Look it up

Well, after decades of debate, billions of dollars and research, and so much scientific data that it's almost impossible to fathom just how complex the problem is and what causes it, we finally reached the point of saying "Well, what happens if we plant some trees?" and everyone pretty much said "Ok, that problem is solved now".

Well, after decades of debate, billions of dollars and research, and so much scientific data that it's almost impossible to fathom just how complex the problem is and what causes it, we finally reached the point of saying "Well, what happens if we plant some trees?" and everyone pretty much said "Ok, that problem is solved now".

It's more fun to be a victim

There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.

Britain will ban the sale of new gas, diesel and hybrid vehicles from 2035, five years earlier than planned, in an attempt to reduce air pollution and fossil fuel emissions, the government announced on Tuesday.

no, only people like The Hawk

I'd say reducing mega amounts of carbon dioxide...is a very good idea.

It's more fun to be a victim

There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.

Something wrong with planting trees? I'd say reducing mega amounts of carbon dioxide and replacing it with O2 is a very good idea. environmentalists should be excited for this to happen.

Odd that you don't feel this way when it comes to gasoline and other fossil fuels being used.

I didn't know you were a believer in man made climate change. Probably the California liberal part of you.

It's more fun to be a victim

There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.

Spending a huge amount of money and time to replace fossil fuels when you don't have to and have other means of reducing pollution that are cheaper and more effective

Give us a little taste of your expertise on "cheaper and more effective" means of reducing pollution.

“Headlines around the world declared tree planting to be the best solution to climate change,” lead author of the critique Joseph Veldman said in a statement at the time. “We now know those headlines were wrong.” Veldman argued that planting trees where they don’t belong can harm ecosystems, make wildfires worse, and even exacerbate global warming. His critique made the case that the amount of carbon the study said 1 trillion trees could sequester was about five times too large. The study also considered planting trees on savannas and grasslands, where planting non-native trees could cause problems for local species. Planting trees on snowy terrain that once reflected the sun could even turn those places into dark patches that actually absorb heat.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/31/21115862/davos-1-trillion-trees-controversy-world-economic-forum-campaign

So what? He didn't say that planting tress wouldn't help to reduce CO2. He also is part of group that advocates massive restructuring of the world's energy structure so he has a selfish interest in saying what he does. His opinions are a joke. He assumes the worst case scenario on how the program would work. Its typical of these idiots to do this. A smart well organized program of planting trees will work to reduce CO2.The simplicity of it is genius. Unfortunately Veldman and the other environmental Nazis hate the idea because it disturbs their own stupid end of the world programs.