'Donald Trump forest' climate change project gains momentum

From The BBC.

By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent


Image copyright MARTIN BERNETTI Image caption Campaigners hope to plant enough trees to offset the climate impact of President Trump

A campaign to plant trees to compensate for the impact of President Trump’s climate policies has 120,000 pledges.

The project was started by campaigners upset at what they call the president’s “ignorance” on climate science.

Trump Forest allows people either to plant locally or pay for trees in a number of poorer countries.

Mr Trump says staying in the climate pact will damage the US economy, cost jobs and give a competitive advantage to countries such as India and China.

The organisers say they need to plant an area the size of Kentucky to offset the Trump effect.

Based in New Zealand, the project began in March this year and so far has gained pledges from around 450 people based all around the world. In the first month, 15,000 trees were pledged – that’s now gone past 120,000.

Some people have paid for trees to be planted in forest restoration projects in Madagascar, Haiti, Ethiopia, and Nepal. Others have simply bought and planted a tree themselves and sent a copy of the receipt to the project.


Image copyright Sean Gallup Image caption President Trump has moved quickly to undo the climate policies of his predecessor

The organisers, who are long-term climate campaigners, say they have tapped into a global sense of frustration with the president’s climate change policies.

Mr Trump has ordered a review of Obama-era climate regulations and he has also declared that the US will leave the Paris climate agreement.

“We’ve met some of the people on the front lines of climate change in Bangladesh, Mongolia and in other countries, and we found it extremely upsetting that Mr Trump’s ignorance is so profound,” said Adrien Taylor, a co-founder of Trump Forest.

“So we started to do something about it. Only a small percentage of the world voted him in, but we all have to deal with the consequences of his climate ignorance.”

The organisers estimate that they will need to offset 650 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2025 to compensate for the president’s policies, which translates into more than 100 billion new trees. Despite the massive scale of planting needed, the campaigners believe it can be done.

Read the rest of the story here.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 16, 2017 2:03 pm

this is the first thing that should have been done years ago. Reforestation. where else will the coal of the future come from?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Scott Frasier
August 16, 2017 2:07 pm

Climate Seancetist stockings?

Bryan A
Reply to  Gunga Din
August 16, 2017 2:29 pm

The organisers say they need to plant an area the size of Kentucky to offset the Trump effect.
Based in New Zealand, the project began in March this year and so far has gained pledges from around 450 people based all around the world. In the first month, 15,000 trees were pledged – that’s now gone past 120,000.
Some people have paid for trees to be planted in forest restoration projects in Madagascar, Haiti, Ethiopia, and Nepal. Others have simply bought and planted a tree themselves and sent a copy of the receipt to the project.

So, if an area the size of Kentucky needs to be planted to offset President Trump’s plans, how many Kentuckys need to be planted to offset China’s current, and proposed CO2 output through 2030? Or India’s through 2035
While reforestation isn’t a bad thing, I might think twice about Haiti, they have already proven that Trees are meant to be cut down and not replaced
http://staging.unep.org/disastersandconflicts/portals/155/countries/haiti/imgs/Haiti2013.jpgcomment image

Reply to  Gunga Din
August 17, 2017 12:46 am

“We’ve met some of the people on the front lines of climate change in Bangladesh, Mongolia and in other countries, and we found it extremely upsetting that Mr Trump’s ignorance is so profound,” said Adrien Taylor, a co-founder of Trump Forest.
“So we started to do something about it. Only a small percentage of the world voted him in, but we all have to deal with the consequences of his climate ignorance.”
He should deal with his own ignorance first. The (serious) problems with sea level in Bangladesh are not sea level rise but subsidence and erosion.
If he truly cared about the people of that country he would not be planting trees but looking at how to help better manage their land. But of course he does not give a damn, it’s just a convenient heart-string to play on to promote his own ignorant bigoted agenda.

Reply to  Gunga Din
August 17, 2017 12:52 am

Maybe he should look at the number of trees being cut down in US, France and Germany to be stupidly burnt in power stations instead of dead coal because of the mindless and extreme wailings of the “green” movement.
They could save far more trees from being converted into atmospheric “carbon”.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Gunga Din
August 17, 2017 5:56 am

He should deal with his own ignorance first.

Greg, he probably doesn’t have the time to do that …… because taking care of all those “cash donations” being sent to him is a full time job.

Reply to  Gunga Din
August 17, 2017 3:14 pm

McKinsey & Company Blog, April 21, 2017
‘A revolutionary tool for cutting emissions ten years on’
GHG – Abatement Curve
Re: Reforestation of degraded forest
Also includes energy efficiency, renewable energy, offshore wind, U.S. DOE, etc.

Reply to  Scott Frasier
August 16, 2017 2:22 pm

I’m afraid the coal of the future doesn’t have a future, because some kind of organism called White Rot Fungi figured out how to break down lignin.

Reply to  Trebla
August 16, 2017 2:49 pm

300 mya. Carboniferous mainly 360 mya when lignin enabled tall plants, to 300 mya when evolution produced white rot fungus. The amount of coal ma Nature made since is pitiful, limited mostly to acidic peat bogs that got fortuitously buried.

Reply to  Trebla
August 16, 2017 4:14 pm

Ristvan there are huge Permian (251 – 299 mya) coal deposits in Australia. Maybe the fungus was a slow mover?

Smart Rock
Reply to  Trebla
August 16, 2017 4:42 pm

Powder River basin contains Cretaceous coal. Coal deposits in western Canada range from Jurassic to Cenozoic. This is reply to Ristvan whose reply link has gone. Ristvan is guilty of eastern parochialism just because the coal in Pennsylvania is Carboniferous, it’s easy to assume that represents the rest of the world.

Stewart Pid
Reply to  Trebla
August 16, 2017 5:32 pm

Smart Rock …. those Canadian coal deposits are metric and therefore immune to the fungus 😉

Reply to  Trebla
August 16, 2017 7:12 pm

Stewart Pid, the fungus doesn’t attack coal, it attacks dead wood and decomposes it. Before the fungus, the dead wood just accumulated, compressed, and eventually became coal. Now, most wood gets consumed and thus doesn’t ever become coal.

Reply to  Trebla
August 17, 2017 12:55 am

I thought that white rot fungus was a brain disease affecting middle class liberals’ ability to think and reason.
Oh well, I learn something every day on WUWT.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  Trebla
August 17, 2017 3:47 am

“Maybe the fungus was a slow mover?”
The plants fought back.

Bryan A
Reply to  Trebla
August 18, 2017 2:07 pm

The Fun-Gi(s) showed up and they all decided to Par-Tay

Reply to  Scott Frasier
August 16, 2017 2:28 pm

Yes I agree,
Especially it is overall less expense to everyone to carry out a project like this instead of delegating it to government(s) which will cost every taxpayer two to three fold once it has been through the government machine.
I know about this because I was once a junior accountant in a major branch of our government and I saw the wastage and irresponsibility afforded to tax payer funds.
ps. Besides, without any prompting from the government, (in fact the opposite), we have recently planted several hundred trees and shrubs on our hillside property and are now living amongst the shelter, shade as well as the chorus of native bird life.
It might be a while before our property has any effect on coal production though:)

Pop Piasa
Reply to  rogerthesurf
August 16, 2017 2:40 pm

Yes! Cheers to the planters of trees and shrubs, plus crops and tubers.

Richard G.
Reply to  rogerthesurf
August 16, 2017 8:02 pm

“Trump Forest allows people either to plant locally or pay for trees in a number of poorer countries.”
Translation: plant your own damn tree or pay an ‘activist’ who will intercept the money before it gets to a poorer county.
“We’re planting a global forest to offset Trump’s monumental stupidity.”
Irony alert: It is Trump’s ‘stupidity’ that is the inspiration behind these people’s action. I guess Trump is smart even when he is being stupid.

Reply to  rogerthesurf
August 22, 2017 7:43 am

How lovely for you. Well done. However, simply planting trees in third world countries where they have been cut down for firewood is simply a waste of money ( and saplings). When there is no electricity or it is too expensive and LP Gas is condemned as being an emitter of CO2 ( which trees love) then its out with the panga and down with the tree. Indonesia and Morocco know this and hence encourage the use of LPG. Vertue can vary with circumstance. Western middle class intellectuals need to think more before they tell the poor what to do or don’t.

Paul r
Reply to  Scott Frasier
August 16, 2017 5:39 pm

Where do i plant the trees that will offset china and indias co2 output?

Pat Kelly
Reply to  Scott Frasier
August 16, 2017 6:01 pm

Great Idea! In fact plant 10 trees each! I don’t see how either side of the debate could be against this initiative.

Reply to  Pat Kelly
August 16, 2017 7:15 pm

100 Billion Trees needed. 7.5 Billion people on Earth.
Sorry Pat, 10 trees each is going to leave us 25 Billion trees short. Better go with 15 trees each, then we’ll have a surplus.
An acre of forest has between 50 and 200 trees, depending on type. Go with 100 for average. So that’s a Billion acres of new planted forest.
That’s half of Australia.

Reply to  Pat Kelly
August 16, 2017 10:04 pm

“That’s half of Australia.”
Plant them in the Nullabor. Nobody uses that for anything.

shortie of greenbank
Reply to  Pat Kelly
August 16, 2017 10:42 pm

The initiative sounds like Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s ‘Direct Action’ plan. It certainly wasn’t accepted by enviroloons (media etc) here but could also be used to tackle other more visible environmental problems like salinity.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
Reply to  Pat Kelly
August 17, 2017 4:03 am

Dr Richard St Barbe Baker told me that he had been responsible for programmes that ultimately planted 4 billion trees. He said, “If you conservatively value each tree at 1 Pound, then I have contributed 4 billion Pounds to the global economy.”
If lay-abouts needed President Trump to stimulate them to plant a measly 1 billion trees, so be it. Apparently nothing else got them off their duffs. It just seems that job creation is a priority and everyone will benefit from the additional oxygen. Nothing but upsides.

Reply to  Scott Frasier
August 17, 2017 4:55 am

Coal will never be made on this planet again. It was a product of incomplete decomposition because funguses and bacteria at the time lacked the ability to completely decompose plant life. Now they have the correct enzymes.
It seems our future hope is on gathering methane which is still produced with decomposition.

george e. smith
Reply to  Scott Frasier
August 17, 2017 2:32 pm

Well New Zealand can’t even get credit (nor can USA) for all of the intensive forestry farming that they do already.
Both NZ and USA are net carbon sinks because of their agricultural productivity in general and forestry farming in particular, but both countries are considered gross polluters.
So NZ is not a good place to start a rampage about planting trees.
And those “poor” countries they are talking about planting trees; the people will just cut them down for firewood. Those countries need cheap energy, not token pottery gardens.

Reply to  Scott Frasier
August 23, 2017 10:36 am

I have advocated all along that those who are truly concerned about atmospheric CO2 should plant trees. It’s a harmless activity, won’t get on anybody’s nerves, and improves the environment. If it takes the antics of Donald Trump to accomplish such a common-sense solution, then hooray for Donald Trump! MAGA!

August 16, 2017 2:03 pm

What they really need to do is compensate for the trees felled to make wood pellets for UK’s Drax power plant.

Reply to  sean2829
August 16, 2017 2:19 pm

Definately. The line about only scrap and waste wood is used was never true.

Reply to  sean2829
August 16, 2017 4:18 pm

They could also try to plant to offset China’s and India’s (and the rest of the world’s) additional CO2.
But I’d rather they didn’t. Crops need the CO2 increase.

August 16, 2017 2:09 pm

These folks could have just planted more trees all along. They didn’t need to wait until they were making some lame political point that is short on facts. It goes to show that environmentalism tends to be more about show than “progress.”

Reply to  renbutler
August 16, 2017 2:12 pm

I mean, think about it — if all they needed to do was plant more trees, why did they try so hard to penalize the USA and redistribute our wealth?
Answer: Because it was never about the environment — it was about socialism.

Reply to  renbutler
August 16, 2017 7:48 pm

Very astute!

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
Reply to  renbutler
August 17, 2017 4:08 am

I think there is less socialism in it than hatred of icons. Everyone loves a lightning rod. When there aren’t any, create one!
I think the planting trees idea is great, whatever the motivation. It won’t make a hoot of a difference to the climate, but we can always use the wood.
I add a caveat to that: if people planted hardy trees on the edge of the Sahara and work in, it can be entirely reclaimed. That would be really great for the whole planet. Eight thousand years ago it was farmable. We could use the farmland.

Reply to  renbutler
August 16, 2017 2:17 pm

Frankly, I like it. It costs me nothing, it costs The Donald nothing and the birds and squirrels will like it too. To the tree planters, I say: please come up with more harmless and possibly beneficial ideas that you fund yourselves. I will be happy to applaud your efforts (from a distance). I might even buy a few shares in my local tree growing nursery.

John M. Ware
Reply to  Trebla
August 16, 2017 6:01 pm

I like it, too. However, I would say to these enthusiasts, “Be careful what you plant, and where! Many of the worst environmental problems now are the result of introduced or invasive species. Be conscious of hardiness zones–live oaks, for instance, won’t survive winters north or west of Norfolk, VA. Think about soil types and other issues also. Avoid nuisance trees: Mulberries and box elders don’t need to make additional conquests, and bird-of-paradise trees are seldom preferred. Further, even desirable trees can’t go just anywhere; they need to be planted where they will prosper, and where their shade is needed. I’d love to see trees planted along busy streets–but there has to be open ground into which they can go. It’s not enough simply to buy up a few seedlings or saplings and plop them in willy-nilly. Take time to be thoughtful about what and where you plant.”

Reply to  Trebla
August 16, 2017 7:31 pm

live oaks, for instance, won’t survive winters north or west of Norfolk, VA

Fort Wayne, IN is North AND West of Norfolk, and we grow Oak trees just fine.
Where you talking about just in Virginia?

Rich Lambert
Reply to  Trebla
August 17, 2017 5:30 am

Live Oak are a variety of oak that only grow in warmer areas.

george e. smith
Reply to  Trebla
August 17, 2017 2:35 pm

Live Oaks are like dandelions in California; simply garden weeds, so BS on the West of Norfolk.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Trebla
August 17, 2017 3:24 pm

John M. Ware August 16, 2017 at 6:01 pm
“… and bird-of-paradise trees are seldom preferred”
I have planted several bird-o-paradise around my yard. Wonderful plants. Big broad leaves, once established don’t need extra watering even in hot dry weather and they create shade when they get very large. Great for blocking out the neighbors big white fence in the back. Plus they turn the yard into a tropical paradise. Love em’.

Michelle Montgomery
Reply to  renbutler
August 16, 2017 2:24 pm

The left brain twist only goes one turn… 180 degrees opposite common sense. Short-sited self-righteousness, emotion, and power.

Gerry, England
August 16, 2017 2:11 pm

Perhaps it should be ‘Forest Trump’ instead.

Andrew Burnette
Reply to  Gerry, England
August 16, 2017 3:26 pm

I’m not a smart man, Gerry. But I know what a scam is.

John in Oz
Reply to  Gerry, England
August 16, 2017 3:39 pm

“Stupid is as stupid does” my Ma used to say

Reply to  John in Oz
August 16, 2017 11:08 pm

” Life’s like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re gonna get. “

george e. smith
Reply to  John in Oz
August 17, 2017 2:37 pm

The square ones are always hard toffee inside. The domed ones always have gooey gunk inside of them.

Reply to  Gerry, England
August 16, 2017 5:45 pm

Gerry, that’s a HOOT! (but, puh-lease, don’t give ’em any ideas)…

August 16, 2017 2:12 pm

“Only a small percentage of the world voted him”
…. but he raised the global (media) temperature to the ‘unprecedented’ hugest on the record for the month of August.

Reply to  vukcevic
August 16, 2017 2:14 pm

‘hugest’, how did that got in there, meant to be ‘highest’

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  vukcevic
August 16, 2017 2:36 pm

I thought ‘hugest’ was a deliberate “Trumpism” in your original post.
Sometimes unintended comedy is the best kind.

Reply to  vukcevic
August 16, 2017 2:45 pm

Vuk: You confuse that with “yugest”.

Reply to  vukcevic
August 16, 2017 11:09 pm

I like “hugest”, it’s way more descriptive !

Eamon Butler
Reply to  vukcevic
August 17, 2017 2:12 am

”hugest” has my vote.

Bryan A
Reply to  vukcevic
August 17, 2017 10:00 am

Given that it is Trump, Hugest is OK. He has often referred to himself as Huge. in his Apprentice spot
(Apprentice followed Long Island Medium) so the Tromp Ad said something about “Going from Meduim to Huge”

Reply to  vukcevic
August 17, 2017 1:05 pm

Got it, hugest thanks to all.

george e. smith
Reply to  vukcevic
August 17, 2017 2:39 pm

Surely yhugest ?

Bryan A
Reply to  vukcevic
August 18, 2017 2:11 pm

Oh the Hugh Manatee

Reply to  vukcevic
August 16, 2017 2:20 pm

Trump raised the temperature? It’s not CO2 after all? Drat.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  vukcevic
August 17, 2017 2:14 am

I was also wondering, what percentage of the world voted for these guys?

Reply to  vukcevic
August 17, 2017 7:12 am

What percentage of the world voted for Merkel?

August 16, 2017 2:18 pm

Next door to me the school children planted trees a few years ago :

Reply to  garymount
August 16, 2017 2:21 pm

It’s not about success, it’s about show. As long as you plant a tree, it can die tomorrow and you still get credit for saving the planet.

Reply to  garymount
August 16, 2017 3:49 pm

It is sad that they planted the trees for carbon sequestration and not because trees are living organisms that create an ecosystem. Trees don´t sequestate carbon, they eat CO2, and they produce sugars and oils from said CO2.

Dave in Canmore
Reply to  garymount
August 17, 2017 7:47 am

Gary, the grass in that photo is sequestering as much carbon as any trees that were planted in their stead. For most of the world, green plants are already maxing out all the available resources per square meter. Putting something different there like a tree is changing almost nothing.
Planting a tree merely changes one plants monopoly into another plants monopoly of light, Co2, N and moisture. There is no end to the ignorance of the most basic natural science of most environmentalists.
(as an aside I have supervised the planting of about 75 million trees in northern Canada. Had these trees not been planted, those clearcuts would be filled with life, just not the species mandated by law. Nature abhors a vacuum as they say!)

Reply to  Dave in Canmore
August 17, 2017 9:54 am

That is very correct. Forest does not produce most humus and therefore brings most of the carbon into the soil, but Grasland does so. In the forest, the humus layer remains the same over the years and decades, because the forest draws many nutrients from the soil. Grassland, on the other hand, can let grow the humus layer by a few centimeters annually. Without end.

Reply to  Dave in Canmore
August 17, 2017 9:59 am

But probably mindless environmentalists feel better when planting a tree. A tree also makes more propaganda than flat, unimaginative grassland.

george e. smith
Reply to  Dave in Canmore
August 17, 2017 2:43 pm

But then grass doesn’t exactly look right in the fireplace; kind of puny compared to coal or Oak.

Reply to  Dave in Canmore
August 23, 2017 2:09 am

But grass and weeds cannot be used to build a house (although some have tried using hay bales). Deal and pine usually work fine.

August 16, 2017 2:24 pm

I was told quite emphatically by a company president that trees planted anywhere but the tropics do NOT count. Which is why his company was turning Costa Rican farms into forests. Cheap land, people who could not object, etc had nothing to do with it. I try not to buy from Home Depot for this reason, along with any other company that is reviving plantation mentality in poor countries.

Reply to  Sheri
August 16, 2017 4:42 pm

Don’t blame Home Depot or any other company conforming to the global government diktat that doing something green, no matter how irresponsible, is better than nothing. If they object, they lose tax incentives and therefore business because of higher prices.

Reply to  Sheri
August 17, 2017 5:04 am

I have to re-up a government registration each year for my personal one person company. One of the questions now is do you have CO2 mitigation plans if you have a government contract over 7.5 million. I don’t do that much so it doesnt affect me – but that is certainly enough. Companies are forces to do this sh!t.

Milton Suarez
August 16, 2017 2:26 pm

Hay que REFORESTAR CON ARBOLES FRUTALES en el campo,en parques,en jardines para que las personas lo cuiden y no les corten porque van a ser su sustento.REFORESTAR CON ARBOLES DE MADERA FINA tiene que pasar mínimo 30 años para ser cortados. REFORESTAR CON ARBOLES QUE DEN FLORES para que los insectos,abejas,pájaros hagan su “trabajo” de polinizar.El campesino que corta arboles para poder utilizar el terreno en agricultura, tiene que REFORESTAR en otro lugar.Por cada árbol cortado, tiene que sembrarse tres.

Bryan A
Reply to  Milton Suarez
August 16, 2017 2:36 pm

A nice sentiment but I don’t think that countries that regularly cut trees for farming regions (Haiti or Brasil) would be interested in planting 3 for every 1 harvested. Haiti is now basically devoid of trees. (No more Hurricane Wind Brakes)
Un sentimiento agradable pero no creo que los países que regularmente cortaron árboles para el cultivo de las regiones (Haití o Brasil) estaría interesados en la siembra de 3 por cada 1 cosechados. Haití es ahora básicamente carente de árboles. (Sin más frenos de viento de huracán)

george e. smith
Reply to  Bryan A
August 17, 2017 2:45 pm

Rapanui can use all of the trees you can plant there; they burnt all of the previous ones too.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
August 18, 2017 2:15 pm

Every tree will need to come with 3 armed guards to ensure they have a chance to grow for the next 30 years
Shoot first, ask no questions at all

August 16, 2017 2:27 pm

Feel good foolishness! They need to stop cutting down trees for Palm oil plantations. This is just a get rich scam

August 16, 2017 2:30 pm

I thought there was that recent paper in Nature that said the globe had greened 15% since 1990 probably through that greenhouse gas called carbon dioxide.
A guess a bit more greening is fine.

Reply to  Herbert
August 16, 2017 4:45 pm

NASA study, 14% greening in 30 years, 70% of which is directly attributed to increased atmospheric CO2.

Reply to  HotScot
August 16, 2017 5:32 pm

Thanks for the NASA study.

george e. smith
Reply to  HotScot
August 17, 2017 2:48 pm

Also explains where 20% of the world’s total food supply comes from.
So which 1.5 billion people were you planning on starving.

Steve Safigan
August 16, 2017 2:32 pm

Wonderful! They’re already 0.0000012% of the way to accomplishing their goal!

Bryan A
Reply to  Steve Safigan
August 18, 2017 2:16 pm

That has eliminated a 0.00000000000001C in warming in 2250. Keep up the good work

August 16, 2017 2:37 pm

Many of the forests under US Forest Service management are getting beetle infestations. Block cutting or clear cutting whole forests will make room for planting all the new trees.
Another area to look for places to plant are the US Mid-Atlantic states where intensive logging is going on to support England’s Drax power plant.
Some people just do not get the concept that trees are a renewable resource. The more people are allowed to harvest this valuable resource, the more trees get planted.

Reply to  TonyL
August 17, 2017 5:10 am

That is due to man as well. There is a natural cycle where you have meadows which turn into scrub forests which turn into large tree forests. The forest burns down and it starts over again with the meadow. With fire resistant tree forests – it may not burn to meadow state, but at least the old sick trees.get burnt out.
People, though, like trees – and dislike fires when they build homes in the trees, so we have artifiically suppress the fires which causes the trees to live longer than they should – making them old and weak. Of course they all are dying from beetle infestations. Beetles are a slower way to fix things but when that tree dies it will leave a spot of sunshine on the forest floor to allow a new healthy plant to grow.

Reply to  marque2
August 17, 2017 7:22 am

Too many trees also mean that there is more competition for resources, such as water.
This results in trees that are weaker.

Reply to  TonyL
August 17, 2017 4:06 pm

Mitigated of course, by increased atmospheric CO2 which reduces the need for water and makes the trees stronger and more pest resistant.

August 16, 2017 2:42 pm

I wonder. After these trees have lived and died, won’t they decay and release the CO2 back into the environment? Or be chopped down and burned? Or fall victim to forest fires?

Reply to  texasjimbrock
August 16, 2017 4:30 pm

Yes, Texas, an essential point that uses beyond the logic of the flower power set. Geoff

Reply to  texasjimbrock
August 17, 2017 5:13 am

Shhh- stop trying to make logical sense.
Note in the long term the CO2 gets bound on the ocean floor as sea shells. And gets subducted under the continents – where hopefully the limestone that is created gets burnt by magma and the resulting CO2 gets spewed back into the atmosphere. The environuts should plant mollusks.

August 16, 2017 2:45 pm

The US EPA takes a dim view of wholesale modification of the natural environment. Surely they have permits?

August 16, 2017 3:03 pm

I notice that they don’t dare to attempt to plant enough trees to offset the Indian and Chinese emissions. Also, those trees, as they age, don’t suck up very much CO2. A fully grown tree
inhales very little CO2. But it does block the sun from plants on the ground that would have inhaled CO2 if given the chance. So they will have to continuously either plant more trees or harvest
those getting large. Which, of course, requires carbon emissions to do so. An ingenious plan that is actually in all likelihood, pretty dumb. Hey, stupid ones : Build a nuclear plant and actually accomplish something. Those trees have an enormous environmental footprint, you know.

Count to 10
Reply to  arthur4563
August 16, 2017 3:54 pm

Yeah, my first thought was “Why not ‘China Forest’?”

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
Reply to  arthur4563
August 17, 2017 4:14 am

And the Indian Forest
and the Mongolia forest
and the Polish forest
and the South Africa forest.
This is going to be very good for mankind.

August 16, 2017 3:08 pm

More stupid virtue signalling, The US did not join Kyoto, yet is the only major country to have reduced CO2 anyway thanks to fracked natural gas. Nothing against planting trees, but not to offset ‘Trump emissions’, cause there aren’t any. Frankly, large swaths of Western beetle infested lodgepole pine needs to be clear cut, then control burned (to release seeds) and let rejuvenate. Would be terrific for Trump to take the Trump,Green money and give it to the forest service for this.
More melting snowflakes. More progressive pearl clutching. Took Trump two days of honest straight talk for NoKo Fatso fo fold on nuking Guam. MSM is melting down because Trump accurately said (twice) that alt right and ctrl left (Antifa) are both at fault for Charlottesville violence.

Reply to  ristvan
August 16, 2017 3:41 pm

Am I right that if an area of forest is replaced by c4 grasses then the amount of photosynthesis will increase, not decrease?

Reply to  ptolemy2
August 16, 2017 4:24 pm

No. The amount of glucose produced is what counts, not how or when it is produced. The light reaction is the more efficient way for plants to produce glucose, all other things being equal.

Reply to  ristvan
August 16, 2017 4:53 pm

I don’t get the alt-right bit. Since when has Na*i’sm been right wing, Hi*ler was a socialist.
And Fascism was popularised, if not invented by Mussolini, who was kicked out of the socialist party, then he invented his own party, Fas*ism.
So how the hell did the right get implicated in all this? Other than the left wanting to blame everyone but themselves for violence, oppression, starvation, progression to communism etc?

Reply to  HotScot
August 16, 2017 5:40 pm

In the current US MSM narrative. You unfortunately are ‘confused’ by actual recorded history.

Reply to  HotScot
August 16, 2017 11:58 pm

Unfortunately, it’s no different in the UK.

Reply to  HotScot
August 17, 2017 1:55 am

“You unfortunately are ‘confused’ by actual recorded history.”
Fear not. They are in the process of re-writing history.

Reply to  ristvan
August 16, 2017 6:21 pm

MSM is melting down because Trump accurately said (twice) that alt right and ctrl left (Antifa) are both at fault for Charlottesville violence.

Somehow the people who instigated the violence are above reproach. Things have become really bad when antifa seemingly has a licence to decide that some peoples’ speech can be suppressed with violence.
Whatever happened to:

I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it. link

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
Reply to  commieBob
August 17, 2017 4:19 am

I presume most people have seen the videos exposing the professional provocateurs hires by the DNC to create havoc at Trump rallies. Surely some of these ‘protesters’ who went to the march, on both sides, were in the pay of party enemies?
Look back to the South African situation 1990-1994. A great deal of the conflict was financed and managed and exacerbated by agents of the government. The conflict last Saturday seems to be awfully convenient. Keep digging.

Reply to  commieBob
August 17, 2017 5:17 am

But Antifa are the “good” terrorists. (Sarcasm)

Reply to  commieBob
August 17, 2017 6:48 pm

“Look back to the South African situation 1990-1994. A great deal of the conflict was financed and managed and exacerbated by agents of the government. The conflict last Saturday seems to be awfully convenient. Keep digging.”
There is a LOT of money being spent on the Left in an effort to impose Leftist totalitarianism on the United States. Several leftist billionaires are putting up big bucks, and even the ACLU is recruiting something like 250,000 people so they can train them as professional protestors.
The Left is out to undermine the legitimacy of the United States and its founding, and these attacks on Civil War era statues are just the beginning. Their goal is to discredit the Founding Fathers and all they created, including our way of government.
The Left is on the attack and they have the huge megaphone of the MSM running interference for them, and promoting their causes, and it is a very dangerous time for our nation, as forces on the Left seek to divide us one from another, and demonize those opposing them.
Trump fights back, and he fights back effectively, and it is not out of the question that it is the MSM, not Trump who, in the end, comes out the worst after this battle. MSM poll numbers are going down, while Trump’s are going up. Destroying the credibility of the MSM would be the greatest gift Trump could give us. Fortunately, the MSM are doing a pretty good job of destroying their own credibility all by themselves, with their obsession with trying to damage Trump.
A partisan, political lying MSM is the most dangerous thing there is to our personal freedoms. We cannot govern ourselves based on lies and the false reality created by the MSM, and that’s just about all we are getting from them right now.
Fortunately, millions of Americans are not as stupid as the Left thinks they are. Unfortunately, the storm of lies coming out of the MSM will influence too many people, even so.

August 16, 2017 3:16 pm

Trees are an almost insignificant reservoir of carbon. Most carbon (99.9%) in the form of CO2 has been absorbed by the ocean and used by marine organisms such as coral, forams and molluscs to make limestone and other sediments.

Reply to  jaymam
August 16, 2017 4:55 pm

Now that’s a very good point. Perhaps we ought to start the blue party and swamp the green party, and all their crap science.
It is, after all, the blue planet.

george e. smith
Reply to  HotScot
August 17, 2017 2:55 pm

it’s actually a black planet that is hidden by scattered blue sunlight.

Reply to  george e. smith
August 17, 2017 4:09 pm

I didn’t need to know that in my fervour to whip up support for a new blue movement to idolise CO2 as a life bringer.
I mean to say, you’ve just shot me down with an inconvenient truth.

Bill Parsons
Reply to  jaymam
August 16, 2017 8:48 pm

Freeman Dyson worked out the carbon sink questions in 1976, although maybe that was before we reached the tipping point.

August 16, 2017 3:19 pm

“We’ve met some of the people on the front lines of climate change in Bangladesh, Mongolia and in other countries, and we found it extremely upsetting that Mr Trump’s ignorance is so profound,” said Adrien Taylor, a co-founder of Trump Forest.
I have met some people from Michigan and a few from Brazil, and I find it extremely upsetting that Mr. Taylor’s ignorance is so profound!
Yes, I know my statement doesn’t make any sense, but it is no more illogical than Adrien Taylor’s statement. While both statements are complete non-sequitur’s, Mr. Taylor’s statement adds additional craziness by implying that Bangladesh and Mongolia are the ‘front lines’ of man-made global warming. I mean…isn’t it supposed to be global? Perhaps Mongolia and Bangladesh are some of the first countries to figure out how to get the rest of the world to pay for their typical weather issues. Maybe he meant to say that these countries are on front lines of the climate change racket.
My advice to Mr. Taylor would be to not call people stupid. It reveals that you really don’t have an argument so you have to resort to name calling. But if you are going to call someone stupid, try to do it in a sentence that is somewhat rational, otherwise you tend to look…well…you know.

August 16, 2017 3:30 pm

A tad OT but this evisceration of Megyn Kelly by Russian president Putin is sweet:

Reply to  ptolemy2
August 17, 2017 12:34 am

Fantastic. That’s the second time I have seen a Putin video and I cant help but be impressed at his direct manner and logical thinking.
The West won the Cold War, the USSR fractured and entirely abandoned Communism. That was the objective, right? And isn’t the world a better place for it?
China, similarly, has undergone a social and commercial transformation in the last generation or so. They may not, yet have abandoned a Communist Government, but to all intents and purposes it has embraced Capitalism as a route to prosperity, and the world is a better place for that as well.
And the biggest threat we face now? A few mangy terrorist’s, and a tin pot dictator who imagines he would stand the remotest chance of retaining his throne in a conflict with, not only the US, but NATO.
And the point Putin makes on that subject is also relevant. Whilst the Warsaw Pact was abandoned, NATO is still functioning, and growing.
Yet the MSM continue to paint Russia as the villain whilst it’s ringed by ‘allied’ military bases and a proposed ‘European’ army, doubtless largely controlled by Germany which has historically had designs on Russian land.
Personally, I can’t think of anything worse than letting Germany getting it’s hands on another army.

Reply to  HotScot
August 17, 2017 12:42 am

Yes it’s right not to forget recent history.
I don’t think many people are aware of the volume of NATO military hardware and personnel in places like the Baltic States.
Germany’s first goal presumably would be to get Kaliningrad / Konigsburg back.
Would they be satisfied with that? Historic precedent would suggest otherwise.

Reply to  HotScot
August 17, 2017 2:29 am

The Russians are much misunderstood.
They had probably the worst WW2 of anyone. They were occupied, bombed and beseiged. They suffered unspeakable hardships in Leningrad, for instance. They lost more soldiers than anyone else and also destroyed more of the enemy’s armies than anyone else. At the same time, some famous US business men were trading with Germany and ended up with some of their companies at the end of the conflict.
The USSR gave them a buffer zone round Russia to help prevent a recurrence. Now the USSR is gone they have no buffer zone. NATO can move missiles right up to their border. I seemed to remember that JFK objected to behaviour of that kind.
There used to be a balance of missiles and anti-missiles between the US and Russia then the US withdrew from the anti-missile treaty and moved lots of them up to the Russian border. The Russians now feel threatened because they cannot put their anti-missile systems round the border of the US. This has lowered their capability and altered the balance. Iran’s nuclear capability was also used by the US to justify moving missiles into Romania.

Reply to  graphicconception
August 17, 2017 3:08 am

Great article, thanks for pointing me to that. The only fly in the ointment is the final paragraph which includes: “One can also lament the way the sacrifices of the past inform the muscular Russian nationalism now peddled by Putin and his Kremlin allies. ”
My perception of Russian nationalism is no different from that of Trump, or the UK for that matter. That being, look after your own first, in which case, Putin is doing the right thing for his country, as Trump seems determined to do for the US, and the British electorate are similarly determined with Brexit.
And I’m damn sure the UK needs to work closely with our US cousins and historic allies to make Brexit a success, in which case, we can all kiss the EU bye bye, not before time.

Reply to  HotScot
August 17, 2017 1:54 pm

After WW2 Germany were rewarded for the Holocaust and destruction of Europe by the largesse of the Marshall plan.
Russia sacrificed 20 million lives to break the power of na3i Germany, and were rewarded by a generation of cold war isolation.
OK under Stalin they were’nt exactly fun to deal with. But their paranoia was partly understandable from what they had endured.
It’s still not too late for a Marshall plan for Russia.

george e. smith
Reply to  HotScot
August 17, 2017 2:59 pm

So does Konigsburg still have seven bridges, or did some vandal build another one ??

Reply to  HotScot
August 17, 2017 4:20 pm

george e. smith
I’m not sure the Vandals were around when Königsberg (now Kaliningrad) was built, were they? 🙂
Nothing to do with me, Wikipedia can occasionally be a wonderful thing. 🙂

Reply to  HotScot
August 17, 2017 7:03 pm

“And the point Putin makes on that subject is also relevant. Whilst the Warsaw Pact was abandoned, NATO is still functioning, and growing.”
Can you say Crimea?
NATO was not growing during the Obama administration, it was shrinking with Obama refusing to put anti-missile systems in Poland, for example, and only started growing when Trump came into Office, which was after the Russians arbitrarily occupied Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine.
Russians are also partially responsible for the masses of people who have been killed and those displaced from the Middle East and who are now threatening Europe’s sovereignty.
So there’s a place for NATO in the modern world, I would say. Putin wants to act like he is on defense, but he is definitely on offense, and needs a little pushback.

Reply to  HotScot
August 18, 2017 1:31 am

NATO is a bit like the climate hiatus. It has grown, then an Obama ‘pause’, then in the face of a direct threat from N.Korea, it has grown again, perhaps.
I don’t support the Russian aggression in Crimea, but then nor did I support the UN’s aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, far more destructive and divisive campaigns than Crimea.
And whilst NATO rings Russia with armaments, in ‘allied’ countries, Russia is somehow forbidden from using Cuba as a military base, despite it being their ally.
Meanwhile, the last major conflict Russia was directly involved in was repelling Germany in WW2, at the cost of millions of lives whilst NATO, the UN, America and Europe have been the aggressors in numerous wars since 1945. Crimea represents far more of a legitimate case for a border dispute than Korea, Vietnam or Iraq.
But somehow, the Russians are presented as the global bogeyman, despite having done precisely what the West wanted, abandon Communism and embrace Capitalism. And whilst they are blamed for all the West’s failings like cyber crime and political interference, do we somehow imagine the West is sitting on it’s hands and not conducting these activities within Russia. To imagine so would be extraordinarily naive.
And if NATO is a growing presence in Europe, could that not perhaps be an Obama hangover, after all, Trump has only been in office for a matter of months and I believe mobilisation of men and materials takes a considerable amount of time to be approved across all the member countries.
But whatever happens in the world today seems to be Trumps fault somehow. I mean to say, removal of the statue of a Confederate General in the manner of Saddam Hussain’s symbolic toppling is fine and well, in which case why not remove all the statues of Nelson Mandela from around the world. He was after all a terrorist who never renounced the cause he represented, one which caused the death of innumerable people, both black and white. Or perhaps Ghandi, another one presented as some sort of saint, but with a particularly disturbing habit of sleeping with young female family members in a desire to ‘test’ his resolve to remain ‘pure’. Wouldn’t a prostitute have been a more demanding test than a family member?
But the condemnation of Trump continues. A right wing President is blamed for the activities of neo N*zi’s in Charlottesville, despite the N*zi movement being a socialist movement, which is what the term is an abbreviation for, the Nationalist Socialist Workers Party, presided over by A*olf H*tler. These people are left wing, ideological, white supremacist fanatics, nothing to do with right wing politics or beliefs or values.
And so far what has Trump done? Well, he started dismantling a corrupt and overreaching EPA (a manifesto promise) he’s withdrawn from the Paris Treaty, one so blindingly anti American I fail to understand why Obama even considered it (another manifesto promise). He’s stood up to a N. Korean tin pot dictator who thought threatening the USA with nuclear weapons was a great idea by telling Kim Jong Un he wouldn’t have a country to govern if he carried out his threat (a responsibility inherent within the American Presidency). His underlying manifesto promise is to get America back to work, is that so bad? Too bad if some rotten eggs need to be broken in that endeavour, it’s long overdue they were broken and I take heart that Brexit also, potentially means the breaking of the rotten egg that is the EU. Unfortunately, the UK doesn’t have a leader like Trump, in fact, we don’t have a leader, and I would much prefer we had Trump that what we do have.
And I never imagined I would ever hear myself say that. But Churchill, another decisive leader, was similarly unpopular, ridiculed, marginalised and condemned before leading Britain through WW2. Perhaps we should all take a lesson from that.

Reply to  HotScot
August 18, 2017 5:53 am

“But the condemnation of Trump continues. A right wing President is blamed for the activities of neo N*zi’s in Charlottesville, despite the N*zi movement being a socialist movement, which is what the term is an abbreviation for, the Nationalist Socialist Workers Party, presided over by A*olf H*tler. These people are left wing, ideological, white supremacist fanatics, nothing to do with right wing politics or beliefs or values.”
Well, all these designations can get kind of confusing. To me, the radicals on both sides of the political isle who advocate violence should be described as Brown Shirts.
Their purpose is to cause disruption and mayhem and it really doesn’t matter where they come down on the poltical spectrum if violence is their means of communication. They should be condemned roundly by all sides. Violence will not solve problems, it will only create bigger problems.
White supremacists and racists are NOT welcome in the Republican Party.
They are a very small minority of the population and Republicans and Trump reject them at every opportunity, but that doesn’t stop the Leftwing media from connecting them to Republicans and describing them as part of the Republican Party.
I heard Fox News’ Chris Wallace say flat out last Sunday that the White Supremacists were part of Trump’s base. It’s a GD lie, but here we have a respected journalist who obviously believes this lie and puts it out to the public as the truth and does great harm to the body politic.
Smart people, including “fair and balanced” journalists, can really get it wrong sometimes. Of course, we knew that, didn’t we.

Reply to  HotScot
August 18, 2017 5:58 am

“Or perhaps Ghandi, another one presented as some sort of saint, but with a particularly disturbing habit of sleeping with young female family members in a desire to ‘test’ his resolve to remain ‘pure’. Wouldn’t a prostitute have been a more demanding test than a family member?”
Well, I guess that would depend on whether all he did was sleep, or not. I don’t know the answer to that. I would be inclined to give Ghandi the benefit of the doubt.

Reply to  TA
August 18, 2017 6:36 am

Whether he did anything with the girls other than sleep (not just one at a time, and he insisted everyone was naked) isn’t the point. The concept of using a family member as the ultimate test of his celibacy does more than suggest where his desires lay.
It is morally repugnant, socially unacceptable, spiritually blasphemous and politically corrupt.
He was also a racist, and in his terms hated “ni**ers” earning medals for joining the British Army in Africa to quell the Zulu uprising.
Some pacifist.

Reply to  ptolemy2
August 17, 2017 12:35 am

Indeed Forrest, when will the lefty US media clique begin to get the message that most of the world despises them.

Reply to  ptolemy2
August 17, 2017 5:19 am

The blood wasn’t coming out of her ears, her mouth, where ever. That is only reserved for GOP candidates that don’t tow the GOPe lines.

August 16, 2017 3:38 pm

The irony here is that more trees ARE GROWING because of CO2 fertilisation worldwide and in the USA. The only plants not benefiting from this CO2 are the subservient alarmist vegetables 🥒 incapable of independent thought and indoctrinated into the AGW’s nonsensical mantra.
The more coal Trump burns, the more tress will grow. That is the real Trump forest.
This infantile protest is merely Trump’s cabbage patch.

August 16, 2017 3:40 pm

It is a wonderful idea to plant more trees. I say: Plant fruit trees — the older full-sized trees. Plant them in your yard and along the roadsides (opposite side of the road from the power- lines, or they will get mercilessly trimmed by tree crews) plant the new blight-free Chestnuts as soon as they become commercially available. Plant your living Christmas trees. Plant lots and lots of trees, and make sure to do it where you can monitor watering for the first few years.
“Others have simply bought and planted a tree themselves and sent a copy of the receipt to the project.” This is the best idea — do NOT send money — it will most likely go for organizational expenses (mega-salaries for NGO CEOs) and not to actually planting trees anywhere. Do NOT send money — if the money ever gets to the intended countries for tree planting, most of the money will go to expenses, housing foreign-national eco-warriors, etc.
In the Dominican Republic, my wife and I instigated and supervised irrigation projects in the South (it is really the southwest of the country) and required a community contribution of X-number of trees planted for each phase of the irrigation project — a local NGO supplied the trees and planting supervision. Thousands of acres have been reforested by local communities “blackmailed” into it by linked projects like this. Ten years later, the locals realize the value of mixed perma-cultured reforestation — but it took a while for them to see the value.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Kip Hansen
August 16, 2017 5:13 pm

You know those bags of mixed nuts that come around every Christmas? Filberts, Almonds, English Walnuts, Pecans. Those nuts will grow across most of the continental US.
Cherry pits and all pitted fruits; Apricot, Plum, Peach need scattered where the mowers and tree trimmers won’t go. Turn your city’s wild places and parks and right of ways into orchards.
I’ve done that for at least 20 years along with Chinquapin Oaks, Redbuds, Black Walnuts, Pear, Hickory Apple and just anything I could get my hands on.
Some never came up and some were lost to browsing deer, but some remain and I’ve seen people harvesting Pecans and Pears from those trees.
Most tree seeds need special treatment such as stratification and scarification to germinate, but much info is available online for free. Properly prepped seeds can be directly planted after last frost. If merely casting tree seeds in likely places, without special effort, scatter them in the Fall so that Nature can work on them during the Winter, for a Spring emergence.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
August 17, 2017 5:22 am

For awhile San Francisco had a law that residents must plant a fruit tree in the front yard – so homeless can pick and eat your fruit.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
August 18, 2017 4:13 am

Why do you have powerlines along the side of the road?

August 18, 2017 9:03 pm

To get to the other side?

Russ Wood
August 21, 2017 2:02 am

Poor countries, like South Africa and the USA (snark) don’t put the distribution power lines underground – it costs too much. So, they’re up in the air, where (at least in South Africa) thieves can chop pieces off the lines and sell the copper to unscrupulous scrap-metal merchants! Of course, this tends to black out the block, but it gets us used to the time when the power monopoly can’t provide power 24/7 because the Government wants to go to ‘renewables’.

Bruce Cobb
August 16, 2017 3:46 pm

I think these climate campaigners may be onto something, but they need to think outside the box. Why stop with “Trump Forest”? How about “Trump Houses, or even Trump Housing Developments”? These of course would consist of tiny homes, say about 5 or 600 sq. ft., and would use only renewable/green energy. They could all drive “Trump Cars” (glorified golf carts basically), and eat “Trump Food” (vegetarian, locally-sourced, natural foods). The sky’s the limit. As long as it’s on their dime of course.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 23, 2017 2:46 am

I like the “Trump Car”. They should be the only cars used in cities. Would be difficult for terrorists to use them to kill large numbers of people if they could only use a car which could be stopped by half a dozen men pushing back against the front, or about four men lifting the rear wheels off the road. Good Idea, Bruce.

John in Oz
August 16, 2017 3:52 pm

Been there, done that.
Australia’s Trees For Life organisation has been doing this for almost 30 years and our political betters still feel we need to flagellate ourselves on the green altar (my bold).
Trees grown through all programs 32,362,102

August 16, 2017 3:54 pm

Trees do not sequester CO2.
Trees are used as timber, rot away, burned, or used in the Drax power station. 90% of the carbon in trees will eventually go back into the atmosphere – even if it takes 50 years before your shed is torn down and rebuilt.
Unless you are burying the trees, they do no sequester CO2.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  ralfellis
August 16, 2017 4:13 pm

If you increase the number of trees, then yes, more CO2 gets soaked up by them. What happens to them afterward is somewhat immaterial, as long as the number of trees keeps increasing, or at least stays the same.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 16, 2017 6:06 pm

A Ponzi scheme of forests.

South River Independent
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 17, 2017 12:49 pm

DonK31 – Life is a Ponzi scheme.

Reply to  ralfellis
August 16, 2017 4:29 pm

True, and if we pretend that they do sequester, it leads to a potential for a new generation of forestry regulation (see Finland).
In the USA it also would create another excuse for local control of private (property) trees by the local zealots in charge.
[As I type this an e-mail came through … the local jurisdiction is conceding their attempt to fine me $3,000 for the 6 trees on my vacant property that the NEIGHBOR cut without a permit (they knew this but they go after the property owner because it is usually easier). The ordinance is primarily for aesthetic protections, but if the altruistic “save the world” crap was included as a goal of the ordinance then they wouldn’t have cared how much money they would have spent trying to get at me.]
Don’t concede anything to the dark side. They just save it and beat you with it later.

Reply to  ralfellis
August 17, 2017 5:24 am

The timber in my house is certainly not releasing CO2 in great quantities. But I do have insurance just in case there is a rapid CO2 release. I suppose the insurance money could be used to plant trees – should a rapid CO2 outburst happen.

Reply to  ralfellis
August 17, 2017 10:14 am

That is not fully true. Although the individual tree has a finite life, even if it may be hundreds of years old. However, a forest (where trees grow again and again) has the potential to store CO2 over its entire lifetime (which can take millions of years). Only forest is not the best CO2 storage, but grassland. Because grassland saves CO2 in the ground in the long term, away from the photosynthesis. And by building evenly growing layers of humus without end. Forest extracts more nutrients from the soil than grasses. For example, the humus layer is very thin in the tropical forests with their year-round leaves. The more we reach north or south, the more the forest forms a humus layer, which, however, grows considerably slower than under grassland

Reply to  Hans-Georg
August 23, 2017 2:50 am

Back in the days when I was at school, we were told that schemes for clearing forests to grow crops had largely gone awry because it had been found that the soil under forests had little humus and was not good for food crops. After the first couple of years or so, all the ‘goodness’ had gone out of the soil and the crops failed.

August 16, 2017 3:57 pm

Trump’s victory has certainly cornered inherent BBC biases into enacting increasing frenzy mode. Not one single day since has gone by without at least three mainstreamed anti-Trump agitprop pieces. Doubt that, just go check the ‘news’ archives.

patrick bols
August 16, 2017 4:05 pm

trees are a marvelous idea. we cannot have enough of them. in the end the Donald’s legacy may become huge Trump forests all over the world.

I Came I Saw I Left
August 16, 2017 4:10 pm

Why bother? Trees plant themselves. Cleared land returns to forest once mowing/plowing stops

Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
August 16, 2017 4:19 pm


Bruce Cobb
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
August 16, 2017 4:32 pm

True. Vast swaths of land in New England which were cleared for farmland have returned to forest. Much of it is still young-growth forest, of course.

Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
August 16, 2017 6:03 pm

I can testify to that, my property was grazing land for horses before I bought it. 27 yrs later and its a forest.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
August 16, 2017 6:34 pm

Yes, just look at Detroit. 😉

Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
August 16, 2017 7:36 pm

I Came ==> Faster if we plant nursery started whips in 20 dollar holes and care for them the first year.
dsone it in the DR — fabulous successes when properly supervised by local people with self-interest at heart.

Bruce Cobb
August 16, 2017 4:23 pm

Planting trees because of climate is dumb on steroids. There are of course plenty of good reasons to plant them. The problem is that many if not most people don’t know how to plant them, or where, and how to care for them. Even the “professionals” sometimes do it wrong out of ignorance, laziness and/or greed (cutting corners). They’ll plant it with the root ball still bound with burlap and wire, for example.

NW sage
August 16, 2017 4:33 pm

I’ve done my part – I planted 250 trees this year! This can be verified using the same process everyone else worldwide is subjected to – ie no verification at all! But I’m starting to feel good about myself! Am I now qualified as an ecofreak?

Reply to  NW sage
August 16, 2017 5:17 pm

If you let the squirrels, raccoons, and wood ducks alone, they will do the deciduous planting job for you in the NH Except in coniferous forests requiring fire to release their cone seeds.

Reply to  ristvan
August 17, 2017 5:28 am

Squirrels help with coniferous forests too. They gnaw pine cones to get out and eat the seeds. Some of them invariably fall to the ground and do their thing.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
Reply to  NW sage
August 17, 2017 8:42 am

No, not an ecofreak, just another good person making a better world.

Patrick MJD
August 16, 2017 5:18 pm

I planted my NZ citizenship gift just north of Wellington, just off state highway 1 in a nature park. The gift was a native Totara tree. They take 100 years to get to maturity and grow for about a further 650+ years. I think I have made my contribution to TOTALLY removing my carbon emissions over my lifetime.

Tyler Jordan
August 16, 2017 5:23 pm

I hope these trees wither are not planted or are cut down and burned quickly. We need all the CO2 we can get to grow more food … and trees are not food.
More trees equals fewer people … just what the greenie’s want.

Alan Robertson
August 16, 2017 5:31 pm

Our Interstate highway system uses on average, 160 acres per mile of highway, for medians and the broad right of ways. Most of that is mown regularly throughout the growing season, nationwide.
If the mowing were limited to perhaps 20 feet of the shoulder, then nature would take care of forestation of the highway system and $Millions spent on mowing contracts could be used for highway maintenance.
I’m not sure if the soil along those right of ways would sequester more Carbon over time from the constant mowing, which builds topsoil, or from allowing trees and woody plants to grow.
Any trees that get too big and become a possible danger to motorists could be removed. The wood would always be useful for something.
We’ve all seen rutted and eroded slopes along the nation’s highways where the edict to mow has been followed regardless of weather or ground conditions. That slope mowing practice should be stopped, at the least.
Speaking of cities and useful wood, most US cities are also forests, which generate much wood waste each year, which is for the most part, taken to the local landfill.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
August 23, 2017 2:53 am

“Any trees that get too big and become a possible danger to motorists could be removed.”
Darn trees that jump out and hit innocent motorists!

Tom Harley
August 16, 2017 5:38 pm

What’s taken them so long, I’ve planted ten times that since George Bush won in 2001, and learned Al Gore was a liar soon after. I’ve even cut plenty down, too they are a great resource.
Darn Green nitwits.

August 16, 2017 6:08 pm

What these doofuses don’t realize is that trees produce water vapor, a ‘green house gas’…

August 16, 2017 6:19 pm

Congratulations on your 120,000 trees. That amounts to 300 acres, or about half a square mile of trees if planted at the same density that timber companies do. For comparison, Weyerhaeuser plants 100 million trees a year, but they do it to harvest them someday. Funny how a for-profit private enterprise with a vested interest plants roughly a thousand times more trees than self-righteous activists. Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand at work making the world a better place. You won’t hear about it from environmentalists because it doesn’t fit their humans-and-corporations-destroying-the-planet narrative.

Reply to  stinkerp
August 17, 2017 3:39 am

My late father in law was a senior UN forester in the 50’s & 60’s. He managed tropical rainforest projects then and the commercial loggers were the first people to advocate tree planting on a massive scale for their own self interest.
And the much maligned ‘illegal loggers’ who are presented as exporting timber for furniture etc. is almost a myth as they merely meet demand for local fuel needs as there are few coal fired power stations to provide energy. Nor are we talking villages here, whole towns and cities are reliant on timber for fuel. Farmers move into the cleared land and cultivate it for 3 years until the soil is exhausted of nutrients, but with insufficient energy to manufacture fertilisers, they are forced to follow the illegal loggers for new land whilst the abandoned land turns to dust.
This is not a failure of loggers, farmers or consumers, it’s a failure of government policy and foreign aid. They would rather virtue signal by giving these people silly solar stoves and dig wells for water instead of providing reliable electricity and irrigation/sanitation.

August 16, 2017 6:34 pm

I wonder if they’re going by the effect of pulling out of Paris, 2015 or if they’re adding in Copenhagen, 2009 too? Copenhagen was confusingly subsumed into the Paris NDC’s despite being largely implemented. The Economist and MIT assume the US will meet its Copenhagen commitments of 17% emission cuts (below 2005 levels) by 2020 despite pulling out of the Paris Agreement. That leaves the extra 9-11% they actually agreed to at Paris i.e. the 9-11% the US agreed to add to the 17% to arrive at its 26-28% NDC (Nationally Determined Contribution).
They can plant a lot fewer trees if they admit to the fact that the impact of the Paris Agreement is not the impact of the NDC’s agreed to at Paris but only the small extra impact over and above Copenhagen. If the US pulls out of Paris, it’s only the 9-11% that’s under threat.
In global terms, the extra commitments actually agreed to at Paris amount to the 0.2°C impact on 2100 surface air temps that Trump cited in his Paris Agreement speech. The rest of the NDC’s are attributable to Copenhagen and furnish another 0.45°C. That’s why the Paris Agreement was oversold. It appears to furnish a 0.65°C reduction (0.2 + 0.45) when really it furnishes a 0.2°C reduction.
So the Paris NDC’s have a 2100 SAT reduction impact of 0.65°C of which 0.2°C is valid as being what was agreed at Paris. The 0.2°C global contribution of Paris to the 0.65°C 2100 SAT reduction is probably a similar proportion to the US’s own Paris impact/NDC impact because the US emission-cut percentages are a similar ratio:
9%/26% = 0.35
0.2°C/0.65°C = 0.31
This would suggest they don’t have to plant 100 billion trees. 100 billion times 0.2/0.65 = 30.8 billion trees. Should we tell them this?
Or perhaps the tree planters are going by the 1°C impact for the Paris Agreement as boldly claimed in the MIT statement that took the administration to task on the use of the ‘0.2°C’ research. That 1°C spirits 0.35°C from future modelled scenarios and vague (in terms of implementation) long term plans that weren’t agreed at Paris or Copenhagen or at any other time. That’s 35% of the claimed 1°C or a 54% hiking-up of the actual 0.65°C (0.35°C + 0.65°C = 1°C).
Again, the US impact on the 2100 SAT would be hiked up by a similar proportion because they supplied a vague long term scenario that was immediately called a “pledge”, linked to the Paris Agreement and touted as being part of the 2100 SAT reduction impact of the Paris Agreement. Since the actual impact of the Paris Agreement is 0.2°C, this constitutes only one fifth of what is being claimed. That would mean they’d only have to plant 20 billion trees.
The MIT statement assures us that its claimed 1°C impact doesn’t include the long term plans (called post-2030 strengthening) while including them anyway. MIT is misleading us.
MIT’s own research shows the NDC’s (Paris-plus-Copenhagen) furnish the 0.65°C. Their source for the 1°C, Climate Interactive, clearly states that they include the long term plans. They chop and change at will, depending on who their audience is. If it’s the UNFCCC, the 0.2°C or 0.65°C figures are used to show how much further we need to go. If it’s the tax paying public, the hoped-for future plans get included to bump it up to 1°C. That way the Paris Agreement is sold to the public as a resounding success. All the details, fully researched and referenced are here:

August 16, 2017 7:08 pm

How about give credit where credit is due? How many trees did Weyerhaeuser plant in the recent past? Answer > 160 million !
Talk about large-scale help for the environment.

Reply to  Chipmonk
August 16, 2017 8:31 pm

And a lot of that wood is sequestered in homes and other buildings.

August 16, 2017 7:08 pm

If it is have these guys plant a bunch of trees or the US send billions to other countries for doing nothing, I’m glad for these guys to plant trees.
I like trees. I may even plant one. I’ve planted them in my yard before, so I know how to do it so they don’t die. Maybe they will send me some money.

August 16, 2017 7:40 pm

Will the trees coexist with windmill and photovoltaic farms?
Also, what is their value when the sun sets?
The trees will reverse production and the photovoltaic farms will just sit there like ecological mass disruptions.

John F. Hultquist
August 16, 2017 9:11 pm

In higher latitudes (think winter), trees are dark — wood fence posts too — and intercept solar energy that might otherwise hit snow and be reflected.
A dozen or so years ago this was studied and the idea of preventing global warming with tree planting faded from public interest.
I suspect a search could find a reference, but I’m not about to start looking.
I do plant a few trees each year (3 – 30) but, honestly, trees and shrubs have been growing faster than I can cut them back.

August 16, 2017 9:26 pm

There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to suport the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2. So in terms of CO2 causing climate change, the President’s efforts will have no effect on global climate and the planting of trees will have no effect on global climate as well. However: planting more trees is a good idea and the wood that trees produce is a good renewable fuel.

Pat from Tyers
August 16, 2017 11:31 pm

Planting trees is a wonderful thing. Until they catch on fire.
I wonder how many of the promoters of this bit of silliness have ever been in a major bush fire.
I’ve been in several as a volunteer fire fighter. It’s not much fun.

Reply to  Pat from Tyers
August 18, 2017 7:34 pm

Well, you don’t want them to catch on fire. To prevent that, we need to turn them into furniture, houses, and other useful things.

Ed Zuiderwijk
August 17, 2017 12:51 am

Am I wrong or was nature there first and adopted this idea without anybody telling it or paying for it. What was it again? Record increase of wood volumes in the forest of North America and Asia.

Gary Pearse
August 17, 2017 1:12 am

The planet planted a 14% expansion in its forests over a decade plus fattened the existing stock. Apparently (google) there are 3trillion trees on the planet so to match the planet on this Trump Forest, they would have to plant 420B trees and maybe double this to account for the ‘fattening’. How much did the planet bend the carbon curve down with its plantation work? It hardly seems noticeable.
The real thing here is, the climaticians don’t want a period of do nothing as they fear it could prove the theory wrong (after the dreaded Pause). It’s part of the flopping and leaping of chicken with head lopped off. They want to say they saved the planet. They didn’t think this through, though:
1) if planting a few trees would solve the problem, then they are admitting that cheap mitigation was possible all along and the hype, anxiety, pain, de-education, trillions already wasted, destruction of economies, institutions, science, the energy poverty, millions of deaths was totally unnecessary.
2) Trump Forest would memorialize the guy that really saved the planet and its people and their progress when this turkey has gobbled its last. It wood become a gathering place for the sensible and the grateful and even for the once delude to heal.
3)It would be a ‘never again’ reminder for similar schemes that might be dreamt up.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
Reply to  Gary Pearse
August 17, 2017 9:09 am

I have decided to help all trees grow, all one trillion of them, by burning coal and putting that CO2 back into the atmosphere where it came from. Any tree that wants it can have as much of it as they wish.
Here in Bishkek I have lots of willing partners in this venture.

August 17, 2017 2:32 am

“Campaigners hope to plant enough trees to offset the climate impact ”
That’ll make Drax power station happy !

Robert of Ottawa
August 17, 2017 2:43 am

Trump Forest allows people either to plant locally or pay for trees in a number of poorer countries.
Carbon Offsets anyone?
Why not just pay poorer countries to use less energy, stop burning wood and coal and oil i.e. remain poor?

August 17, 2017 3:56 am

100 billion trees and the area of Kentucky is 1.1265E12 square feet. That gives 11.265 square feet per tree, which is a plot about 3.4 feet by 3.4 feet. Seems like pretty dense planting, or pretty small trees. A typical pine forest planted for harvest has 95 square feet per tree and a Christmas tree farm uses about 100 square feet per tree. Sounds like either their area estimate is far to low or their estimated tree numbers are way to high.

August 17, 2017 4:25 am

It all depends on density of the final forest. The smaller the tree is at planint time, the greater the number of plants needed per acre. Seedlings have a huge mortality rate. Thus:
Kentucky has 40,409 sq. miles which works out to 25,861,760 acres. Most of the folks that plant trees will need to plant seedlings or those no more than four feet tall. Between 10,000 to 16,000 seedlings are needed per acre. Larger plants require fewer per acre. For example, 3 foot trees used for plantings may only require 400 per acre and likely is the largest tree these folks will use for transplanting (a three foot tree requires a fairly large hole to be dug) with seedlings requiring only a dibbit for planting.
Crank the numbers: From 413,788,160,000 (seedlings) to 10,344,704,000 (3 ft). Suppose they do plant 120,000 3 ft. trees a year. About 86,000 years from now, buried under hundreds of feet of ice from the next glaciation, they’ll complete their task.
All in all, this is merely a political stunt. The smart ones will not send money but only send receipts. . . anonymously.

August 17, 2017 4:43 am

This actually makes a lot of sense, so occasionally the global warming nuts have good ideas.
But it should be taken further, here in Canada we should get credit for our huge areas of forests. Even with logging our land mass sustains more forests than most countries.

August 17, 2017 4:49 am

Matt MaCrath
As with other BBC presenters pays himself through his own private company that is payed by the BBC
Thereby only having to pay lower rate Corporation Tax avoiding Income Tax and is not subject to Freedom of Imformation regarding the earnings of Public figures working for the Government sector .
Matt Mc Grath he don’t earn as much Chris Evens and Gary Lineacre but a lot more than Emily Maitless and Jane Hill.

August 17, 2017 5:48 am

The trees should grow nicely as CO2 levels rise.

michael hart
August 17, 2017 5:48 am

I’m all for it, and most of us like extra trees, but we’ve been here before
As others point out, if it is such a great idea then why weren’t they already doing it?
At the BBC you get extra points in your annual performance review based on the number of times you mention global-warming or say something anti-Trump or anti-Brexit. This article ticked several boxes at the BBC, but poor old Matt McGrath doesn’t realise yet that these are exactly the sort of formulaic articles that the AI programs will be cranking out when he is told that his services are no longer required.

August 17, 2017 7:05 am

If they want, they can pay to plant a couple of trees on my property.

James Bull
August 17, 2017 7:35 am

The organisers say they need to plant an area the size of Kentucky to offset the Trump effect.
So how many to offset Al Gores and Leni DiCaprio and the other hand wavers?
James Bull

J Mac
August 17, 2017 8:51 am

Attention Climate Justice Warriors:
A tree has been planted in your name in Haiti.
Your day to water it is Thursday…..

August 17, 2017 9:19 am

Point 1- The world does not vote in American elections. Only registered American voters do.
Point 2- The Paris accords were about getting 100million US $ free every year. It had nothing to do with climate change or the environment. It’s all about getting their share of those free US $$$$.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  James
August 17, 2017 3:45 pm

You need to clarify Point 1 for people outside the U.S. Only American citizens are supposed to vote. If you are not a citizen and you register to vote, that is voter fraud and a crime. Of course, it still happens because it is endorsed by liberals who see it as the only route to winning. And let’s not believe this is a recent trend. My Dad, while attending Providence College in the 40’s, was paid to vote several times under different names at different precincts. He was a Democrat.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 18, 2017 9:35 am

That reminds me of the old Chicago Democrat slogan. “Vote Early, Vote Often”. lol
All the dead people in Chicago’s graveyards also vote. So if you want to stay politically active after you die be sure to die and be buried in Chicago. 😉

The Original Mike M
August 17, 2017 9:29 am
August 17, 2017 9:54 am

A billion trees is about three trees per American.

Harri Luuppala
August 17, 2017 12:25 pm

In Finland private land owners plant some 100 million trees each year! Last year there was sold 150 million samplings in Finland. During the busiest week planting speed was 8,5 million trees. Our law is simple, if a land owner you cuts a tree, then he needs to plant a new one. Actually there is planted more trees than cut in Finland. EU, Brazil, China, US and others should plant back forests that they have cut during last centuries.

Reply to  Harri Luuppala
August 18, 2017 9:37 am

Forest size in the US increases yearly.

August 17, 2017 1:08 pm

Nothing remotely resembling “truth” ever comes out of the BBC now. Mr MacGrath needs to be put back in his box and the lid tightly screwed down !

Tom in Florida
August 17, 2017 3:47 pm

The real lesson here is that government money is not needed. There are enough very wealthy people who supposedly care to fund just about anything they want, if you can get them to part with their own money.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights