'engage Trump' like he's some kind of baby that needs to be enticed with a rattle? Climate disruption is deadly serious. We can't waste time with half-baked ideas like planting trees..Of course we should all plant trees. Now lets get down to really cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the next five years, while the babies are distracted with their plans for playing in the dirt.
79
"He even said he was reading a book on the topic."
Wait, Donald Trump read a BOOK?!?!
"The book, according to the White House, was, “Donald J. Trump: An Environmental Hero” by Ed Russo, a former consultant to the president."
Oh. I get it now. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the President of the United States.
80
Absolutely simple-minded. Welcome to the Psychozoic Age.
38
I wonder if the power point was a cartoon. That would sell Trump.
27
Planting seedlings to sequester carbon is like jumping out of an airplane with a box of silkworms, hoping that you can make a parachute before you splatter on the ground.
116
A trillion trees is a terrific idea. But what happens when they all burn down because of climate change? We must reduce our use of fossil fuels first! Otherwise the trees will simply shrivel and die.
48
The GOP plan is nothing more than "a political fig leaf over the naked cynicism of the party that still isn’t taking the climate crisis seriously." (https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2020/02/11/climate-change-trump-1-trillion-trees-frederick-hewett)
19
"Trump Digs Coal" and don't think that he wouldn't reverse its 10-percent annual production decline, if he could.
https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/index.php
So, last month, please meet Donnie Appleseed:
“We’re committed to conserving the majesty of God’s creation and the natural beauty of our world,” Mr. Trump told investors and world leaders in Davos.
And...we're back:
The Trump administration on Thursday (6 Feb 2020) finalized plans to allow mining and energy drilling on nearly a million acres of land in southern Utah that had once been protected as part of a major national monument.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/climate/trump-grand-staircase-monument.amp.html
Please tickle me some more, with some of those trillion trees. I love it when tech billionaires huddle-up and call a Hail Mary play from the 90's.
29
My theory is simple. Trump is a big lie, he’s actually just a Democrat who found a way to get disenfranchised people to vote for him
He’s a master of entertainment and believes nothing that he says. It’s all a show and he agrees with Hillary that his supporters are all a bunch of deplorable’s. The difference is, they think he’s one of them when in reality this is just reality TV.
17
I suppose it is a bit ironic that a suggestion with good intentions might strengthen the President's commitment to increase greenhouse gas emissions because the trees will take care of any problems - another case of no good deed goes unpunished. I think it also suggests the wealthy people ought to pay attention to the science first rather than trusting their wealth to make them smart.
10
Actually... I would worry about cutting emissions too quickly, if a way to do that was be found. Our green growing friends the trees and plants might suddenly feel like we cut off their air supply and there could be a resulting detrimental effect. As high as the levels are, the trees and plants think it's the new normal. So the emissions will have to be slowly reduced.
2
A million trees cannot and never will replace a forest. Remember the last tree Trump planted died. Also trees at best tie up the carbon for maybe 200 years. What happens when the tree dies. Hint CO2.
Trillion trees covers an area the size of the US. Not impossible but it will be difficult to maintain, especially as the population climbs 10-11 billion.
If we not stop the increases by the time we plant the first trillion we will need another trillion and then another
Why are alternative clean sources such an anathema to the Trump.
12
A rich person briefly caught Trump's attention for a "big"-sounding policy that allows him to continue to reward polluters and undermine efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The obvious reality: an election-year stunt designed to provide that fraction of his base that might feel defensive about their enabling of climate and environmental destruction with some implausible deniability. Let's be real.
34
Right-wing support is sure to meet resistance as word gets out that Al Gore's name is somehow connected. Trump himself probably forgot that.
Plus, any extra money in the coffers is going to the wall. Funding the US forestry Services is way down Trump's priority list.
Besides, Trump is still a bit miffed at the USFS for not vigorously jumping on his "Rake the Forests" plan.
7
The only benefit is if Trump voters can switch to "of course we need to do something to stop climate change." Yes, it is hype, but Trump does have an odd ability to make the cult reverse its stance from one hour to the next.
7
With deforestation continuing in high value places like the Amazon and Borneo, I wonder if people realize this needs to be a net addition of trees and carbon sink potential. A monoculture of trees in the north is not going to be enough. If planting as many trees as possible is additional to cutting emissions and halting deforestation, then great.
4
Trees are good.
Nobody denies the climate. That would be silly.
We are in global warming, that is easy to check, for the last 300 years or so. So way BEFORE the big emissions. Sea levels rise at the same rate for the last 200 years, where they are measured consistently. About 3mm/year, or 1 foot/century. George Washington lived with that, Abe Lincoln too, and so can we.
The part where industrial emissions caused warming 250 years BEFORE they were big was never discussed or explained by our climatologists. The part where we can stop that, when the emissions didn't change it, even less.
So let it leave it at, some people of apocalyptic inclinations feel, well, apocalyptic about it.
Here are the sea levels measured for 150 years in NYC, at the Battery park, with a floater on the water. NOAA official data. The measured data is the wiggly blue line.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750
You can check at that site ALL the data there is. None shows any acceleration.
Which means that an increase 1000 times in industrial emissions had no effect on sea level rise speed whatsoever.
PS For obvious reasons, I cannot bring all 300 or so stations here, but if you find any with acceleration, please link to it.
There is of course acceleration if you adjust the data by adding an acceleration to it.
Or if you change the way you measure things. For instance, if you change from sheep to cows, you find that overnight they gained 500% in weight.
1
@novoad I feel inclined to let you know that George Washington died in 1799, which was 221 years ago, not 200, and 51 years before the sea level rise the NOAA reports. He did not live with observable sea level rise.
As well, by 1850, industrial emissions were well underway, suggesting that the sea-level rise at Battery Park could be wholly consistent with and dependent on anthropogenic emissions.
Finally, sea levels only rise when ice sheets melt, and ice sheets do not melt in steady, predictable patterns, but rather exponentially, as when some ice melts every year, the albedo effect those sheets possess which reflects the sun's rays is lessened as it's replaced with deep blue water, which absorbs the sun's rays, thus creating a positive feedback loop where more warming means more melting means more warming, irrespective of human emissions that cause the initial melts in the first place.
Pseudoscience only works when you cherry-pick facts.
26
These studies and there are a lot ore suggest otherwise. It took me a few minutes on the internet to find these.
https://skepticalscience.com/decelerating-sea-level-rise.htm
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/03/sea-level-rise-accelerating-us-coastline-scientists-warn
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
3
There are a lot of reasons to plant trees: aesthetics, health, reversing desertification, soil retention and fertility improvement, economics, etc etc. But conserving the forests we have is a much more important way of addressing climate change than planting new ones. So much more carbon is present in a 200 year old forest than a 40 year old forest.
Heck, big timber owners like Weyerhaeuser and Potlatch plant millions of trees annually. Not all tree planting is equal.
13
@Conor yes but only fast growing plants take in lots of CO2. A new forest will capture more CO2 from the air than a mature forest by a long shot.
2
This is all part of trump's ever-broadening effort to win in 2020.
Does he really care about the environmental outcome?
I would bet not a whit; 'tis all for capturing votes to avoid jail time if he loses.
10
But where are you going to plant a trillion trees? Perhaps he can build his wall with trees and kill two birds with one stone.
18
This is undoubtedly a good idea. I recommend planting deciduous trees on all golf courses in temperate areas of America, e.g. in Virginia and New Jersey. Start with Trump’s country clubs. Have current members pay for this, with small plaques commemorating their donation. This would bring a whole new meaning to the term “green fees”.
26
This is a joke. Trump will say he supports it and then work against it. Trump and the Republicans are the most prolific liars ever seen in American history. They are trying to outlie even Putin and the Chinese Dictatorship.
17
I’m not surprised Marc Benioff has Trump’s ear. Despite his supposed progressive views he is leading a company which is essentially one big scam.
5
Two self-interested billionaires that know nothing about actual climate science having coffee in Davos and solving climate change by exchanging a PowerPoint. This absurd fantasy that will go absolutely nowhere getting media attention is precisely why billionaires shouldn’t be in charge in the first place.
15
If you’re thinking an administration that has allowed a biomass energy project in Comer, Georgia to burn old creosote railroad ties to make green energy has turned the corner on climate - you’re delusional. This admin has to be gone come November elections or we all will be.
10
I keep hearing reduce emissions. It's not feasible for many reasons.
This is the best approach. Plant as many trees as possible to get to a point where carbon emissions have a net zero environmental impact. Countries like India & Pakistan planted billions of tree recently, but that's not enough. A trillion trees are needed indeed - just a start in right direction.
We also need to take advantage of the science that ensures trees are more productive and burn more carbon than ever before.
1
Are we sure Trump didn’t think this was about planting lots of trees on our side of the wall to make it more visually appealing?
11
Will there also be a bunch of rakes, brooms, and shop vacs to keep the ground around the trees clean...got to think about the fire hazard, not to mention the appearance...
8
Trump planting trees to save the environment suggested to him by a very wealthy man. Should I now yawn, or move straight to snore mode?
2
Trumps loves it because it's good raw material for the lumber and construction industry.
3
Pres. Trump believes in survival — his — and nothing else. You can sell him using that vector.
5
China commenced a similar program 20 years ago. Everywhere - in side streets, under the vast multi-tiered expressways that cut swathes through Shanghai, along highways and high speed rail corridors - you see plants, vines, gardens, but especially trees. It's the type of long term project China is best at. And by the way, Chinese citizens haven't accepted restraints in exchange for prosperity (or what little they might get of it . Xi's family is worth billions of US dollars). The people have no choice, and haven't had a choice since Mao came along. In a Beijing park I counted 5 types of uniform, from the traffic warden to the washroom attendant to fully loaded army platoons in military trucks. Nobody raises their eyes let alone their voice.
5
Reforestation, along with reducing emissions, would be a fantastic two pronged approach, but if trees are the only thing we can get out of this administration, so be it.
I’m highly skeptical of Trump’s follow through and no one is going to hold him accountable if his pledge is not implemented.
But as they say, the seed is planted.
7
@NYLAkid
He also said he make healthcare cheaper and better.
Lie # 1486.
There's no reason to ever believe a word our Presidential charlatan says.
11
"It is far from clear that the United States government will actually plant any trees, or that a trillion trees would do much in the near term to stop the worst effects of planetary warming"
Even if Trump were to follow through with his words - WHICH he will NOT - it would be the equivalent of treating an insulin diabetic with salad....it wouldn't fix a critically catastrophic situation.
And then there's the fact that there's not a single dollar in Trump's proposed budget to pay for planting a single tree.
It turns out that Trump's Trillion Tree Plan was more empty word salad for his easily duped base who can now pretend that Donald is an environmental hero.
Sad.
Pathetic.
Ecologically suicidal.
29
“Everyone is pro tree”
You would think everyone would be pro water too.
And pro clean air for that matter....
33
I’m sure Trump and associates liked it because there’s money to be made.
I’m quite sure he thinks you plunk a seedling into the ground and presto-chango all done.
3
Given the imminent election, Trump is only pandering for votes. How do we know?
While Trump announces his Trillion Trees propaganda, his administration is planning vast destruction of entire ecosystems in Alaska, including clear-cutting half of the Tongass National Forest! https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/trump-administration-proposes-expanding-logging-in-alaskas-tongass-national-forest/2019/10/15/92e47db8-ef77-11e9-8693-f487e46784aa_story.html
This article notes that the new Trillion Trees will take 100 years to mature and absorb carbon at the scale necessary. Well there are millions of 100 year old trees TODAY in the Tongass. Yet the Trump team is busy ordering chain saws! Extraction for Profit for Trump's donors and blatant disinformation for votes will burn down the house! See Paradise, California for our future if we continue with business-as-usual. Fiddle... and more than Rome will burn!
20
It’s like this.
Trump absolutely knows the word tree. T R E E. Tree.
Like cat and dog, and see spot run.
Solar gets him confused with Star Wars and Hans Solo.
And wind, don’t ask. You see what it does to his hair.
But what I don’t understand is why plant trees to solve a problem that doesn’t exist?
Is it to appease (sorry Mr. President, it means sort of please, that should be easy to remember if you try real hard) the scientific community and all of the unstable ignoramuses?
12
If Trump approved it, expect to see Trump Trees for sale soon.
3
“Donald J. Trump: An Environmental Hero”
What's next?
"Trump: Racial uniter"?
"Trump: LGBTQ champion"?
"Trump: The most honest President ever"?
9
I bet the power point presentation had to have alot of pictures with simple words and cartoons.
10
Scientists accelerated climate change with their "wonderful" modern conveniences and now we think scientists will fix it? Good luck with that.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
3
"Tech billionaires" will not save us.
And by the way, has anyone ever been forced to use this guy's rubbish software?
It's worse than being water-boarded.
6
@Raven We called it 'SalesFarce'... Might have well as been Amway...
3
Will the trees come with rakes?
5
Trump, in his next speech, will proudly boast that he's planted so many trees, just like the new miles in his wall.
4
More trees is kind of a stupid idea. Why don't we focus on not cutting down the trees we have? Maybe we ask- why are houses made from trees? We have no other materials? ha..right. And its true that capitalism has treated the earth as a free resource to be destroyed. Personally, I would like to see mass destruction of human population. I say don't cure the coronavirus and don't cure any disease. Darwinism at its finest. get rid of the sick.
2
Probably use more carbon growing a tree than one that is fully grown.
2
Now that the New York Times has reported Trump's support for planting trees, he will declare it "fake news" and order even more trees cut down - probably from national parks and monuments.
5
Maybe we can get Trump to plant a few trees himself while he is raking the forest floor in California.
8
A trillion trees by 2030 works out to 273,972,000 trees a day. We better get started!
4
Thanks to Mr. Henning, who found that it takes 40 man hours to plant 1742 trees, it seems that we’ll need a crew of 1,148,106 people working 8 hours a day, five days a week (with time off for federal holidays) for 10 years. Now that’s what I call a jobs program.
7
watch: trump's treasury donkey will create this as an "opportunity zone" for rich people to get free landscaping.
6
I would rather us see planting free birth control outlets in a trillion locations. Fund that, Benioff.
10
Tubby Trump imagines that he's the guy with all the inside dope. So he lets every one and their uncle in for a 'chat' and picks up screwy ideas. The Russians don't need a band of hackers, just get a dupe to toss out a bizarre snippet on Fox and Friends. Bingo!
1
This very good idea worked because the president is basically a simpleton.
8
Planting a trillion trees is a great goal. I'm glad to hear Trump has shown interest.
But to say that this goal has TRIUMPHED over Trump's
Environmental DESTRUCTION Agency's agenda is ridiculous.That's a surefire way to make people take their eyes off his sneaky policy-making shifts that promote the frack and drill and pollute crowd; that raises the emissions level on automobiles;
that encroaches on national parks and sells public lands.
Never take your eye off the ball as long as Trump is president.
He uses it to destroy our natural resources for a quick buck that we'll pay for a thousand times over.
5
What Trump says and what Trump does are two different things. That said, I hope some trees actually get planted, though I think he'd prefer to say he planted them and skip the actual planting.
4
@Karen H
Remember what happened to the tree Emmanuel Macron gave him?
3
Mr. Benioff, nice of you to try but how about buying up some of our old growth forests so the paper mills don’t cut down what can’t be replaced? I’m a conservative and we needed to get this under control yesterday. You have the money to kick it off. What do you say?
9
The planet is dying and in the last throes of life.
The apocalypse is here . Ie Australia.
30 billion animals dead.
Permafrost melting; 65 degrees on Antarctica.
Coral reefs dead. Thousands of species extinct.
Forests burning and dying. Oceans drowning in plastic,
Planting trees is not going to save us.
In the meantime fossil fuel industry is going full speed ahead . More burning. More coal.
Bolsonaro in Brazil burning our last lungs of the planet, the Amazon so people can eat hamburgers and potato chips
Wake up to reality; , it’s game over for this beautiful pristine planet earth.
12
Come on! We all know Trump is not going to plant a single tree. In fact, by loosening logging restrictions, he will probably cut some more down. This is just a way for him to pretend to care about the environment without having to admit global warming is real.
7
There are too many people commenting here, that planting a trillion trees will take too long, or accomplish too little. Yet, they make these comments in a fact-vacuum. It requires little analysis to figure this out.
Google {how much human carbon emissions}. Look at the first hit. Human activity emitted 40 billion metric tons of carbon *dioxide* (the main greenhouse gas) in 2015. Use that number as an estimate.
How much atmospheric carbon does a tree 'fix' each year? Google {how much carbon does a tree absorb}. Look at the first hit. A hardwood tree will absorb/'fix' 48 pounds of CO2 per year. Let's round up to 50 pounds per year per tree.
Simple division: divide 40 billion metric tons/year, by 50 pounds/year/tree. Recall that a metric ton is 2200 pounds. Result: 1.76 trillion trees.
This number would absorb *all* emitted CO2 from human activity. We don't need to absorb all, because CO2 is emitted from natural activity, too. We just need to absorb enough to reverse the severe, upward trend of CO2. So, 1 trillion trees is a reasonable number.
This is just the *net* number of trees. Trees grow and die. It will take about 10 years for the 1 trillion trees to mature. We'll have to account for future planting, to achieve a stable number.
Time/cost? Google {how many man-hours to plant a tree farm tree}. Answer from UC Extension: 40 man-hours for 1,742 trees.
23 billion man-hours for 1 trillion, or an afternoon's work if everyone on the planet participates.
6
When are we going to hear about the media’s denialism when it comes to the real reason for our planet’s distress: overpopulation? Deal with it.
3
It all depends on how he looked at a trillion trees. Maybe the eventual trillion tonnes of coal he saw at the end that got him excited.
1
No idea how long it takes to plant a tree, but it does take 31,000 years for a trillion seconds to transpire.
I can see the moment being recorded for history. It's old, you've seen similar before. Here it's the president shoveling that last shovel of dirt and planting the first of one trillion seedlings. And he'll have a hard hat on I'll wager. It will be great for his image.
Nevermind risk free. It's all about the image.
1
I’m growing very tired of these ‘billionaires’. Do you think they are more valuable to society than, say, anybody else. No they are not. The social cost of wealth accumulation at the top, me thinks, now outweighs the benefit of the American capitalist system. Think about it billionaires - your billions cannot save you. You are not valued. Go away and let people who actually care about a healthy and thriving society, for all society, take care of things.
2
S trillion trees looked like a good idea until Trump liked it but now that Trump says that he likes it it suddenly becomes a bad idea. Wow! Why am I not surprised?
30% of earth's surface is land.
Large swaths of that cannot support trees. Think: Sahara, Namib, Gobi, Atacama, and Chihuahuan deserts, Australian outback, prairie and pampas, river deltas and swamps, etc. That leaves less than 20% of earth.
Let's not forget that we can't even preserve what we have. Bolsenaro is torching the Amazon, and Trump is drilling in National Parks, Monuments, and Wildlife Refuges.
Yeah, trees. That's the answer. Trees.
9
Donald Trump's approach to climate change is the same as it is to ANYTHING: How does this affect ME? He knows he will be dead before the major impact is felt. Therefore, why should he care? He does not give a hoot about future generations.
2
Telling the truth isn’t denialism and shouldn’t be polarized via sensationalizing rhetorical device.
1
Trump now has his boost for the ecology of the planet. He can burn coal until the sky is grey, everyday, but hey, he planted trees!
1
Since when does Trump ever follow thru on much of anything except bailing out his buds or lining his pockets with fed money?
3
The one thing that really summed up the GOP for me was when I read that Republicans are working on carbon capture technology - with an eye on commercializing the carbon. Because.....of course they are. All roads lead to profit, even if it kills us all.
4
It's important to keep in mind that Trump is functionally illiterate and responds best to video or other visual presentations.
6
Planting trees is a futile exercise - you cannot create ecosystems just by planting some trees. Instead, stop destroying ecosystems for building more stripmalls and planting cattlefeed. That is too hard, so nobody is interested in as that.
6
The solution to the climate crisis is the coronavirus. Far less humans = no more crisis. Problem solved. Godspeed, coronavirus.
3
Could everyone please stop being so naive. You can’t trust this guy in the White House! One day he says one thing, the next he does something completely opposite.
Does anyone remember his support for outlawing vaping devices? It lasted about a week. After everyone fell for the guy, thinking “he does have his heart in the right place”, he dropped the whole thing and moved on... because he heard that his base likes vaping.
This guy does whatever pleases him, and planting a million trees is not part of it. Soon, you will hear that he withdraws his support.
Can we all just agree to stop listening to this guy? We cant trust anything he says. Is this so hard to get?
4
Oh yeah and Trump is gonna be a champion for LGBTQ rights as he said a million years ago when no one thought he could be president. Stop wasting our time reporting on these initiatives that Trump promises to embark on. If it doesn't directly and immediately benefit him, his family his billionaire buddies or big oil, it's simply not going to happen. Save the newsprint and bytes for how Trump is undoing our constitution and tearing down the government brick by brick.
4
Whatever happened to the little oak tree President Macron planted with Trump on the White House lawn? It was reported that it was dug up immediately after Macron left so it could be quarantined. Did the little tree ever get replanted? If Trump can't even keep a tree another head of state gave him, what's the chance he cares about a trillion trees?
4
Trees
BY JOYCE KILMER
I think that I shall never see
A poem lovely as a tree.
A tree whose hungry mouth is prest
Against the earth’s sweet flowing breast;
A tree that looks at God all day,
And lifts her leafy arms to pray;
A tree that may in Summer wear
A nest of robins in her hair;
Upon whose bosom snow has lain;
Who intimately lives with rain.
Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tree.
Props to the tree, one or a million.
4
Trump is acknowledging that there is climate change????
If so -- and if a trillion trees could eventually solve it -- then why not legislation to cut fossil fuel emissions and beef up renewable energy AS WELL. To get it right quicker.
That's because Trump is a phony. He doesn't care about climate change. It's politically expedient for him to say that he has this wonderful, just beautiful, perfect, absolutely perfect program that is being attacked.
This is a guy who is giving the dying, filthy coal industry every possible payout.
6
Planting trees is just more nonsense virtue-signaling for wealthy smug liberals to pretend they're part of solution.
Rather than planting trees, trying saving the fully-grown ones instead. Work to combat the Amazonian deforestation, which is the single biggest problem impacting our environment right now. That, and commercial/private air travel.
Of course, these liberals won't do any of the hard for saving the Amazon. And they certainly aren't going to curtail their use of jets; in their mind only us little people should stop flying while Leo DiCaprio should fly on a private jet to accept his environmentalist award.
@Jason W “wealthy smug liberals”?
I thought the virtue signalling wealthy smug phoney president was a conservative?
2
trees burn, back to square 1.
Where could a Trillion trees possibly planted and survive?
Laughable sound bite.
3
I doubt trump remembers anything much that he’s said, let alone connects his ravings with some strategy. Today he even denied ordering the vindictive - and likely actionable - firings of yesterday!
The barely-in-control handlers wouldn’t even have tried to yank his strings in a different direction because no part of it has anything to do with the grand plan. Just noise. More noise, more votes.
3
LOOK, A BENEVOLENT BILLIONAIRE.
2
Thank you Mr. Benioff, certainly one of the best major figures (if not THE best) in Techlandia.
1
Like Frederick Douglass, Benioff is doing an amazing job and is being recognized more and more.
2
Planting trees is a good idea. But calling global warming skeptics deniers is wrong. There is more arctic ice forming this year than there has in many years. Actual temperatures (not the inappropriately adjusted temps that NOAA reports to the public) show cooling over the past 125 years. It is no surprise that the millions of Americans who can’t place the Civil War in the right century would also be ignorant of the weather in the US in 1900 or 1930 or 1950 or even 1970. So they are easy marks for the “hottest year ever” stories. But it was much hotter in the US in the 1930s when CO2 levels were much lower. Climate changes—it goes up and down. But look at history and you will conclude like many that a climate apocalypse is not coming any time soon.
2
The main problem with tree planting initiatives is that they are often planted in the wrong place (where there weren’t trees naturally). This results in more habitat loss and doesn’t cool climate in the long term.
2
Whatever "science" is behind this idea is flawed.Where do a trillion trees go? How long does it take to have an impact? What would the land normally to used for? What do you do when this carbon sink is full? If you don't dramatically reduce the burning of fossil fuel, how much impact would this program have? What the planet needs is much less burning of fossil fuels and negative population growth.
4
I recently bought a home in the Pacific Northwest. Around the home were many beautiful Western Redcedars. But further from the house were stumps of Redcedars, presumably logged by previous owners. Perhaps they needed some income to pay taxes.
Nearby is a park filled with native trees. It reminds me of what this area of Washington must have looked like two hundred years ago before the people came.
The evergreen forest has mostly been cut down, replaced with farms, pastures for horses, and the increasing encroachment of condos, bedrooms for workers in Seattle.
Folks, the steps toward global warming have been occurring for hundreds of years. The logging of forests is one such step.
I wondered whether I could replant some of the Redcedars that had been logged. Then I looked up the facts on this species. These trees can live to be 700 years old. Some of the trees in my yard were perhaps already living when Columbus discovered the new world.
Global warming is a long-term phenomenon. The carbon we put in the atmosphere may remain there for hundreds of years. Our efforts to curb global warming look almost laughable in their ineffectiveness.
Yes, we need to curb use of fossil fuel. But note that Japan is building coal powered plants to replace nuclear plants taken off-line. Perhaps we need to continue using nuclear in the short term.
And above all we need to control population growth. Population has doubled since 1972---it makes no sense to ignore this component.
7
Well, thank you, Mr. Benioff, for handing Trump an electoral gift on a silver platter--one that is likely to make climate change worse, not better. As the article mentions, without also reducing greenhouse gasses over the near and medium term, planting trees is rather meaningless. Trump in fact intends to increase CO2 emissions, and he intends to get reelected with an assist from this de facto fig leaf.
The hubris of tech CEOs is boundless. And dangerous.
14
This is no "triumph". It's a travesty.
2
Trees good. Trees popular. Trump understand what tree is. Tree is simple for sound byte. Make Trump sound environmental while Trump keep coal and oil and gas people happy. Trump win.
25
There is a reason people cut trees down. There’s no point planting trees until you’ve figured out why they were cut down in first place.
Politicians love tree planting programs because they are so easy. Most of the seedlings never survive to maturity but, by then, the caravan will have moved on.
As a general rule, I have noticed that the less people know about forestry, the more they go for huge tree planting campaigns.
17
@Robert Crooks very well said. Often people engage in logging because of dire economic circumstances; indeed, most people do not want to destroy the natural beauty around them, would otherwise not wish to perform dangerous and onerous work, or both. Ameliorate their dire material circumstances, and they won’t need to resort to logging (this has already been implemented with some success in Borneo I believe). And, as it turns out, there are several excellent and convincing rebuttals to Bastin et al 2019 that decisively show why relying on re/afforestation is a bad strategy for tackling climate change.
6
@Robert Crooks
THAT'S WHY MANY TOWNS HAVE FORESTRY COMMITTEES, TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC.
1
@Robert Crooks So, what should be done? I mean in terms of addressing trees and forests. I am curious.
1
It cannot be left to governments to prevent or reverse climate change. It is for the citizens of the world to take responsibility for our planet. The Trilion trees climate initiative is a good start and a small step. We need to do a lot more to do more to reduce our individual carbon foot prints.
7
So they plant a trillion trees (how long will that take?) and cut down 500 billion or maybe more. I would say the net gain is minimal. Actually, cutting down a grown tree, as they are doing in the Amazon and everywhere else, subtracts a big carbon dioxide collector and planting a new tree adds a very small carbon dioxide collector. I don't see any real help in this plan. By the time this has any effect, Manhattan is under water.
19
@Mike Trees do not just absorb CO2. There are many examples of how reforestation has greatly improved the environment. It immediately mitigates soil erosion, flooding and further deserfication. It provides fertile soil and habitat for all animals. It refreshes aquifers to provide clean water for drinking and living. Do I love trees? Let me count the ways!
4
Any 16 year old can tell you. The new catch phrase?
Tree's thrive in certain areas. Nature depending figures out where, how many per acre, what species and what grows around them. In short, people may plant trees where they can grow but not where they belong and to many which makes them fire prone. I understand FDR's Civilian Conversation Corps did just that and we are still experiencing the consequences.
If a tree dies or catches fire it releases it's stored CO2. Good land management should be practiced. Controlled burns might be required to create fire breaks. The Greens usually have to much power and won't allow the cutting down trees (unless it's for their country homes and solid hard wood furniture) or controlled burns.
Scientist and Managers with specific knowledge of forest management. There's to many people with a general idea of how things work. They usually do more damage than good.
4
A trillion trees is not a solution too our climate crisis. It will take years to plant them and more years for them to grow sufficiently. Even then they'll only make a small dent. Then when they die (or the GOP opens the forests to logging) or catch fire, all that sequestered carbon well be released.
8
@Dave
Logging doesn't release the carbon.
2
Scientists say we must cut pollution with heat-trapping gasses; planting a trillion trees won’t cut it. Unfortunately, regulation of pollution won’t happen with Republicans in power. If we will have any chance at all we must elect prudent and responsible Democratic leadership.
33
Well I always thought it would be a good idea to replant the mountains along the norther African coast with the forests that were cut down in antiquity causing the spread of the Sahara. I bet that would at least slow climate change in the med.
But of course it has to be done properly and that will require investment on personnel to farm them into self sufficient maturity. The Turks seem to have tried a large planting of 11Million trees, Good For Them!, and failed to take the care of them into account.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/30/most-of-11m-trees-planted-in-turkish-project-may-be-dead
6
@magicisnotreal The reason north africa is barren is because the romans raped the land for hundreds of years. They cut the trees, enslaved the people and took all the wildlife for sacrifice at the collosseum. You know, they spread western civilization!
1
everyone is 'pro-tree', even if I suspect it is nothing more than a gimmick from a crook president,
whether this helps climate change or not, cant see how this could be anything but a net good for the planet.
6
@Ramesh G
100 percent a gimmick. This won't stop climate change.
1
Benioff should stick to his B2B behemoth and leave climate change to the scientists, who have widely discredited this feel-good, free pr, folderol. Forget planting trees, let’s start tearing down server farms.
2
More trees!! Yes! Whatever it takes!!
7
There is nothing new about trees. Over a decade ago, Mayor Villaragosa in Los Angeles promised trees and failed. Why is this news?
1
And/Or. Trump just automatically recognizes a good con when he sees one.
"We're planting a Trillion Trees!" is a con.
Can we have a few details, please? Starting with "where do the little trees come from, and who is paying how much for them?"
Fact: selling baby trees has been a huge favorite of con men since the idea was invented. Because; a) your customers are not very knowledgeable; they'll cheerfully believe this little stick with some roots is a super- sugar maple seedling; when in fact it's a willow seedling you just pulled out of a ditch. And you are months gone, when they figure it out.
So will the program provide for, pay for, it's own trained Inspectors? Sure. Of course, the con men know that one, and the Inspector will turn out to be the 2nd cousin of the nursery owner...
Who is certifying that this land, right here, is appropriate? For which trees? And that it doesn't belong to some local folk, who need to graze it, for their millennia long customs? Whose goats will eat the tree seedlings next month? Gonna need a whole Administration…
And; do remember- "planting" a trillion trees does NOT mean you will have a trillion trees growing happily 10 years from now. Typically; in other huge tree planting projects, survival rates will range from 30% to Zero.
Guaranteed. When the Con Guild heard the number "Trillion!" they started planning and setting up. That's a trillion chances to divert a little here, vanish a little there- easy money.
14
We're like 2 steps away from having to pretend the spoon is an airplane when Trump eats. Such an embarrassment.
149
You actually think he's going to follow through on this. Give me a break!
22
Awesome awesome Awesome! We can save polli actors like Bees, butterflies, moths, hummingbirds and other songbirds by planting trees native to our area. It's a two-Fer!!
https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/Native_Plant_Materials/whyuse.shtml
1
You're overlooking Trump's major contribution toward saving the Planet through trees with his recmmendatuion to rake up leaves. Surely, that, on its own, is enough for the Tree Nobel Prize?
7
The alternative approach would be a President who had public service in mind, a mind capable of long-term plans even if they're boring, complex and not to the direct, immediate personal benefit of the President.
The Paris Agreement had no enforcement mechanisms, no penalties, yet he had us be the only country who left that. And he lied about the reasons.
If we are going to just plant trees, plant them all on the fairways and greens of Trump properties.
21
Plant a trillion trees in the desert using non-potable water.
Who plants? everyone. Who pays? everyone.
When is the best time to plant a tree? Yesterday.
2
it may take a billionaire to save us from billionaires, but I am so sick of billionaires
9
@Paul Ferris
I’m in.
Vote Bloomberg.
Trump was temporarily overwhelmed at the thought of meeting a real billionaire...
26
I'm guessing Jared thinks this will appeal to the "suburban women". We'll soon be hearing about Trump Tree Planting Week.
17
Superficially, the trillion trees solution sounds feasible. Practically, as a key solution it is questionable.
Note: a trillion trees may seem not so many since the US has a debt of many trillions of dollars. But in another perspective the population of Earth is 7.8 billion meaning that 130 big trees must be planted for each man, woman and child.
That many big trees would cover the whole area of the lower 48 States of the US. Areas of the US where trees can be planted mostly already have trees. Vast spaces are arid deserts where trees couldn't be grown without irrigation which is in short supply in those same areas.
So the prime areas for planting are in other countries. Like say the Amazon region of Brazil? where the farmers are burning forests at a furious pace. Or perhaps Eastern Australia to replace the forests that have been burned, and will burn again next year.
The trees not only need to be planted, they need to be kept alive for 50 - 100 years for every single plant.
Don't get me wrong, we need to plant trees. But this is an idea that lives in the idealistic statistics of University professors. The original Science magazine article is virtually incomprehensible to the average reader. Even with a PhD in physics, I had a rough time of it. The practical aspects of this solution reduce it to a minor contributor to the climate change fight.
Trump likes it because it is a "solution" that can be incorrectly proposed with no reduction of fossil fuel burning.
101
You say: "Yet the science behind it is centered on planetary warming. As trees grow, they absorb the carbon dioxide emissions that drive climate change. According to researchers at ETH Zurich, worldwide reforestation with 1.2 trillion trees could reduce atmospheric carbon in the atmosphere by about 25 percent."
Yet, you (and the Zurich researchers) ignore critical forest science: (i) Only a small proportion of trees actually survive -- forest scientists put that number at 10%-20%; (ii) Trees take decades to grow to a stage where they can start to sequester signifiant amounts of carbon; (iii) Trees, while they grow, are dramatic water-guzzlers (often creating adverse consequences in areas that are down-river); this is a huge problem in water-stressed countries like India and China; (iv) Once planted, continuing forest management becomes critical, otherwise, there is the risk of fires, pests etc. that can worsen the problem by putting the CO2 right back in the atmosphere; forest management is expensive, so it's important to make sure there's funding in place for the next 30-50 years, not just at the time of planting; and (v) Land use consequences can be wicked: for example, a trillion trees will need land area of about half the size of the US.
I wish reporters who wax eloquent on the climate and environment could inform themselves a bit more about the basic of what is involved with these types of proposals. Often, if something looks too good to be true, guess what...
80
@Whatever
The idea is still good, its the planning and execution which we all know Trump is no good at that most people never think about.
4
@Whatever
"(i) Only a small proportion of trees actually survive -- forest scientists put that number at 10%-20%; "
Lot's of people are making claims similar to this, and I'm not really sure where you are getting it from. Anytime I drive by a planted forest area there is close to 100% survival (probably 80-90%). The only way I could see survival rates that low is if you just handed out cheap seedlings for free. That is obviously not the way to go. Any successful would be administered by theUS Forest Service which has a lot of knowledge in this area.
5
Trump will turn this into an election meme. He won't do anything to implement the project, but he will repeat the phrase "We are going to plant a trillion trees."
This will mollify enough eco-voters to thoroughly insure re-election.
I think Benioff has resigned himself to the Trump second term and will try to get him to move forward on the initiative after the election.
Here is the problem, Trump clearly has no need to make good on enacting the project in his second term. Tell me, how can Benioff hold Trump's feet to the fire?
Mark: good luck with that! Gonna take more than a PowerPoint.
12
Sure, plant a trillion trees but understand that the policy that Rep. Westerman is introducing is also geared toward "incentivizing the use of wood products," according to a Reuters story.
So, despite the other questionable aspects of this plan, the point is for the government to plant trees so that lumber companies can make profits by chopping them down.
Yup, that's Republican climate change action for ya.
57
@Joe M
Actually, it's a great idea.
There is new amazing wood engineering that allows bigger, taller buildings to be constructed with wood instead of carbon-generating concrete.
Once built, wooden buildings sequester carbon for decades, while new trees can be planted again in the chopped tracts, capturing even more carbon.
2
CH4 + O2 => CO2 + 2H2O + Energy as Heat
This chemical equation represents what happens when any Carbon/Hydrogen based fossil burns.
Fossil fuels are burned to extract the energy. Heat expands the burning gases and pushes pistons and spins turbines.
Present engines, electrical power plants have thermal efficiencies of 25 %.
Heat as energy => 25% used to move the car + 75% wasted to the environment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency
Ford, Toyota and Mazda have new engines in Field testing with thermal efficiencies around 40+% .
https://www.sae.org/news/2018/04/toyota-unveils-more-new-gasoline-ices-with-40-thermal-efficiency
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/a25224238/achates-opposed-piston-engine/
https://www.thedrive.com/sheetmetal/18037/mazda-targets-56-percent-thermal-efficiency-with-skyactiv-3
Wide spread adaption of the Higher Thermal efficiency would lower fossil fuel consumption and C02 emissions by 1/2 while powering the economy at the same level. It appears to be possible.
5
By all means, let's plant new trees - and a lot of them and everywhere. It's a splendid idea!
Of course, we might need to convince humankind to stop or reduce cutting mature, carbon-absorbing trees across the temperate forests of the world too.
The former, easy! The latter, likely impossible.
27
In the mean time Brazil is ravaging the Amazon Basin; slashing, cutting down and burning trees faster than a trillion trees could be happened. The same is happening in Asia where forests are are cleared for Date Palm plantations.
16
@John Warnock something president Trump COULD fix with a phone call, asking for conservation to SAVE THE RAINFOREST.
4
If the trillion trees goes as far as better, cheaper healthcare for all, new gleaming infrastructure, and tax relief for middle class, not one sapling will be placed in the ground. Trump does what benefits Trump. Trees get in the way of flying golf balls.
41
Trump is just a likely to declare, via his ludicrous Twitter account, that picking your nose in public is a socially advantageous thing to do for all Republicans; that it will demonstrate their "superiority".
How ridiculous. Trump is transactional and binary - he is unable to THINK, unable to REASON. That is not the mark of a leader and certainly not one of a president of this nation (or even a low life street scammer). Trees are GOOD, but Trump wouldn't know that any more than the fact that methane emissions are BAD.
It will not be long before he reverses himself, like he does with gun violence and all rational governance.
29
@RealTRUTH
Trump doesn't understand anything a credentialed person or group has to say. He takes credit for whatever he wants, virtually always counter untuitive and counter productive, because he is so insecure he insists that all worthy ideas can come only from him. The man is a clear and present danger to America and to the world.
4
NY Times again falls for the Trump head fake. Nothing will come from this. Trump has already forgotten and moved on.
Meantime, his administration continues to work on dismantling the EPA, selling off public lands to oil/gas/coal, weakening clean water laws, undermining CA fuel economy CAFE standards, stuffing Federal judicial system with right-wing ideologues who will rule in favor of industry.......
217
@Woody Guthrie . . . . and weakening the Endangered Species Act and removing protected animals and plants from the list. And the gutting The Migratory Bird Act , and . . . . . .
18
1.2 Trillion trees at 10 cents a tree..hmmm $120 billion dollars.
3
False. That would be $10 per tree.
1
Trees are planned hazards on trump’s golf courses. No different than a sand trap. This initiative means nothing to him. Just more attention from a real billionaire, an opportunity to blow hard on a topic he’s “read” about, and more free press. Meanwhile, trump is taking us to a very scary place, called fascism.
29
What species of tree is Tom Crowther planting, that takes 100 years to reach maturity? A California redwood can reach 100 feet in 40 years. Every little bit...
1
Republicans are the single most important factor contributing to climate change. They all need to go.
259
Trump could say that "if everyone used yellow pencils, we would cure climate change". The media would spread that statement farther and wider than the science on climate change. And his supporters would endorse it as Trump is leading our efforts to address climate change.
We live in a sick incurable society.
65
To paraphrase. If cutting trees is seen as an alternative to cutting human population, we are wasting our time in the long run.
7
To paraphrase. If planting trees is used as an excuse to avoid cutting population then we are wasting our time.
13
Please, Trump and the GOP intend to keep burning fossil fuels as long as they have power; they are planning further deregulatory moves related to the environment (just listen to Trump riff moronically on the poor performance of low-flow toilets and shower heads ), removal of climate science as a factor in infrastructure plans, and so on. The trees initiative is a worthy part of a broad climate change initiative, but no one thinks it is a solution. And in Trump's hands it is nothing but a prop in service to false claim he cares about the environment. Benioff is enabling this catastrophe.
25
@Daisy
We are all free to stop using hydrocarbons anytime we want. Of coarse, we won’t. The economy and our entire lifestyle runs on them. During the Obama years we increased HC production to the highest level in the world and to the highest in this country, ever. Because of population growth and our lifestyle we are still net importers of oil and gas however. Americans are all in favor of using less HC, but they don’t want to change their lifestyle or acknowledge the role our population growth has played in it. So go ahead, plant trees. But not enough trees is not the problem.
4
I think Diana Beresford-Kroeger has been pushing for each person on the planet to plant one tree each year for the next six years.
1
Trump has decided to embrace the silly virtue signaling used by some environmentalists. It's nonsense. Over the long run, trees do not sequester any meaningful amount of CO2. It is released back into the atmosphere when the tree decays, or when the products built from the harvested wood are burned or discarded.
A massive effort to establish new forests could sequester some CO2 temporarily, but this is just kicking the can down the road until all the CO2 comes back out.
5
@Simon Willard
You do realize lots of wood structures and some other items like hardwood furniture can last for a long time right? My house is 60 years old and going strong and lots of other houses are much older.
1
It sounds like one of many necessary responses to an obvious crisis. It also has the benefit of focusing people on nature itself, which could grow environmental consciousness.
I would hope that anyone—like out president—advocating for planing a trillion trees would actively oppose the simultaneous wholesale destruction of rainforests around the world.
13
"Modest" is a lot better than nothing, and much, much better than the weekly climate change policy announcements going in the wrong direction.
And if a scientifically literate and caring next President picks up on, and enhances, the many climate change initiatives going on by others, this one could be a useful complement, motives aside. We would be glad we had it started.
Of course, there's also follow-up, as well as picking the right species of trees, linking them to other species, and maintenance.
Something is something.
Plus, while a huge stretch, the Benioff/Trump Administration connection could be built on for a few more actually positive environment/economy connections, which also could be greatly accelerated by a next President who could see the possibilities.
1
Not only will these trees become fodder for fires, some species are under attack by insects and viruses as the climate warms. Even if the tRump administration managed to plant these trees, they wouldn’t pay any attention to the “safest” areas. More likely, they would be planted in states like Idaho, Montana and Utah where they can eventually be culled for profit.
So we plant trees and continue burning fossil fuels and releasing methane. This is a tactic to continue along the same environmentally destructive path. Until we fully integrate the health of the biosphere into economic policy the problem will grow worse.
17
We have already damaged the climate beyond supporting a trillion more trees. They will become fodder for extreme fires. I don't know why I never hear this mentioned. The already reforested parts of Europe are now experiencing fires they never had before.
23
Why wouldn't Trump agree with planting trees. His interest is to take the heat, no pun intended, off of the fossil fuel industry. Though a somewhat worthwhile effort in the short run, there is no beating climate change without moving away from a fossil fuel economy. What better way for Donald Trump and his minions to redirect the discussion than to pretend to support action against climate change which requires none of them to give up their support of fossil fuels, removal of environmental safeguards and deregulation. After all this time it seems naive to believe there is an altruistic bone in Donald Trumps body. This article is "perfect," if you're Donald Trump and the Climate Change Deniers.
17
I agree with Mr. Curbelo that planting trees, even a trillion of them, is unlikely to have more than a minor effect on atmospheric CO2.
That said, any move on the part of the Republican Party toward recognizing the reality of and dealing with climate change is a good thing. Congressional Democrats should immediately embrace Rep. Westerman's initiative, the most important part of which is "developing clean energy'.
Climate change should never have become a partisan issue. Perhaps, just perhaps, this can begin to break that partisan logjam.
5
The guy is a billionaire, the only person Trump deems fit to speak to. I applaud Marc Benioff for making the effort but am skeptical anything will come of this.
7
The important part:
“If tree planting is just used as an excuse to avoid cutting greenhouse gas emissions or to further limit environmental protection, then it could be a real disaster,”
The GOP/Trump should not be given any credit in the climate change mitigation process as their effort have always been to thwart any progress. They are giving lip service for votes.
Planting trees is great. Would rather see lots of trees than people wasting time and effort on lawns....but that is my opine.
The fact is that tree planting is limited on how much CO2 can be removed from the air. We burn fossil fuels way faster than nature can the CO2. It took millions of years to sequester the all the oil, coal and natural gas. See the link below.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615102/tree-planting-is-a-great-idea-that-could-become-a-dangerous-climate-distraction/
"Given land limits, economic constraints, and other factors, the National Academies study estimates the “practically achievable” amount of carbon removal from forests in the US at 250 million metric tons per year—1/23 of what we emitted last year."
4
With all the celebrity and all the money involved, why even pitch this to government? This is something that can be done privately, I think.
I don't want to give Trump ANYthing he can feel good about.
1
Someone should check the efficacy of fronting an intrinsic bioremediation option for CO2 sequestration by tree planting, given that global human CO2 emissions are around 35 gigatons per year. My gut feeling says that there's a mass balance problem when ignoring emissions and putting focus on trees alone. As in, the inputs (CO2 emissions) far exceed the outputs (tree sequestration of CO2). Hence, the accumulation (CO2 in atmosphere and ocean) will keep getting more and more positive. It's the old equation of continuity that drives the entire energy business: in minus out equals accumulation.
1
Is there some was to cancel battery electric cars subsidies and use the money to plant trees? For the USA, this makes a lot of sense.
Iirc, Subaru has recently lamented about slipping reliability and claimed they will spend a billion dollars towards improving their quality. They also said they would stop making gasoline-powered cars by 2035. These statements are not directly contradictory, but it is pretty close to a contradiction. It is hard to believe investors would respond well to that combination of goals unless they knew one or both of them were just marketing spin.
Since most or all other car companies have had more quality problems as cars have recently become more complex, the same dynamic is at work across the industry. Consumers and ultimately workers will lose out.
Cars are just a small slice of our emissions and driving BEVs still pollutes. Moving the public's attention to a more broad set of more significant remedies might have a wider benefit than first appears.
1
Kudos to any and all efforts to fight climate change.
Kudos to any and all efforts to engage with Trump and the Trumpists on the subject, especially in ways that they have not yet rejected out of hand.
But this article stands only for Trump's well-established pattern: he agrees with the last person to whom he's spoken on any issue.
There has not, nor will there be any change to Trump's climate policy. The only possible change comes in November.
125
Great idea. But what's NOT a great idea...global climate treaties that allow other countries to continue producing carbon emissions while the US pays out billions. 20 years after Bush walked away from Kyoto we had lowered carbon at a much higher level then Kyoto prescribed. Technology is the answer...not radical changes. But I like this idea...this spring I'm going to commit to planting a few trees on my property. Imagine if we all did that. Every little bit helps. Clean up the air, ground and water. I no longer use lawn fertilizer...I haven't for more than 10 years. I've convinced my neighbors to stop using it too.
3
No, it’s not enough, but I’ll take any step in the right direction
3
“If tree planting is just used as an excuse to avoid cutting greenhouse gas emissions or to further limit environmental protection, then it could be a real disaster,”
Even if Trump did follow through with this promise, which he will not, he’s done more to harm the environment than any leader, ever. The harm done to our planet through his actions may never be reversed.
169
@Mark
Hey mark. You live in LA. 4 million people. Car based lifestyle. California has 40 million people, same lifestyle. Some people would say California has caused way more problems than even trump has environmentally. Trump may be gone next year, but everything wrong with California (and the US in general) and it’s out of control population growth and car culture and clogged freeways and long commute times and filthy air all existed long before trump and will long afterward. It’s fun to blame trump, but the problem is us and how we live. The continuous rise in co2 ppm for the last 50 years proves it.
6
The vile GOP ALWAYS has an ulterior motive. Witness how they support carbon capture—not so it can stop the fossil-burner climate attack, but so it can generate good press for the "clean" coal lie and stop further legislative and judicial attacks ON the climate attack.
NEVER make a deal with a Republican.
5