There are still some indoctrinated Gen Z s and millennials who believe it's real. Hopefully fewer than believe in the Tooth Fairy.

Many of them now openly admit to being watermelons and that this was always about redistribution of wealth. AOC admitted this when they trying to pass the GND during Biden which was America's version of it.

Pointed out in the article but the fact that we've wasted all of this funding and done little about water - the most precious resource on the entire planet - insane.

I still laugh about the Paris Accords when they were originally passed with their temp goal, but flat out saying in the accords that there was no technological way to even achieve the goal.

A left wing writer even wrote an editorial about it at the time complaining about it.

Yet, we are to give these people trillions of dollars in the meantime.

Sucks to be Third World.

I agree but unfortunately the Marxists hijacked the movement, thus the term "watermelon" - green on the outside but red on the inside.

I'm a conservationist by nature being a conservative. I highly value our parks, green spaces, water, etc but there is so much Marxist nonsense wrapped up in it that we can't have a logical conversation about any of it.

In the 90s, I seriously considered buying swamp land in East Texas (which was relatively cheap then), getting a hold of pine seedlings and planting them for carbon credits. I would have been a billionaire today.

I am for sensible, achievable environmental regulations. Only a blithering idiot wants a dirty, nasty planet.

The issue with pretty much all the leftist regulations is that they are either not achievable by today's technology, or are so costly, that they will cripple the economy of a country, or flat bankrupt a business. Also, always lurking is the corrupt grifting that the elites skim off the top.

Re: smog

Not sure if it is intentional or not, but everyone, from politicians to lay people, conflate CO2 and other GHGs with other forms of pollution. Don't want smog? Keep NO and NO2 from coming out of exhaust stacks or pipes. The US has done that and that is why we don't look like Beijing. You don't need green energy to reduce smog.

doubledog said:

---

In the 90s, I seriously considered buying swamp land in East Texas (which was relatively cheap then), getting a hold of pine seedlings and planting them for carbon credits. I would have been a billionaire today.

---

It's a good thing you didn't. Pine doesn't grow in swamps, and landowners aren't getting paid for storing carbon on the stump. You might see some conservation easements in the press where NGOs pay landowners to forever give up the right to develop the land, but that's an encumbrance on property value and typically only makes sense for marginal property that didn't have much value to begin with.

It isn't that pollution isn't happening in some respects, or that humanity isn't contributing a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere that contributes to some global warming.

It is the sociopathic delusional cult of environmental activism as a proxy for Marxist economic control that represents the ridiculous response that creates an even greater problem. They operate under the hyperbolic presumption of impeding apocalypse and this that radical and extreme and totalitarian responses are necessary and justified. They proclaim that almost any means is valid to go to the extreme of vainly attempting to stop or halt climate change projections based on models. Almost any amount of human suffering is apparently justified to obtain this emotionally driven goal. The very real, predictable, and damaging economic consequences are nearly completely disregarded.

There is no thought of adaptation, mitigation, and a more gradual technological evolution towards more efficiency. There is only a headlong neurotic rush towards extreme and unobtainable goals and the power to attempt to forcibly implement them despite the vast increase in human suffering that would result,

People caught ip in the cult like radical environmentalist religion have to be deprogrammed, so to speak. They have to be reintroduced to pragmatic reality.

CDUB98 said:

---

I am for sensible, achievable environmental regulations. Only a blithering idiot wants a dirty, nasty planet.

The issue with pretty much all the leftist regulations is that they are either not achievable by today's technology, or are so costly, that they will cripple the economy of a country, or flat bankrupt a business. Also, always lurking is the corrupt grifting that the elites skim off the top.

---

Many are also written by people that have no idea about the businesses or farms they are regulating outside of studying them from afar. That's how you end up with bans on drilling in the ANWR when people don't realize the ANWR is massive so the pictures they show of mountains and streams where there is no drilling have no relevance to the flat desolate tundra that make West Texas look like Hawaii where there is drilling.

Government is filled with evil people, criminals, useful idiots, and a small number of people who truly want to make a difference and serve.

YouBet said:

---

I agree but unfortunately the Marxists hijacked the movement, thus the term "watermelon" - green on the outside but red on the inside.

I'm a conservationist by nature being a conservative. I highly value our parks, green spaces, water, etc but there is so much Marxist nonsense wrapped up in it that we can't have a logical conversation about any of it.

---

This is where I'm at as well as far as being "green".

If the amount from the OP is reported as $16T, I'm willing to bet its even more than that which has been wasted.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

doubledog said:

---

In the 90s, I seriously considered buying swamp land in East Texas (which was relatively cheap then), getting a hold of pine seedlings and planting them for carbon credits. I would have been a billionaire today.

---

It's a good thing you didn't. Pine doesn't grow in swamps, and landowners aren't getting paid for storing carbon on the stump. You might see some conservation easements in the press where NGOs pay landowners to forever give up the right to develop the land, but that's an encumbrance on property value and typically only makes sense for marginal property that didn't have much value to begin with.

---

Yeah, I actually read an extensive article about this a couple of years ago and all the people that invested in tree farms or land hoping to make money off the wood actually did not. We have more trees now in this country (especially the SEC where much of the pine is) than we ever have. There is so much supply that no one really made any money off of it.

Article is a few years old now. I assume this is still true.

Hey guys, didn't y'all hear Al Gore the other day? Climate change is still a major threat. Just look it up on the internet that he invented.

doubledog said:

---

In the 90s, I seriously considered buying swamp land in East Texas (which was relatively cheap then), getting a hold of pine seedlings and planting them for carbon credits. I would have been a billionaire today.

---

You would have to be daft to build a pine forest in a swamp.

Good luck convincing the legions of brainwashed young people that still spout that there is a universal consensus among scientists that man made global warming is real and we are all doomed if we don't adopt climate change policy. A liberal freakazoid went off on me saying this in our office a few years ago and our company made a good portion of its money selling fuel.

its the creation of the federal reserve and its not close

I'm going to nominate Tax Withholding; Hiding the hurt in plain sight.

If the American people had to write a tax check at the end of the year, the funding of many of these these scams wouldn't happen.