I know this is a crazy conspiracy theory, and it would probably get me permanently suspended all over again on Meta even though Mark Zuckerberg suddenly found religion just before Trump’s inauguration and now believes in not censoring opponents of The Science™, but hear me out: if you really wanted to neutralize the devastating effects of excessive carbon in the atmosphere, which is the stated goal of governments and transnational governing bodies worldwide, might you consider planting more trees — you know, those things that inhale CO2 and exhale oxygen.
But naw, Bill Gates isn’t interested in that. In fact, he’s on record calling it “complete nonsense.”
Related: Hillary Claims ‘Climate Change’ Killed 500,000 Last Year, ‘Particularly Pregnant Women’
Via Fortune (emphasis added):
Advances in carbon removal technology are just one example of the sort of solutions Gates sees on the horizon for the world. Once these innovations become commercialized and implemented at scale, they’ll offer the world, and in particular developing nations (or “poorer countries” as he termed them) a means to implement environmentally friendly technology without incurring additional costs. “Middle income countries, that are 60% of emissions, and say to them ‘Hey, you have to make steel a new way, but that steel will not be more expensive,’” Gates said at the Earthshot Summit. “Likewise for cement, beef, or dairy.”…
Gates, however, was skeptical of other recent tactics used to mitigate climate change. He said it was “complete nonsense” that planting enough trees would take care of the climate problem. “Are we science people or are we idiots?” Gates asked rhetorically.
His fellow Silicon Valley billionaire founder Marc Benioff has a plan to plant one trillion trees by the end of the decade. A study by MIT found that planting one trillion trees would eliminate about 6% of the carbon dioxide the world needs to stop emitting by 2050 to reach the goals set out in the 2015 Paris Accords. President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)—which Gates called a “fantastic climate bill” this week— incidentally includes $1.5 billion in grant money for cities to plant trees in neighborhoods that lack them.
Instead of unproven methods like planting trees, Gates said he prefers carbon taxes as ways to fund future green technologies, in particular carbon capture, which aims to take CO2 out of the atmosphere. Although he acknowledged that in most cases large fossil fuel and electricity companies would pass those costs on to consumers, making it a politically unpalatable policy for elected officials. “If you try to do climate things by brute force you’ll sometimes get people that say, ‘Hey I like climate. I’m for climate. I don’t want to bear that cost and reduce my standard of living,’” he told the New York Times.
In plain English, Gates is much more interested in extracting whatever is left of the wealth in the industrialized world that he doesn’t control while simultaneously enacting a controlled demolition of the industry that developed wealth in the first place on the road, ultimately, to depopulation — again, another reflection of reality that is probably still not allowed on Meta.
Now, we put out a lot of carbon dioxide every year — over 26 billion tons… And somehow, we have to make changes that will bring that down to zero… This equation has four factors, a little bit of multiplication…
So you’ve got a thing on the left, CO2, that you want to get to zero, and that’s going to be based on the number of people, the services each person is using on average, the energy, on average, for each service, and the CO2 being put out per unit of energy. So let’s look at each one of these, and see how we can get this down to zero. Probably, one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty near to zero. [cut to image of a human]
—Bill Gates, 2010, emphasis added
Related: Supercomputer Given Authority to Decide Whether to Block Out Sun For Climate Change
So he’s probably not going to be disseminating the findings of this new study through his massive media propaganda machine.
Using a novel approach to measuring CO2 absorption by plants at a global scale, new research indicates that the previous estimate promulgated by Climate Change™ proponents — which was 40 years old, by the way — was off by a whopping 31%.
(Isn’t it interesting that when flawed statistics come to light regarding Climate Change™, as with COVID, they always seem to have gone in the direction of painting a more dire picture that provides more pretext to governments to enact “emergency” measures that just so happen to translate into more power and control for themselves?)
Via SciTechDaily (emphasis added):
A new assessment by scientists reveals that plants worldwide are absorbing about 31% more carbon dioxide than previously believed. Published in the journal Nature, this research is expected to enhance Earth system models used to forecast climate trends and underscores the critical role of natural carbon sequestration in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
The amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere via photosynthesis from land plants is known as Terrestrial Gross Primary Production, or GPP. It represents the largest carbon exchange between land and atmosphere on the planet. GPP is typically cited in petagrams of carbon per year. One petagram equals 1 billion metric tons, which is roughly the amount of CO2 emitted each year from 238 million gas-powered passenger vehicles.
A team of scientists led by Cornell University, with support from the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory, used new models and measurements to assess GPP from the land at 157 petagrams of carbon per year, up from an estimate of 120 petagrams established 40 years ago and currently used in most estimates of Earth’s carbon cycle.
So with this and the lie that polar bears can’t swim, and Al Gore’s 2009 prediction that the polar ice cap would disappear in five years, the obvious question becomes: what lie are we going to uncover next week, next month, or next year?
