Posted on 07/18/2023 3:22:00 AM PDT by Reno89519
WASHINGTON (AP) — As Speaker Kevin McCarthy visited a natural gas drilling site in northeast Ohio to promote House Republicans’ plan to sharply increase domestic production of energy from fossil fuels last month, the signs of rising global temperatures could not be ignored. Smoke from Canadian wildfires hung in the air.
When the speaker was asked about climate change and forest fires, he was ready with a response: Plant a trillion trees.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
And also the result of eco-hobbits who opposed proper forest management because well they are idiots…
Translation: The Repubs will eventually go for the money-laundering schemes too...
A trillion? I could buy a million. Even several million. But a trillion? Not remotely within the realm of possibility.
They are whores just like the Democrats.
We currently have 40% more trees in the Northern Hemisphere than we did 100 years ago because we quit burning trees and started burning Coal!
Now, Germany has gone back to burning trees. 8% of their total electricity production is from burning biomass.
“Planting trees is an excellent and inexpensive idea”
I fight global warming with my crop of weeds.
The people whom Canadians refer to as First Nations are probably laughing at Canada's refusal to remove underlying brush, allow reasonable timbering, or do controlled burns.
Here is something we have never, ever seen before.
“I think it’s funny that each of the records just set, were
the highest it has been since...”
Exactly. That’s what I’ve been saying for yrs. Apparently “climate change” started over a hundred yrs ago or more, but that would mean it’s a natural occurrence. hmmm...Now what?
So now they are desperately using heat indices to claim heat records?
Wow…
I like this idea without respect to climate. Too bad the boy scouts aren't still a thing. They could do it as a massive fund raiser. I'd buy a half-dozen hardwoods for them to plant on my property.
They used to do this around arbor day.... sigh, it's no longer a thing either.
Solar is being pushed because of it’s lack of CO2 emissions (when conditions are right for it to produce anything at all). So the question comes up: Which is greater the CO2 sequestration from an acre of trees or reduction of CO2 production from an acre of solar panels?
We don’t have ‘plant’ trees. Just stop mowing your yard and see what’s growing there in 10 years.
What BS
They lowered the threshold for a warning that’s a scare tactic itself
Then pretend it’s the End of the World! as we know it
Alarmist propaganda
That is great. In about 100 years you might have some timber that is worth something.
FYI, in 1880 New Hampshire was 80% cleared of all forests due to farming being the main industry. By 1980 NH was just the opposite. It is now over 80% forested. All the smart farmers moved to Indiana, Ohio, Iowa where they can grow things other than pine trees and rocks. The White Mountain National Forest was heavily cut for timber after the Civil War. Now those logging railroads and roads are hiking trails.
Maine is the most forested state by percentage in the country. Followed by NH & VT. All that timber that was cut in the 1800s all grew back by themselves from seed. Very little of it was actually planted.
Logging in the Adirondacks - videos like this I always find interesting. Really enjoy the tales of lore in the early logging industry.
https://youtu.be/PkKMCljAyDU
The problem with these solar farms is that they cut down 30 acres of trees to put up several hundred solar panels in the same place. I see these here in NH & MA. I can understand putting solar panels on the top of a big warehouse/Walmart or other commercial building. That makes sense to me. Why cut down a forest to put up solar panels?
The whole climate change is a hoax. The climate is changing as it always does leaving an ice age.
New England, NY, MI, WI & MN (Paul Bunyan) were all heavily logged in the 1800s and prior to WWII. Prior to the Revolution it was ILLEGAL to cut a White Pine tree in New Hampshire. That was because they all belonged to the King for use as masts in the Royal Navy. Hence, the term “Kings Pine” was coined.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.