We all know trees are major sources of pollution because Ronald Reagan intelligently said so back in the 80’s when he probably had early stage Alzheimer’s Disease:
Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.
True story.
But it’s worse than we ever imagined. It’s those damn trees that have been causing all this global warming:
Looking for a solution to global warming? Maybe start clear-cutting many of the world’s forests, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says…
“Is there some thought being given to subsidizing the clearing of rainforests in order for some countries to eliminate that production of greenhouse gases?” the California Republican asked Todd Stern, the top U.S. climate diplomat and lead witness at the hearing. “Or would people be supportive of cutting down older trees in order to plant younger trees as a means to prevent this disaster from happening?”
I have a feeling that if scientists started throwing this out there as the solution to global warming, Republicans suddenly wouldn’t have a single bit of opposition to the facts. Those crazy science lovers.
Filed under: Humor, News | Tagged: Dana Rohrabacher, Global Warming, Todd Stern |
For the Sake of Science 
The article you’ve linked to quite clearly says that 80-90% of gross greenhouse gas emissions indeed come from nature.
Perhaps he could have done a better job of asking his snarky question. The better question to ask would be, “assuming global warming is human caused, is there a possibility of eliminating some natural emissions to negate the impact of our own?”
Hey….I think he’s on to something…burn trees instead of oil! What you say? Burning wood causes CO2 emissions? And standing trees absorb CO2? And it is the human contribution to emissions that’s posing the climate problem??
Hey, why let facts stand in the way…our planet is doomed anyway…can’t fight mother nature….. might as well join in for the ride,,,,.so some ignoramuses say…so Dan Rohrabacher seems to be saying…
He would have a good question if this was 4th grade.
I gathered it was decomposition and the like that produces most of the CO2 (volcanoes too? I don’t know anything about them), not so much human activity. The jist seemed to be that since we are producing the extra CO2 that we should be making the cuts, and that’s perfectly reasonable.
It’s also reasonable to ask whether or not it would be easier to offset our production by reducing what the natural world produces.
I’m just saying it isn’t insane, and it doesn’t seem to be against the science. Cutting down rain forests? Yeah, that’s not really what they are saying about natural CO2 production, but there is a much bigger slice ripe for possible reduction from the natural world than from ourselves.
We probably can’t do anything about it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a valid question.
A new meaning to the Republican scorched earth policy. They produce dumber and dumber party members.
Despite what Negative Nate, the troll says, it is anti-science and anti-thinking. That IS the specialty of Republicans, though.
So if we concentrate on reducing natural CO2 while increasing human emissions, it should all even out??? Hey I know, why don’t we de-salinate the oceans then we’d have plenty of fresh water to drink!
I’m just asking the question Paul. If it is true that our total emissions are 10-20% of the total released each year, that’s much smaller slice to look at than if you consider all sources of CO2 and what can be reduced.
You said it yourself, need more fresh water? Desalinate the oceans! They do it all over the place where there isn’t enough fresh water, which is just what I’m talking about. Supplement the fresh water with desalinated sea water. I asked at the beginning whether or not it was possible to eliminate some natural sources of CO2, eg. supplement our own reductions.
[…] strikes again! A new meaning to the Republican scorched earth policy. They produce dumber and dumber party […]
I see that Michael put the nasty troll in charge. I guess when Nate can’t argue with valid arguments he uses dirty tricks. Nixon is back alive in Maine.
What are you even talking about?
What are you talking about, Nate? Nothing that has made sense for months. All Libertarian dogma.
…I made a weak analogy…meant desalinate ALL the oceans…..It is not possible to do in the first place and it would be ruinous to our environment….just as clear cutting forests .
Well I’m not sure its living trees that are giving off copious amounts of CO2, so that had nothing to do with the question I was asking, if that indeed was your point.
I believe trees absorb CO2….
Yes, trees and other vegetation absorb CO2 and express oxygen.
I know! I guess I wasn’t clear enough with my sarcasm. I know trees, plants of all kinds, absorb CO2 and give us back oxygen.
If the stats at Michael own link are correct, the natural world produces far more than we do. How? I have no idea. Assuming it does, that’s a huge opportunity for reduction. That’s all I’ve been saying.
If we are going to try and reduce the output of CO2, look at all the producers, natural and man made and make your reductions in the cheapest, easiest ways.
Clearly if you need to eliminate vegetation to make a reduction in some way, you have to take into account the lost absorption, that kind of goes without saying.
Nate is thinking out of the box…..but the ole refregerator won’t fit into that
shoe box…..
Alright, I think I am done with this than.