Environment
Trudeau gov’t admits goal to plant 2 billion trees in 10 years is unrealistic, way behind schedule
From LifeSiteNews
According to a memo from the Department of Natural Resources, the plan was a marketing ploy designed to inspire commitment and participation, but only about a fifth of the trees will be in the ground by 2031.
A 2019 environmentally ideologically charged scheme by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to plant two “billion trees” in a 10-year span was a scheme, according to a memo.
As noted by Blacklock’s Reporter, the memo from Canada’s Department of Natural Resources admitted that the Trudeau cabinet’s plan from 2019 for “two billion trees” was nothing more than a marketing slogan.
The memo, dated February 15, titled Two Billion Trees Questions and Answers, noted that the government “sought a name that would inspire that commitment and participation,” and that “so far that has worked.”
Trudeau’s tree planting scheme is well behind schedule, and the reality is by 2031 only about a fifth of two billion trees will even be planted.
The memo stated that as of today the government has “signed or is in the process of negotiating agreements that will result in 393 million trees planted by 2031.”
“We are actively engaged with all partners on how to move ahead,” it reads.
The department even acknowledged that when it comes to tree planting, it is an overly complex process, as trees cannot just be planted anywhere. “Different species and sizes of trees are required in different planting projects across the country,” it said.
While the government claims that it will plant two billion trees, there has been no timeline for when this will be achieved. The process of “planting a tree takes several years and includes steps like collecting seeds, increasing nursery capacity, growing seedlings until they are large enough to be planted in the ground and identifying available land.”
The Trudeau government had said that the tree-planting scheme would cost $3.16 billion overall. However, a 2021 report Financial Support for Planting Two Billion Trees noted that the actual costs are more than double, or $5.94 billion.
Many have pointed out that Canada already has 318 billion trees and the number is growing thanks to forestry companies who plant 600 million trees every year, which is well more than they cut down.
From Clintel.org
By Vijay Jayaraj
Underestimating Clouds: A Climate Mistake We Cannot Afford
A new paper by physicists W. A. van Wijngaarden and William Happer, Radiation Transport in Clouds, suggests that clouds affect atmospheric temperature more than CO2, says Vijay Jayaray of the CO2 Coalition.
Carbon dioxide (CO₂) has been predominantly portrayed as the chief culprit driving global warming. For decades, this misconception has guided international policies, prompted ambitious targets for reducing CO2 emissions and driven a shift from reliable and affordable energy resources like coal, oil, and natural gas toward problematic wind and solar sources.
However, this theory overlooks important factors that influence Earth’s climate system, including a critical variable in the climate system – the role of clouds, which remains woefully underestimated.
Recent work by physicists W. A. van Wijngaarden and William Happer challenges this prevailing paradigm: Their new paper, Radiation Transport in Clouds, suggest clouds affect atmospheric temperature more than CO2 because they have a greater impact on the comparative amounts of solar energy entering Earth’s atmosphere and escaping to outer space.
The Overshadowed Influence of Clouds
Clouds simultaneously reflect incoming sunlight back to space (cooling the Earth) and trap outgoing heat (warming the Earth). This dual nature makes clouds both powerful and perplexing players in our climate system. The net effect of clouds on climate is a balance between these opposing influences, thus a central component of the Earth’s energy budget.
A recent study by van Wijngaarden and Happer, titled “Radiation Transport in Clouds,” delves into this complexity. The 2025 paper says the radiation effects of clouds can easily negate or amplify the impact of CO2. The researchers highlight that clouds have a more pronounced effect on Earth’s radiation budget than greenhouse gases like CO₂.
For instance, their research reveals that a modest decrease in low cloud cover could significantly increase solar heating of the Earth’s surface. In comparison, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations reduces radiation to space by a mere 1%: “Instantaneously doubling CO₂ concentrations, a 100% increase, only decreases radiation to space by about 1%. To increase solar heating of the Earth by a few percent, low cloud cover only needs to decrease by a few percent.”
This stark contrast highlights the disproportionate influence of cloud dynamics compared to CO2 fluctuations. Most state-of-art climate models are still in their infancy. We need more accurate measurements of clouds’ properties and their influence on the electromagnetic components of solar radiation if they are to be useful inputs for climate models.
Implications for Energy Policy and Reliability
Current strategies assume a direct and dominant link between CO2 emissions and global temperatures to justify aggressive “decarbonization” efforts and an increase in the use of solar and wind energy.
However, solar and wind are inherently intermittent, rendering them unreliable and very expensive as components of a power grid. The infrastructure required to support these technologies entails substantial upfront investments, higher operating costs and increasing utility bills for consumers.
Blackouts, energy shortages and price spikes are becoming increasingly common in regions that have prematurely decommissioned fossil fuel plants without adequate backup solutions. This trend disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, exacerbating energy poverty and hindering economic development.
The major justification for using solar and wind has been that they counter global warming by reducing CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. If small variations in cloud cover actually overwhelm the effects of CO2, then the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is being significantly overestimated. This has profound implications for policy.
Attributing global warming predominantly to CO₂ emissions from the use of fossil fuels is a gross oversimplification. While CO2 undoubtedly has a warming effect, it is relatively modest and beneficial, mainly moderating the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures. On the other hand, clouds, with their multifaceted interactions and feedbacks, represent a critical and underappreciated component of this puzzle.
The findings of van Wijngaarden and Happer highlight a broader issue within climate science: the tendency to oversimplify complex systems for the sake of political expediency. As the global energy landscape continues to evolve, it is imperative that decisions be based on sound science rather than political dogma.
The time has come to reassess our approach to both climate science and energy policy. The stakes are too high to continue down a path of destructive policies based on erroneous analyses. We must prioritize reliable, affordable energy sources and grid stability over useless reductions in emissions of a harmless gas.
Click here to access the entire Radiation Transport in Clouds paper.
This commentary was first published at BizPac Review on February 10, 2025
From LifeSiteNews
Outgoing President Joe Biden announced a new climate target of reducing American carbon emissions from 61-66% over the next decade, even though President Trump would be able to undo it as soon as next month.
Outgoing President Joe Biden announced December 19 a new climate target of reducing American carbon emissions of more than 60% over the next decade, even though returning President Donald Trump would be able to undo it as soon as next month.
“Today, as the United States continues to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy, President Biden is announcing a new climate target for the United States: a 61-66 percent reduction in 2035 from 2005 levels in economy-wide net greenhouse gas emissions,” the White House announced, the Washington Free Beacon reports. The new target will be formally submitted to the United Nations Climate Change secretariat.
“President Biden’s new 2035 climate goal is both a reflection of what we’ve already accomplished,” Biden climate adviser John Podesta added, “and what we believe the United States can and should achieve in the future.”
The announcement may be little more than a symbolic gesture in the end, however, as Trump is widely expected to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement upon resuming office in January, in the process voiding related climate obligations.
Trump formally pulled out of the Paris accords in August 2017, the first year of his first term, with then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley stating that the administration would be “open to re-engaging in the Paris Agreement if the United States can identify terms that are more favorable to it, its business, its workers, its people, and its taxpayers.”
Such terms were never reached, however, leaving America out until Biden re-committed the nation to the Paris Agreement on the first day of his presidency, obligating U.S. policy to new economic regulations to cut carbon emissions.
In June, the Trump campaign confirmed Trump’s intentions to withdraw from Paris again. At the time, Trump’s team was reportedly mulling a number of non-finalized drafts of executive orders to do so.
Left-wing consternation on the matter is based on certitude in “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW) or “climate change,” the thesis that human activity, rather than natural phenomena, is primarily responsible for Earth’s changing climate and that such trends pose a danger to the planet in the form of rising sea levels and weather instability.
Activists have long claimed there is a “97 percent scientific consensus” in favor of AGW, but that number comes from a distortion of an overview of 11,944 papers from peer-reviewed journals, 66.4 percent of which expressed no opinion on the question; in fact, many of the authors identified with the AGW “consensus” later spoke out to say their positions had been misrepresented.
AGW proponents suffered a blow in 2010 with the discovery that their leading researchers at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, East Anglia Climate Research Unit, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had engaged in widespread data manipulation, flawed climate models, misrepresentation of sources, and suppression of dissenting findings in order to make the so-called “settled science” say what climate activists wanted it to.
Germany’s Shocking War on Online Speech: Armed Police Raids for Online “Insults,” “Hate Speech,” and “Misinformation”
Quebecers starting to understand the need for Canadian pipelines
U.S. Conditionally Approves Avian Flu Vaccine for Poultry
Are We Winning the Patient-to-Doctor Ratio War?
“Fake Chinese income” mortgages fuel Toronto Real Estate Bubble: Canadian Bank Leaks
Delta flight crashes and flips upside-down at Toronto airport as 3 are left critically injured
U.S. tariffs or not, Canada needs to build new oil and gas pipeline space fast
-
Business2 days agoFederal Heritage Minister recommends nearly doubling CBC funding and reducing accountability
-
Alberta2 days agoOpen letter to Ottawa from Alberta strongly urging National Economic Corridor
-
Addictions2 days agoBC overhauls safer supply program in response to widespread pharmacy scam
-
International2 days agoJihadis behead 70 Christians in DR Congo church
-
Indigenous1 day agoTrudeau gov’t to halt funds for ‘unmarked graves’ search after millions spent, no bodies found
-
Business1 day agoDOJ drops Biden-era discrimination lawsuit against Elon Musk’s SpaceX
-
Business2 days agoArgentina’s Javier Milei gives Elon Musk chainsaw
-
Business23 hours agoWorst kept secret—red tape strangling Canada’s economy