deforestation | Lawrence van Rijn

Yes, it is time to slam down, slam dunk and slam punk some people. The Evening Standard gives us ‘New draft deal appears to water down curb on fossil fuels’. The article (at https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/cop26-latest-news-glasgow-last-day-climate-change-talks-outcomes-so-far-alok-sharma-boris-johnson-b965809.html) is not even a surprise to me. So in the end, the only true thing of the COP26 was an 18 year old girl named Greta Thunberg. The rest was full of shit. And do not take my word for it. Mark Rober (former NASA) started in 2019 #TeamTrees with MrBeast (his name apparently) and so far they planted 23 million trees. How many did the UK plant? How many did the US plant? How many did the EU plant? Do the math and you will see how right I am. Two people (with drones and donations) did more in a year than the better part of 30 governments with billions. So you tell me.

In other news, there was a decent form of objections to my article ‘1095 minus one’ two days ago (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/11/11/1095-minus-one/). The opposition was that my example was nice, but that the balloon would have been massively larger. That is fair enough. And that person would be right. But the setting is not merely that there are 8 billion in need of oxygen (without the CO2), the larger issue is that over the last 15 years 15,000,000 additional flights were added. That amounts to 41,000 flights a day, every single day. So how much CO2 do these flights create? More people and more flights, not the flights from the uber rich, no normal airline flights. I am willing to take a bet that at least 25% of those flights are useless and could be scrapped.

So whilst we look at media outlets like Al Jazeera giving us “Analysts question the text of COP26’s final agreement citing ‘watered down’ language on hydrocarbon eradication and missing commitments on emission cuts” (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/12/watered-down-new-cop26-draft-deal-moves-away-from-hard-targets) we see the truth. Greta Thunberg was right, the COP26 was all blah-blah-blah. No real deal is in the works and as Indonesia and there are questions on the real deal with Brazil. Even now as we are shown “Data from the national space research agency shows deforestation increased by 5 percent from October 2020”, yes Brazil could end deforestation by 2030 because there will be no forest left. So my prediction that we have wiped out 50% of all forests by 2030 is getting awfully close. Now reconsider the Montgolfier principle I gave two days ago and consider the balloon going up with only 50% burner power (the trees), we will be adding CO2 quicker than oxygen and that means the end of the balloon (we all get to die). I get it, it is not fair on Brazil or Indonesia. There are also Papua New Guinea. They have a grievous matter to settle, which is the claim Gordon Brown (former UK PM) made in 2009 on funds for the stricken nations, that money never came, and this government does not have the funds. So the setting of blah-blah-blah goes from bad to worse.

And that does not beat all yesterday I saw some news pass buy that they have a replacement for plastic bags, this is good! Thy have a new wood based bag, which is debatable… at this point at least. So you still doubt my estimate of 50-80 million trees in three years? I might be wrong, it will need to be higher if Brazil and Indonesia are any indication and so far the governments are all talk and no result.

There is a larger issue, there actually are two, one on each side of the equation. Brown gold on one side is essential for the economy of several economies, not merely Indonesia and Brazil, but Canada, India ad the US as well. The US being the largest timber producing nation on the planet. As we see, the solution from #TeamTrees seems to work, so why are they not reforesting what is lost? I know it is not always possible, yet we are now in a stage where we either get more trees or teach our grandkids to live by breathing carbonised oxygen (CO2). We are that close to suffocating. On the other side, we have seen clear reports that 50% of the damage comes from 147 plants, the media ignored it, I wrote about it and placed the documents of UNEP and the EEA for you to read, they had graphics too. Yet the media is largely ignoring those 147 plants, where they are and why they are allowed to continue (there might be a real reason, I do not know) yet the media remains silent, they are all about the flames of COP26, but in three weeks time the will move on, why is that?

We allow the wrong players to continue their destructive plans and it costs us dearly, if we are lucky enough to avoid that, our kids will not, they will live through it and curse us for not actively solving the problems they inherited. I leave you to figure it out.

OK, first off, this is HIGHLY speculative, optionally presumptive. So if any environmentalist shoots this view to bits, that might just be correct. As I was relaxing and contemplating things. I suddenly had a moment where my mind went racing in all the wrong places. My thoughts are giving us that we are being lied to. We are talking global warming and some notion of 1.5C towards global warming. But I believe that the setting is wrong. I reckon that we will have 4 degrees towards global warming by 2028. You see, some players are looking at the trends, but they forgot that logging continued unabated, the population grows and we are now in a 1095 day setting where either we plant millions of trees (closer to 50M) in 1095 days, or we will face a harsher setting. You see, growing trees will become increasingly more difficult and places that are too warm, the sprouts will die to a much larger degree and in 2028 too many places of this planet will turn arid. The Wall Street groups of brown gold will deny and oppose this, but am I wrong? I hope, I truly hope that I am wrong, but I feel uncertain. You see, as I wrote earlier. In the last 25 years one third of our forests have been cut, this started a global warming trend, yet to counter it we would have to replant that in half the time and that is not going to happen, and it would be rather delusional to expect that. Yet, as I see it we need to make a much larger effort the next 1095 days to stop the advancement of global warming. And there are other factors as well, water will be an issue to grow the trees and too much of that is polluted, rain is in less places and where it does rain it rains a little too much, so to sprout a forest will be increasingly depending on where it is possible and the places where it is possible are diminishing.

I thought it was me, but I found a piece by the McGill University that gives us ‘Over half of the world’s rivers cease to flow for at least one day a year on average’. The paper (at https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/06/210616113838.htm) also gives us “Given continued global climate and land use change, an increasingly large proportion of the global river network is expected to cease to flow seasonally over the coming decades” and there is the issue. As rivers run dry, the trees who rely on rivers will not grow, will have diminished growth and optionally die. When we see this added element, the stage of 1095 starts making sense. This is not one river, one place. No this is projected to 51%-60% of ALL the rivers on the planet. And that is ignoring places like the Nile where growth is pretty much a faded option. And as Indonesia states that stopping deforestation by 2030 is not possible, the issue increases. There are people who can get 50,000,000 trees planted (ask Mark Rober formerly with NASA), but that means starting now, that means creating the surge now, not when it pleases Wall Street, it will be too late at that point. A stage where we saw it all coming and we all ignored it for too long.

Am I right, am I wrong?

I honestly do not know, I will be clear about that part, but perhaps the media will take a larger look at that (if Wall Street allows them to). Enjoy the day, optionally.

Tag Archives: deforestation

A COP26 truth

1095 days

Recent Posts

Archives