10. The climate indulgence discussion

Tenth blog, February 25, 2019

Everyone knows that trees, in order to grow, extract CO₂ molecules from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. In that process the CO₂ is dissolved: the O₂ (oxygen) is returned to the atmosphere and the C (carbon) is stored in the plant and in the soil. Trees do this free of charge and it is a solution to climate change that works, is scalable, and generates money. What more do we want?

That trees do their job perfectly is shown by the beautiful and instructive video from NASA below. During the summer (in the northern hemisphere), all overconcentration of CO₂ is dissolved by the photosynthesis of trees.

How is it possible that this money making solution to climate change - if CO₂ is indeed the cause - is not included in the Climate Agreement in The Netherlands?

This is because a part of the 'climate experts' have introduced the term 'indulgence' among themselves. Under the Roman Catholic Church, a believer could buy an indulgence, whereby his sins were bought off and he thus ended up with Peter at the Gate of Heaven instead of in purgatory or hell.

The argument is that with photosynthesis we can indeed extract and dissolve CO₂ perfectly and cheap from the atmosphere, but it is better not to produce CO₂ at all. By using trees as a solution, the urge to move away from fossil fuels will be removed. This argument is just as crooked as a traffic expert that would argue for not putting brakes on a car, because they would make us drive harder and therefore less safe.

A well-functioning, affordable, and money making Treesolution is being discarded because it works too well. The Treesolution cannot be given a greater compliment, but the one who pays the financial noose of this 'indulgence belief' to not use it, is the citizen. Is that fair?

If we really want to prevent climate change, then we have to arrange these things:

  • to pursue a policy towards an economy without fossil fuels
  • in the interim time - which we call transition period - pursue a policy that reduces the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere, instead of slowing it up
  • organize to combat climate change as efficiently as possible so that everybody wants to participate

In the next blog we discuss the ‘The deforestation’.

Pieter Hoff
Green Musketeer

Background information

On 8 October 2018, the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) issued an emergency call to all countries to reduce their CO₂ emissions by at least 50% by 2030. The Netherlands wants to comply with this by means of a Climate Agreement. Pieter Hoff is of the opinion that the Climate Agreement needs additional policies to achieve 0% net CO₂ emissions by 2030 and that this supporting policy can be implemented much more efficiently, quicker and less costly than the current proposals that are included in the proposed Dutch Climate Agreement.