The Greenhouse Effect is (Intentionally?) Misunderstood and Misreported
We are neglecting the opportunity to cool the climate with plants.
The earth is warming, but for multiple reasons, and with myriad solutions. But we are treated to a grossly oversimplified story as to the causes and a grossly over complicated—and ineffective—suite of solutions, e.g., solar, wind, EVs and a plant based diet.
The official story is that the earth’s average temperatures are increasing because of greenhouse gases, primarily CO2 caused almost exclusively by the burning of fossil fuels.
What we are not told is that denuded land creates hot plates that contribute to warming. We are also not told that reforestation could serve to substantially reduce temperatures, at least locally and probably globally.
Increasing plant matter serves to reduce temperatures, because plants transpire (perspire) water in prodigious quantities. When this water evaporates it has a tremendous cooling effect. And of course, trees cast shade thereby cooling the surrounding temperatures.
This is something you’ll (almost) never hear from the mainstream sources of climate (mis)information.
But trees are not the only plants. And reforestation is not the only way to increase plant matter. Farmers could be encouraged and incentivized to use cover crops. We could switch to “no-till” farming methods, thus keeping carbon in the ground instead of plowing it up and releasing it into the atmosphere, as we do when we till excessively.
We could grow more and mow less in our landscapes. We could invest in ecological landscaping. We could reduce the use of herbicides and pesticides.
We are surrounded with opportunities to increase our plant matter. But that would call into question what “we” (they) do to our land.
“Land use” is not a regular topic of discussion. What we do to the land is virtually irrelevant to the climate … if we listen to the mainstream sources.
What is relevant—it seems—is “getting off fossil fuels.” Also “eat less meat.” It’s all about greenhouse gases, we are told.
As if the people telling us this 1) know what they’re taking about, 2) have a plan, 3) have a track record for solving problems, and 4) have shown themselves to be fundamentally honest, trustworthy, hardworking or reliable.
I’m sorry. But I think it’s none of the above. The people who are driving the climate change story have not shown themselves to be fundamentally honest or trustworthy. They don’t have a plan for solving the climate crisis. They have no track record. And they don’t seem to know very much.
I say this—that they don’t seem to know very much—because every story I read about flooding, drought and wildfires leaves out salient, relevant and correctible “facts on the ground.” Floods, droughts and wildfires are all largely preventable with via competent management of soil, livestock, plant matter and natural ecosystems.
But you won’t hear this from the corporate media, the major political parties and Wall Street corporations, none of whom want to challenge the people who determine how we use the land: our forests, farms and landscapes, our grasslands, wetlands and deserts, our oceans, our streams and our rivers.
Average people—the citizens of a democracy—don’t get to determine how we use our land. That is left to powerful economic interests, corrupt governments and something called a “free market.”
It just wouldn’t do for the New York Times or the Sierra Club or the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to challenge those who have real power.