I just can’t resist this. In what world does it make sense to save the planet and refuse to burn too much carbon dioxide, by cutting down trees, which–last time I checked–breathe in carbon dioxide.
My favorite quote from a man who spent $70,000 on solar panel equipment and THEN went next door to demand his neighbor cut down his redwoods (Apparently he never thought about it or talked about it with his neighbor BEFORE investing $70,000):
“I think it’s unfair that a neighbor can take away this source of energy from another neighbor,” he said.
Wow…take away? The real trick here is that when I was younger I thought I remember redwood trees being absolutely sacred in California. Turns out this law that says it’s illegal to block solar panels with your trees was written in the 70s.
The tree-owner’s defense?
Treanor and Bissett, who drive a hybrid Toyota Prius, argue that trees absorb carbon dioxide, cool the surrounding air and provide a habitat for wildlife.
But the solar panel investor counters:
Vargas, who recently bought a plug-in electric car, counters it would take two or three acres of trees to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as much as the solar panels that cover his roof and backyard trellis.
Only in California would you have a “I’m greener than you” pissing contest in a court of law. And, I have to say, this is the problem I have with the religion of global warming: That is that it completely sacrifices common sense conservationism on the altar of “reducing our carbon footprint” and completely dismisses the whole “act local” part of the equation.
The REALLY neat thing is that it makes the “classical” environmentalist concept downright reasonable and logical. So maybe after all of this trend of global warming becoming “mainstream” and scientific fact by scientific consensus, might drive yours truly to be a real rebel and become a tree hugger.