Plant a trillion trees: U.S. Republicans offer fossil-friendly climate fix

By Valerie Volcovici

Republican lawmakers on Wednesday proposed legislation setting a goal for the United States to plant a trillion trees by 2050 to fight global warming, a plan intended to address climate change by sucking carbon out of the air instead of by cutting emissions.

The proposed legislation reflects an acknowledgement by some in the Republican party of rising voter demand for action on climate change, even as it seeks to preserve the economic benefits of an historic drilling boom that has made the United States the world’s biggest oil and gas producer.

President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly cast doubt on the science of climate change, had expressed support for the idea of a massive tree-planting campaign during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month.

"Our part at home is a lot more than just planting trees. It's utilizing the full abilities of sustainable forestry," said Arkansas Congressman Bruce Westerman, a member of the House of Representatives' natural resources committee who introduced the tree planting bill.

The bill is one of several elements of a broader proposal on climate change introduced by a half dozen House lawmakers on Wednesday.

Additional bills will be released over the coming weeks, focusing on expanding a tax credit to bolster carbon capture technology from power plants and directly from the air, creating a research hub to advance those technologies, and boosting "clean" energy, including natural gas and nuclear.

The bills focus on technology "innovation" and avoid setting a price for carbon pollution and setting or enforcing emission reduction mandates.

Democrats, including all the top presidential hopefuls in this year’s election, have made proposals for a rapid shift away from fossil fuels to help the United States and other countries avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy told reporters on Wednesday their approach stands in contrast to "command and control" policy approaches introduced by some Democrats such as the Green New Deal, which calls for massive government investment in nationwide emissions-free infrastructure.

He and other lawmakers said they do not believe carbon taxes were needed to spur innovation.

Environmentalists argue that focusing on planting trees or investing in carbon sequestration technology while ignoring emission cuts from fossil fuel use is counterproductive. An overwhelming majority of scientists believe emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels are the main driver of climate change.

“Planting trees is good of course, but it is nowhere near enough of what is needed, and it cannot replace real mitigation and rewilding nature,” Swedish teen activist Greta Thunberg said in Davos last month.

Nature-based carbon removal measures like tree planting have gained traction globally. Last July, for example, Ethiopia set a world record by planting over 350 million trees in 12 hours as part of a green campaign by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed.

James Mulligan, a senior associate at the World Resources Institute, said mass tree planting could reduce between 180 million and 360 million tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2040 if implemented correctly.

"Funding is key," he said, adding that the program needs a"smart governance system."

Garret Graves, a Louisiana Republican who serves on the House select committee on climate change, said focusing on natural and technological sequestration would enable the United States to reduce emissions without shutting down the energy industry.

"Those who have labeled fossil fuels the enemy have misidentified the enemy," he told reporters, saying emissions were the true enemy.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2020.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

The proposed legislation reflects an acknowledgement by some in the Republican party of rising voter demand for action on climate change,

Definitely a start.

without shutting down the energy industry.

I can't imagine the oil and gas industries being 'shut down' this century. There are, however, a range of alternative methods to generate electricity and power vehicles that can be used even more to reduce the amounts of oil and gas burned. Which if done would also reduce the demand for oil and gas and the wars fought for greater control of them and their shipment.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

To quote the Old El Paso commercial meme:

Why not both?

Plant a trillion trees AND switch to a greener technology base?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Climate management isn't this bonehead simple. Sorry politicians. Biodiversity is critical. We can't just plant pine trees everywhere. Indigenous trees are needed and they take longer to plant, grown, become CO2 suckers.

A map of tree loss world-wide from US Satellites:

NASA looked at some climate studies:

It ain't that simple.

Where I live, it has been illegal to remove large (8 inch diameter) trees for at least 25 yrs, unless a licensed arborist determines there is a disease or parasite which cannot be effectively treated. OR if the tree is likely to fall causing major property damage or risk to lives.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Go ahead and plant the trees. I'll support it. Meanwhile, keep polluting the environment in red states.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

keep polluting the environment in red states.

Real nice, SuperLib. So you're advocating pollution in 30 of the 50 states. Not very green of you.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

They control their own states. If they want to live in a polluted environment, so be it. I won't stop them.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The thing about planting trees - make sure they don't become fire hazards later on

Then we'd have massive wild fires again and release more smoke

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites