shown on WUWT lately, most of the Canadian Shield is a net CO2 source. I have no idea why.
#2 — Too many Polar Bears?
Ten thousands years ago the Canadian Shield had been scrubbed down to the bedrock by glaciation. The soil, forests, and peat bogs that have emerged since then have been significant carbon sinks, and this process is ongoing,
Perhaps the maps are due to recent large forest fires.
No “crown land” controlled by the crown! The government can’t do a thing with it without the crown’s consent. If the government wishes to do something else they are just a wishin’
Commie Bob – Boreal forests are generally considered “net” CO2 emitters. See previous posts or just search “boreal forests CO2 emissions” and you’ll find lots to references. Look at the annual CO2 graphic posted a while back from the OCO2 satellite showing the very slightly higher concentration of CO2 over Alaska and north western Canada. Nothing is as simple as it first appears.
Oh, see comments below on Canada being denied credit for forests in the Kyoto agreement.
“Incentives to … increase the demand for wood” is code language for protectionist measures against Canadian lumber or subsidies to compete against Canadian lumber in the Chinese market. It’s a trade war that’s been raging ever since countervailing measures were removed by NAFTA. The whole carbon sink thing in this case is just an excuse for more corporate welfare.
I *am* a landowner and I have many acres of mixed hardwood. They’re doing a pretty good job of sinking carbon just by being left alone and not getting any government assistance or market interference at all.
“I *am* a landowner and I have many acres of mixed hardwood. They’re doing a pretty good job of sinking carbon just by being left alone and not getting any government assistance or market interference at all.”
But I’m sure that if you paid the trees more they would work harder and absorb even more CO2.
The scams that just roll off the minds of people are truly amazing. The big problem is that the warmunists don’t want trees planted. They want energy restricted drastically. It has little to do with CO2 any more (if it ever did) and is all about keeping any energy source, other than THEIR incompetent definition of renewable, offline.
…I think I’m going to be sick …..
…. I think I’m going to be rich ……
…Ummm, isn’t that the same thing ? So rich it’s sickening !!
I bought property in the south because I was thinking global cooling. Who knew!
. ..Oh wait, that’s just my Cherry Cheeses Cake recipe !!!
Sounds great! Marcus, can you post the data for the cherry cheeses cake model, so I can attempt to duplicate your results?
Buy low, sell high… lol ….
Dawtgtomis, A cheese cake model? Now you’ve got my attention.
That is exactly what I have been saying! We need to stop recycling paper, and sequester all that carbon deep underground in our landfills!
How about in played-out coal mines, instead…
Recycle your breadcrumbs! Save the wheat!
Somebody will have to compensate for all the wood being felled and turned into pellets for Europe’s pellet burning power stations like DRAX. Put an export tax on wood pellets and pass the money towards new plantations to compensate for the CO2 loss. HaHa.
It’s the same in the UK. The big landowners are into every subsidy scheme they can get their greedy mitts on. All paid for by the lowly peasants.
There’s a reason we’re called peons…
yes, although the spelling is wrong.
We’re not peons. We’re peed-ons.
Shouldn’t that actually be payons.
so everyone buys a 2 X 4 every week…
problem solved
But what if you want a 4 x 2??
Everybody wants a handout …
..Isn’t it time for the ” Peons ” to bring back the ” Gallows ” ???
..I am a lower class Canadian who once was a High Middle Class Canadian ( before an unfortunate accident bankrupted me) , that is terrified of any thought of Global Cooling !!
Can we please, please, please call them Big Wood? As in “How do you feel about Big Wood?”
… I haven’t had a ” Big Wood ” since I was a junior in High School !! Nowadays it’s called a @ur momisugly#%$^#$
Bravo. Bravissimo!
Don’t beavers eat wood?
I was thinking more along these lines:
(and yes my northern friends, that is your Alan Thicke in a cameo)
No, you have it backwards, Canadian men eat beaver…
Great, we will need beaver methane traps to capture all of the greenhouse gases unleashed by the beavers.
What about woodchucks?
How much CO2 could a woodchuck chuck
If a woodchuck could chuck CO2?
Doesn’t quite have the same charm…
Wish I’d thought of that Mumbles – This post would have had a different title 🙂
Tax the wealthy forestland owners who are net CO2 sources.
Similarly, as part of their excuse to do nothing and thumb their nose at the anti-CO2 brigade, Russia said they intend to let their forests do CO2 reductions for them.
You have to admire Vlamidir Putin sometimes.
For the record, I don’t think Vladimir Putin is a nice guy, and I wouldn’t want to live in a country run by him.
This makes perfect since because the whole global warming scam is about stealing money.
Watching a TV program about global furniture stores it appears that 99.9% of the timber comes from Russia, from public land , which the local map describes as a “Nature Reserve” ( some hundreds of square kilometers ) Europe’s 2 biggest stores ( named on the program ) use tens of thousands of metric tonnes of this timber a year, a worker in a furniture factory in the area, when asked said she had worked for this factory for 6 years and got $168 a month for 10 hours a day 6 days a week, Putins Russia !
“US Landed Gentry”? That isn’t even wrong hyperbole.
When I saw that title, I decided to decline reading the article.
John
How noble of you.
MarkW,
I wouldn’t know if the article is about nobility, since I did not read it.
John
I was just admiring your willingness to stay ignorant. Not only that, but to then proclaim that willingness to the world.
I am in awe of your willingness to sacrifice your brain for the betterment of the rest of us.
MarkW on December 22, 2015 at 9:41 am
– – – – – – – –
MarkW,
I don’t read crap by yellow journalists with articles that have titles like “US Landed Gentry” in tabloid newspapers. Having liked most of Eric Worrell’s articles on WUWT, I expected better of Eric Worrell.
John
Wow, your indignation at titles that don’t measure up to your vaunted standards has me in awe of your moral strength.
Be good, and never dirty your mind with an article that might offend you. Keep your mind pure of all such outrages.
I’m sorry if sarcasm offends you. However, commenting that you declined to read such a brief article due to the title says more about yourself than the article itself.
Maybe there were too many words. You know, like TL;DR.
benofhouston on December 22, 2015 at 9:41 am
– – – – – – –
benofhouston,
As I said to MarkW above,
John
PiperPaul,
Yes, the “too many words” were Eric Worrell’s “US Landed Gentry”.
John
These days they can try to make a “class war” out of anything.
Goldrider,
I agree with you. So I was disappointed that Eric Worrell reverted to European-like class warfare gobbledeegook? E.g his “US Landed Gentry”.
John
John, I’ve added an apology and explanation to the post. My intended target was rent seekers, not land owners.
Eric Worrall on December 22, 2015 at 2:12 pm
John, I’ve added an apology and explanation to the post. My intended target was rent seekers, not land owners
Eric Worrall,
I have nothing but good will toward those who have spent their money on achieving a dream of owning unimproved land for the sheer pleasure of it. I did for a while. It gives one a deep tranquility that has no equal. It is great for kids and families.
The issue of the parasitic practice of government perks to citizens willing to support its agendas is endemic is every single tiny facet of America’s culture. It is economically stupid in every tiny facet it touches.
John
parasitic practice of government
================
when governments start paying farmers not to plant crops, it isn’t long before everyone wants into the same business.
CO2 is simply “not planting crops” writ large. My company announces plans to build a huge billion ton a second CO2 factory, then the government gives me a $30/ton credit to not build the factory, which I promptly sell on the market and pocket a huge swag of government money for doing absolute nothing all day.
Pretty soon the whole country will be onboard with the idea of getting paid for doing nothing.
but decided to comment anyway….
John, I appreciate that, to be grammatically accurate, the heading should have read “We Landed Gentry …” but boycotting an entire article because of a solecism like that is going a little far, don’t you think?
“a landmark agreement that will commit ”
How can a voluntary agreement with no enforcement mechanism, commit anyone to anything?
John Whitman,
You may not like inferences of class warfare via terms like “landed gentry”, but be assured that class warfare is being waged against you. Think Ted Turner, Prince Charles… it’s a long list.
John,
I mostly agree with your sentiment, but there are two sides to every story.
– – – – – – – –
Alan Robertson,
Based on your many comments over the years, I am not surprised you agree with my sentiment.
Indeed, two or three or even more sides to every story. The story needs sorting out in the most objective way possible. : ) There is a hell of a lot of work to do to sort it out. But, it is also great fun, I love it.
Hope you and yours have a happy holiday season.
John
John Whitman,
Would “green gentry” suit you better?
Barbara,
I still haven’t read the “US Landed Gentry demand Medieval Climate Tithes” article by Eric Warroll.
But, as to what “suits” me, this comment by TonyL suits me,
Hope you and yours have a happy holiday season.
John
As a landowner, I have planted over 5000 trees and have also restored part as a wilderness habitat. I have never asked for, nor received a penny of compensation. I consider it a responsibility and obligation for the privileged of farming. It certainly wasn’t done for the purpose of climate control.
Those that live and take from the land, are attached to the land, and are the best custodians of the land. Another reason why family farming is the best use of land and environment. Rent seeking will only result in further corruption and despoil. GK
Absolutely agree – good on you G. Karst.
Thanks, G. Karst. I think this Earth planet needs more of what you do and less bio-fuel crops.
It doesn’t actually say financial incentives. Maybe we can just invent a new medal for those private woodland owners who do the best for global warming? Cheer them on? Have the President commend them publicly form their public spirit? You know, feel-good stuff. Let them show us the hope for the future through a change in their forestry practices.
I’m “getting wood” just thinking about this new source of income from my trees.
The Paris Agreement presents an enormous business opportunity – one guaranteed by the government. Think Solyndra.
Well yeeeesssssssss, it seems simple enough.
Own a few trees and get rich.
Actually no. Lets think on.
It is the same as every other scheme where a group/ any group of peeps are seen to be getting ‘Free Money’
To be eligible for this ‘free money’ there will be rules to be followed, work to be done, equipment bought and people to be paid for doing said work.
These people will be entirely aware of how much free money is going, when it is being paid and to whom it is being paid. They will ramp up their prices accordingly, and why not?
The folks owning the trees will find themselves subject to vast amounts of red-tape and bureacracy for ultimately little reward. They simply become conduits for the money and get to see very little of it themselves while carrying the can if anything goes wrong. And in such schemes, the number of possible things that can go wrong increase every year as the scheme establishes itself.
My being a farmer within the EU and obviously on the receiving end of vast Government largesse, I see how it works. I receive many glossy booklets/handouts every year detailing how to behave, how to ‘cross comply’, records to keep, how long to keep etc etc anf you bet, the word ‘penalty’ apears at least once on EVERY single page of those glossy booklets.
One perfect example of where the money goes: UK vs New Zealand – subsidy vs no subsidy.
Admittedly 10 years ago but, 5 litres of Roundup used to cost me £50
The same size pack of the same stuff made by the same company (we know who they are) cost £5 in NZ.
Also, how could NZ farmers grow lambs, pack them, freeze them and ship them 12,000 miles then sell them more cheaply than I could, growing them in a field 12 miles from the shop where they were for sale, side by side on the same shelf?
How, I was getting The Big fat Subsidy and they weren’t. How did that work?
So dont believe subsidy is just money for nothing, it is ultimately all about control. If you, as primary revceiver of said ‘free money’, fall foul of any of the myriad rules that come with this money, you are bankrupted, jailed, or as many farmers worldwide find themselves doing, playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded gun.
These guys asking for the handouts are in fact turkeys voting for christmas/thanksgiving – delete as appropriate. Either that or making a pact with the devil.
Breakfast in the Br. Virgin Is., and Barbados, one notices that the butter is from NZ. Is there nowhere closer? EU regulations, explains the waitress. A fellow explains that Barbados produces the highest quality sugar in the world (proudly). He then explains how the entire sugar crop is consigned and sent to Europe, and the island must then import an inferior product from Guatemala for local use. No inefficiencies there.
This is what the bureaucrats would do to your energy supplies.
I used to buy NZ butter in UK in the 1960s. Weird? but then the butter is the best!! The deep yellow comes from cows spending a lot of time outside. The sun manufactures Vitamins A and D on the cows skin. Watch them licking their skin a lot when out in the sun. In Europe and N. America, dairy spends most of its time in the barn – white butter! I had a farm in eastern Ontario in the 70s growing organic veg, lambs, pigs, chickens/eggs, ducks, geese, rabbits a holstein cow and a horse. Our butter was decidedly yellow in a dairy region where the product was decidedly white.
In 1973, New Zealand lost her primary market, overnight, when Britain was taken in to the Common Market by Heath. That move was voted on AFTER the event. That move brought with it all the EU red tape and regulation. EU directives instructing farmers to grow certain crops, ignoring crop rotation needs of the land. So we ended up with milk lakes, butter, beef, lamb and crop mountains that were literally thrown away. That was a big hit for NZ and I believe, if memory serves, farmers started to receive large subsidies to make their product more attractive to the rest of the EU and world. NZ produce/food/meats etc are some of the best grown/farmed available today and are exported globally.