Bill Gates Idiotic Investment - Bury the Trees to Prevent Possible Forest Fire CO2 Emissions!

So I'm just watching a video on Rumble of a podcaster ('Crossroads with Joshua Phillips') discussing much to do with the World Economic Forum, and at 31 minutes in he starts discussing a company which Bill Gates has invested in, with the premise that they intend to cut down all the trees in large forested regions & then BURY THE TREES so that there is no possibility of a forest fire hypothetically, maybe, possibly taking place at some time in the future, because reasons, that if a forest were to catch on fire it would emit lots of Carbon Dioxide which would be a Bad Thing for Climate Change Alarmism & so on.

This is the most ridiculous concept I have literally ever heard of, and yet it is a real company, with a real goal of cutting down trees & burying them just to prevent the very possibility that a forest fire may or may not occur at some unspecified time in the future. This is the very epitomy of globalist lunacy - cutting down & burying trees on the offchance that they might one day catch fire & cause Climate Change 'damage'.

So taking the argument to its logical conclusion, we should deforest entire regions of forested countryside & bury the trees to prevent the risk of carbon emissions in the event of hypothetical fires. If we did that all over the world, what would be the end result? Oh yes! No oxygen to breathe, because trees actually ABSORB carbon dioxide & EMIT oxygen for us to breathe. So the apparent risk of carbon emissions due to possible forest fires is a greater problem than the amount of carbon dioxide which the trees naturally absorb & thereby prevent their stupid alleged Climate Change.

This is sheer idiocy, and yet it is a project tha Mr Billy Boy Gates has decided to invest in!

INSANITY! Is he trolling the world? Is he in fact the biggest Reddit-type troll ever known?

Sheer insanity.


WEF & other subjects discussed - see 31 minutes to learn about Bill Gates' insane buried trees investment plan

Here's the MIT Technology Review story on the insane buried tree 'locked away carbon' scheme which has already raised at least $6,000,000 from Bill Gates & other investors in recent times. Numpties.

That is the stupidest idea I ever heard. I thought Bill Gates was supposed to be somewhat intelligent.

If you do that, why bury the trees, just sell the lumber off to pay for the harvesting of the timber. It could be used to make furniture instead of using plastic to make furniture out of.

Trees suck carbon out of the air to make their mass. They free oxygen too, plus they support wildlife. Keep people away from that forest so they do not start fires there, and clean up dead trees and turn it into biofuel to lessen forest fire risk.

Next, they'll be trying to grow upside down trees with the roots above ground.

a reply to: rickymouse

This is why climate alarmism is sheer nonsense. Carbon Dioxide is not a negative byproduct of industry & farming - it is a useful gas which feeds the trees, which feeds our bodies with the oxygen we need to survive. So even if our practices are leading to slightly increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, that is not actually a problem - it is a boon to our natural world, with reciprocal benefits in the form of increased oxygen levels. Hence climate alarmism is sheer insanity at the end of the day.

It brings to mind the ice core data from Antarctica which proves that our climate is cyclical over periodicity of many tens of thousands of years, with the cycle consistently causing rising & falling temperatures in a repeating sine wave pattern that is very steady. The changes in our climate over hundreds of thousands of years are likely tied to changes in solar output, rather than any hypothetical increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

The following link shows that the fact we rely on a belief in anthropogenic climate change so heavily connected to alleged CO2 issues is deeply suspect & in fact may be complete bollocks when all is said & done - we are likely to see future historians debating why we believed in this nonsense for so long...

A thesis for which such an approach can be followed is that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, such as methane, have dire warming effects on the Earth’s climate. Because CO2 emissions are considered to be the single most important factor currently affecting climate, unprecedented efforts are being formulated to achieve carbon-free societies within a few decades. In view of the major social, environmental, political and economic issues raised by such a transition, two points deserve special attention. The first concerns geochemical evidence available for the greenhouse effects of CO2 (and of CH4 as well) over periods of time long enough to encompass great climate cycles. The second deals with the actual heuristic value of climate simulations, which appears to be generally acknowledged without having undergone real in-depth analyses. Both points will, thus, be reviewed critically from an epistemological standpoint in the present study. In fact, the approach followed will be justified by serious weaknesses pointed out on both counts, which will, in particular, illustrate once more why models that are now so extensively relied on in many fields of science and in public policies can lack any real demonstrative value.

Ice Core Analysis - The temperature–CO2 climate connection: an epistemological reappraisal of ice-core messages

a reply to: rickymouse

It truly is the most absurd evidence of the idiocy of climate alarmism amongst globalist lunatics that I've ever seen. It is the very epitomy of the idiocy which we all should mock & ridicule all the day long.

Joshua in the podcast highlights that this is all a carbon credits offset scam, so they can claim high amounts of carbon being offset, selling the credits to companies so as to raise huge amounts of money & getting stupidly rich.

a reply to: rickymouse
MIT Tecnology Review

A stealth effort to bury wood for carbon removal has just raised millions
Kodama has raised more than $6 million from Bill Gates’ climate fund and other investors, as it pursues new ways to reduce wildfire risks and lock away carbon in harvested trees.

A California startup is pursuing a novel, if simple, plan for ensuring that dead trees keep carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere...

But MIT Technology Review can now report the company has raised around $6.6 million from Bill Gates’s climate fund Breakthrough Energy Ventures, as well as Congruent Ventures and other investors.

...a pilot effort to bury waste biomass harvested from California forests in the Nevada desert and study how well it prevents the release of greenhouse gases...

They aren't talking about cutting down green trees and burying them. They are talking about collecting dead timber and waste material from conventional timber harvesting operations for burial. The tops and limbs of cut timber.

Not popular among the Greenies, but oh well....

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is commonly mischaracterized as a harmful waste product of respiration and is falsely blamed for disrupting the planetary climate
CO2 is an essential gas necessary for life. Moreover, its impact on Earth’s temperatures is negligible, and will remain negligible even if the current concentration in the atmosphere were to double. A 100% increase of CO2, from 400 ppm to 800 ppm, would decrease radiation into space by just 1.1%, resulting in a 0.7 degree C increase of the average earth temperature
A 0.7 degree C difference means there’s no climate emergency, and no matter what we do to reduce CO2 emissions, it’s not going to impact global temperatures. To fabricate an emergency where there is none, it is assumed that massive positive feedbacks are involved. However, most natural feedbacks are negative, not positive, so isn’t it likely the 0.7 degree C increase is an overestimation to begin with
There’s no single temperature of the Earth. It varies by location and altitude. For every kilometer of altitude, you have an average cooling of 6.6 degrees C
Higher CO2 levels will green the planet, making it more hospitable to plant life. The more CO2 there is, the better plants and trees grow. CO2 also reduces the water needs of plants, reducing the risks associated with droughts

[articles.mercola.com... 7&sd=20221025&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20240127&foDate=false&mid=DM1523189&rid=2030112016]

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
This is why climate alarmism is sheer nonsense. Carbon Dioxide is not a negative byproduct of industry & farming - it is a useful gas which feeds the trees, which feeds our bodies with the oxygen we need to survive. So even if our practices are leading to slightly increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, that is not actually a problem - it is a boon to our natural world, with reciprocal benefits in the form of increased oxygen levels. Hence climate alarmism is sheer insanity at the end of the day.

Bill Gates' investment choices aside, climate alarmism is far from sheer nonsense. You would have to blind, deaf and especially dumb to believe that. That some people are having alarming experiences with the weather is beyond question, are they cyclical changes? Possibly, but it also cannot be denied that human activity, by destroying ecosystems that help to mediate some of the effects of increased humidity or drought, has exacerbated the situation.

Since the end of the last great ice age – 10,000 years ago – the world has lost one-third of its forests.1 Two billion hectares of forest – an area twice the size of the United States – has been cleared to grow crops, raise livestock, and use for fuelwood.

In a previous post we looked at this change in global forests over the long-run. What this showed was that although humans have been deforesting the planet for millennia, the rate of forest loss accelerated rapidly in the last few centuries. Half of global forest loss occurred between 8,000BC and 1900; the other half was lost in the last century alone.

ourworldindata.org...

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

www.technologyreview.com...

I read MIT's reporting of this buried biomass idea and at least people are trying to do something rather than nothing.

I say plant more trees too and this little drone is up for the job because it can plant 40,000 trees a day. There's your extra biomass to make this project get off the ground, perhaps.

reasonstobecheerful.world...#:~:text=For%20Flash%20Forest%20plantings%2C%20a,they%20embed%20into %20the%20soil.

Seeing plants emerge, Jones says, is “absolutely incredible and surreal — there’s nothing better than knowing that your daily efforts are going towards a good cause and making a better future.”

When will these silly people learn. When man was running around in skins there was vastly more forests on the Earth AND there were fires in those forests and whoops it didn't kill the Earth. The only problem with forest fires is man wanting to live in those "wilderness" areas, thinking "oh, how beautiful it is" but do nothing and not asking the authorities to keep the forests clear of underbrush that's the fuel for these vast fires and to make effectual fire breaks near to habitation.

CO2 might be released in a potential fire.

Methane, 28 times as potent as CO2 per EPA's own data, WILL be released by all the decomposing trees! Also the trees aren't going to bury themselves; hope Bill is accounting for the diesel fuel this will involve.

This is some kind of money-transfer scheme, has nothing to do with the environment.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

So even if our practices are leading to slightly increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, that is not actually a problem - it is a boon to our natural world

It might be a boom, if they weren't burning the tree's for power, or burying them. Co2 warming appears to be real. And all the green movement is doing. Is accelerating the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere. None of what they are saying is true, everything they are doing, is actually adding more Co2 faster. The question is. Why are they trying to warm the planet?

Did you hear about the wooden car made of wooden wheels and a wooden engine? It wooden go.

What happens one day if this wood carbonizes into coal and catches light? It will slowly burn away for months or years. If there is a lot of green waste to get rid of, compost and slowly break it down into methane / natural gas.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Seems to be on par with idiots who claim raking the forest floor would alleviate the dilemma.

Politicians should stick to politics and let the U.S. Forest Service get on with their job.

The U.S. Forest Service contracts out services from these types of companies that Gates invests in, so this type of biomass burial would fall under the Stewardship Contract (in the table, in the source below) ... holistic management ... environmental non-profit ... category.

However, due to the threat of megafires, the USFS is pursuing a 10-year Wildfire Crisis Strategy Implementation Plan to reduce wildfire risk to people, communities, and natural resources while sustaining and restoring healthy, resilient fire-adapted forests. Together with funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Congress has appropriated $1.4 billion and $1.8 billion, respectively, for wildfire crisis strategy implementation. You can view progress on this implementation using the National Wildfire Crisis Strategy Investments Dashboard.

In addition to the national work, the state of California has been working towards its joint commitment with the USFS to treat 1 million acres of fire-prone forests annually by 2025, with an associated MOU that commits the state of CA and the USDA Forest Service to each sustainably treating 500,000 acres annually. In this plan, forest treatment includes forest thinning for ecosystem health, hazardous fuels reduction around communities and other services that reduce the dry, small-diameter understory. You can view annual progress on this initiative on the CA Wildfire & Forest Interagency Treatment Dashboard. The graph below is a visual depiction of the accomplished treatments on federal land and the USDA Forest Service’s commitment target of 500,000 annual treated acres (half of the 1M commitment). It is anticipated that these acre commitments will be implemented through service contracts and stewardship agreements.

kodama.ai...

kodama.ai...

originally posted by: gb540
CO2 might be released in a potential fire.

Methane, 28 times as potent as CO2 per EPA's own data, WILL be released by all the decomposing trees!
......

That's why they are proposing to bury the stuff in specially prepared dry pits out in the Nevada desert that prevent the natural oxidation and decomposition you are referring to. If they didn't do that there would be no difference between what they are proposing to do and just leaving the cuttings on the forest floor. This initial project is actually an experiment to see if and how well that idea works, by measuring the rate and type of decomposition.

You seem to be making the erroneous assumption that you are cleverer than they are and have thought about stuff that they haven't. Dunning-Kruger effect.

Cut and bury all the trees and large vegetation on earth, stop all fossil fuels usage including power plants, kill all the cattle, and every human must wear a mask that is capable of scrubbing 99.9% of CO2. After a couple hundred years of this, most species are dead, including humanity, the average global temperature has stopped by 0.05 degrees.

We did it! We saved the F'N planet and it was worth it!!!!

Maybe it's the time to try new ways of doing things.

Everyone on Earth has an interest in reducing the likelihood of global catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, advances in the life sciences, disruptive technologies, and the widespread corruption of the world’s information ecosystem. These threats, singularly and as they interact, are of such a character and magnitude that no one nation or leader can bring them under control. That is the task of leaders and nations working together in the shared belief that common threats demand common action. As the first step, and despite their profound disagreements, three of the world’s leading powers—the United States, China, and Russia—should commence serious dialogue about each of the global threats outlined here. At the highest levels, these three countries need to take responsibility for the existential danger the world now faces. They have the capacity to pull the world back from the brink of catastrophe. They should do so, with clarity and courage, and without delay.

It’s 90 seconds to midnight.

thebulletin.org...

Where in either source you listed is this listed, mentioned or supported ,"cut down all the trees in large forested regions "?

As a follow up question why not jsut report the facts so people can make an informed decision?