So why do I say that he reads this blog? Well, back in July I posted this:
$10B/year is a bargain compared to what everyone else is talking about, and will give us a bunch of pretty forrest to hike in. I can't see how anyone can possibly oppose this, unless they're a bunch of statist pricks trying to boss everyone around.Plant trees:
OK, the study simply argues that by adding 10 million squared kilometers of forests – the area equal to the territory of the U.S. (or Canada, if you wish), 2/3 of the man-made emissions of CO2 since 1800 could be removed from the atmosphere (they apparently pre-decided that the elimination of 2/3 of a problem is a good plan). Planting a tree costs $0.30, they claim, and because one needs about one extra trillion of new trees (the number of trees would be increased by 1/3 in this project – they did use the same estimate of the number of trees in the world as I mentioned above), the total cost would be $300 billion. This is the overall amount, not an annual one.So for $300B over 30 years we could eliminate the excess carbon dioxide that we've put into the atmosphere. Even if this figure is off by an order of magnitude, this is a huge win compared with the $122 Trillion that the UN wants to "fight Climate Change".
Alas, planting forests does not allow the industrial scale graft that the UN has come to expect.
A note to President Trump: it would be awesome if you started referring to her as "Snippi Longstockings", amirite?
UPDATE 25 January 2020 08:31: Courtesy of Aesop in the comments, LOL: