Spare a thought for the BBC’s Justin Rowlatt as he considers his upcoming trip to the Brazilian city of Belém to report on COP30. Saving the world and its environment is his gig so how will he face the prospect of travelling down a new four-lane highway cut through the dense Amazon rainforest to help speed him and his 70,000 other political activists to their luxury hotels? Based on trees per acre, an estimated 100,000 mature specimens have been chopped down and logged to build the eight-mile Avenida Liberdade causing untold disruption to local wildlife. Happily, all is not lost in despair. If he wishes, the BBC’s activist-in-chief can consider recent findings published in Nature Plants that increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have led to substantial growth in the remaining Amazon forest, with mature trees growing by over 6% a decade. Perhaps he could start promoting on the BBC the enormous benefits of CO2, rightly known as the gas of life. He could front a campaign to assuage his dented COP conscience along the lines: ‘Forward with Carbon Dioxide, not Chainsaws.’
Needless to say the fatter trees of the Amazon have received little publicity in narrative-driven mainstream media. Extensive Green Blob-funded grooming is deployed to keep this type of inconvenient global ‘greening’ material out of the papers. Little mention is made of the astonishing CO2-fuelled growth in global vegetation seen across the planet in the last 40 years. Increases of around 15% are common, some deserts have started to shrink and world famine has been alleviated by higher crop yields. SciLine is connected with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, publisher of Science, and it recently suggested that writers head off the ‘greening’ story by noting that “in many cases, CO2 disproportionately favours weeds over crops, causing more problems for agriculture”.
In 2022 Rowlatt authored an alarmist series on BBC Radio 4 and World Service called The Climate Tipping Points in which he highlighted the potential “collapse of the Amazon rainforest” as one of the major irreversible changes tiggered by global warming. Not yet, it seems, for while Rowlatt was spouting this computer model agitprop, the scientists out in the field preparing their recently published paper found “aggressive changes” in mature tropical forest biomass. Yet again, it might be noted, climate model predictions fail the test when confronted with actual scientific data. As MIT Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen has said about the evidence-lite climate dogma: “The narrative is a quasi-religious movement predicated on an absurd scientific narrative.”
The team of researchers found that over 30 years of Amazonian plant data records across 188 mature forest plots, the trees had become considerably larger over time. The basal area, the size of the tree trunk near ground level, increased by 3.3% a decade. Trees fight for light and space in close proximity and height and size are an obvious advantage. While the larger trees were found to increase by over 6% a decade, the smaller plants also thrived, suggesting, the scientists note, that any recent negative climatic influences have been “more than alleviated” by the positive effects of increased resources such as CO2 fertilisation. In effect the smaller trees operating in more difficult low light conditions can use the extra CO2 to photosynthesise more easily and survive for longer.
In an article published in Watts Up With That?, Anthony Watts was clear on the important findings of the paper. It’s “plain old plant biology” he said, adding: “CO2 fertilisation is no longer a theory tested only in labs. This study confirms it at continental scale: Amazon forest are thriving, not suffering, in a world with more CO2.”
It’s likely that the Guardian will be assembling a team to travel the Avenida Liberdade Highway of Shame to attend the increasingly irrelevant COP Net Zero boondoggle. The newspaper recently reported that the big Amazon trees were more climate resistant “than previously believed”, proving that the ‘reverse ferret’ is alive and well in media land. “Previously believed”, of course, only applies to those who are unaware of the paleo record stretching back hundreds of millions of years. Perhaps it was a first for Popular Mechanics, which gave us its ‘Amazon’s Trees Are Weirdly Getting Bigger Every Decade, Which Defies Logic‘. Might be best not to give up the day writing job here. Finally, and perhaps scraping the barrel for any coverage of this important paper, NBC News noted the view of one scientist that fattening trees is “in some ways” a positive news story. “But it also means that the forest is now more vulnerable to losing those trees.” The obvious statement was then made that any benefit in larger trees sizes “can be quite easily negated by deforestation and logging”.
Something all those virtuous delegates to COP30 might just know something about.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
Let’s hope they mash the 100,000 trees into pellets to burn in Drax to keep our lights on this winter & more importantly emit more CO2/kW than when Drax was burning coal.
Any chance we can get CO2 up to 500ppm by 2030 ??… it would make the maths so much easier. (:-))
And let us keep in mind the cost of COP meetings is not just decimation of natural habitat in remote areas of the world. The 100,000 trees felled for one COP is bad but if we average the weight at say 10 tonnes per tree that one million tonnes would only keep Drax power station fed for 50 days.
The cost of Net Zero is everywhere, and boy do they intend to keep it up.
What could possible go wrong for humanity when a bunch of hedonistic narcissistic parasites who are attracted by exclusiv locations pretend to do good?
At least they are consistent – UN’ s global gulag scam started in Brazil with the earth summit 1992
as a big party for the degenerated jet set and with CON 30 they are returning to the crime scene ,
And nothing has changed since then in all those years.
Neither their behavior nor the sea levels.
(except for the better supplly of drugs and prostitutes).
Which brings up the question: If 100,000 trees in a rain forest get bulldozed to make way for a giant, virtue-signaling gabfest party, and the MSM never reports on it, did it ever really happen?
Only 100,000 trees chopped down for a road? Here in Scotland, we do things on a much grander scale. 17 million trees have been chopped down to make way for windfarms.
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/anger-17-million-trees-chopped-32774066
WUWT wailed about these trees seven months ago. And of course it is nothing like the accompanying picture. It is a road connecting two parts of the coastal city of Belem.
Goodness knows who guessed the 100,000 trees, but you can see the exaggeration starting in that earlier post with a claim of tens of thousands of acres of forest lost. If you felled just 10000 acres for a 13 km road, that would be a strip 3 km wide. But he claimed tens of thousands.
Via Pudoris (Street/Way of Shame) sounds about right.
Justin Rowlatt joins the Brazilian environment agency in a raid on an illegal sawmill in the north-east of the country, where loggers and ranchers have converged on Amazonian forest reserves – BBC
Saving the Awa Tribe with Justin Rowlatt – BBC
Saving the Brazilian Amazon: Justin Rowlatt investigates how the Brazilian authorities have managed to significantly reduce rates of deforestation in the Amazonian rainforest. – BBC
Being the man he is, Justin I’m sure will have no qualms about riding along with the large congregation to Belém. And then when the circus has moved on? Who knows?
Greta should definitely attend, so she can give them a good scolding. How dare they.
In elementary school we learned how our US state (Ohio) was cleared of trees and planted with food-crops. From Copilot AI …
Before farming became a major industry in Ohio, was the state covered mostly by trees? and if so, what happened to them?
…
Yes—before Ohio became an agricultural powerhouse, it was overwhelmingly forested. In fact, when European settlers arrived in the late 1700s and early 1800s, more than 95% of Ohio was covered in dense hardwood forests. These included oak, hickory, beech, maple, and chestnut, forming part of the vast Eastern Deciduous Forest biome.
…
By the mid-1800s, Ohio had become a major agricultural state, producing corn, wheat, and livestock.
Mechanization (like steel plows and reapers) accelerated deforestation by making large-scale farming more feasible
…
And most would agree that we are better off. I’m pretty sure that corn is very good at removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Will the cycle be unbroken?
Well, at least one good thing will come from COP30; as with the other 29 climate gabfests before it, many thousands of tons of plant-loving and life-giving CO2 will be emitted in the process. So let’s give them a hearty round of applause for that.
The hypocrisy, it burns.
Do these greentards really not know that the trees removed were used for lumber and other wood products? Are they truly that stupid? Yes, yes they are.
“It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”
— reported by Associated Press (AP) journalist Peter Arnett in 1968 as a quote from an unnamed US Army major in reference to the bombing of Bến Tre during the Vietnam War.
It looks like the irony in that quote was lost on the BBC.
Satellite view on Google Earth Pro near the mid-point of the 8 mile clearing on Aug. 11th:
-1.433231, -48.398691
Don’t forget that when a tree is burnt or falls and rots, its CO2 is released to atmosphere. Forests are CO2 neutral.
Irony is an alien concept to these zealots.
“In 2022 Rowlatt … highlighted the potential “collapse of the Amazon rainforest” as one of the major irreversible changes tiggered by global warming…” but which, thankfully, he can fix with ample doses of pooh.
These actions reveal yet again what a collection of phonies these climate alarmists are. For starters, if they were really so concerned about the supposed climate change that endangers the planet and all its inhabitants, they would be boycotting the COP conferences or else figuring out how to attend without travelling by plane and increasing their carbon emissions. Nor would they be consuming any meat products while they’re there. As well, they would have demanded well in advance that no natural objects like trees be disturbed to ease their access to the meeting sites, or better still, they would have recommended that a permanent location be established for these gabfests. Best of all, they should have been coming clean and admitting that since three decades of COP conferences have achieved next to nothing that has affected the climate or reduced global emissions, they should be advising the organizers to throw in the towel and permanently cancel the COPs after admitting they’ve proven useless over the long haul. But that would mean for many of the delegates that they’d have to give up their often taxpayer-funded free rides, so such action would be out of the question. Besides they wouldn’t want to deprive any of the local prostitutes of part of their livelihoods.
It would be best if they hold this and all future meetings on the Internet. The technology to do this has been available for decades.