SPECIAL FEATURES:
Email
Congressman says trees are bad for the planet
California's Dana Rohrabacher says that if we really want to cool the planet, we should get rid of those harmful trees.
Fri, May 27 2011 at 1:55 PM
Related Topics:
(Photo: Gage Skidmore/flickr)
One representative in Washington says we need to start cutting down trees to help combat global warming.
If you want to reread that line, go ahead — but it’s true. During a congressional hearing this week, U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), said he doesn’t believe in global warming and that he believes cutting trees down could be the solution — if in fact global warming does exist.
Speaking to the top American climate diplomat, Todd Stern, Rohrabacher asked, "Is there some thought being given to subsidizing the clearing of rainforests in order for some countries to eliminate that production of greenhouse gases?" Rohrabacher went on, asking, “Would people be supportive of cutting down older trees in order to plant younger trees as a means to prevent this disaster from happening?"
A somewhat baffled Stern said after the hearing that, “I didn't want to be commenting on stuff I'm not an expert on." Stern added, "If he wants to talk about the effect of rotting wood or whatever, we're happy to have someone come up who knows about it. I don't."
In a Politico article, Darren Samuelsohn interviewed Jay Gulledge of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, who said that while it is true that 80 to 90 percent of gross greenhouse gases come from nature, Rohrabacher's understanding of the emissions process — and science for that matter — is questionable. "How he's using it is totally off the wall," Gulledge said. "It's beyond the pale. It makes no sense."
From there the discussions at the hearing devolved into criticisms of the United Nations’ climate negotiations and complaints about how foreign nations treated the Bush administration when that group attended climate talks in the pre-Obama era. Stern avoided engaging in those discussions.
Also on MNN: More trees now than 100 years ago?
The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies with our Terms and Conditions, MNN is not responsible for the accuracy of any of their information.
You might also like:
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
EDITORS' PICKS
Advertisement
TODAY'S MOST POPULAR ON
- 15 famous people who mysteriously disappeared
- Spanish town sends dog poop back to irresponsible pet owners
- Too beautiful to be real? 16 surreal landscapes found on Earth
- Henry Cavill's 'Man of Steel' workout video
- 9 habits that may do more harm than good
- 10 false facts most people think are true
- 5 mind-bending facts about dreams
- Watch: Sir David Attenborough deals with a band of cannibals the British way
- 7 surprising things Pope Francis has done in his first 100 days
- 22 surprising uses for turmeric
NEWSLETTER
Advertisement
How stupid is this congressmen. Is he trying to kill the planet faster than it is already happening? Cutting down trees will just speed up the global warming process (which, just an FYI Rohrabacher, is human caused). I agree with Hunters comment. An IQ and common sense test should be performed on anybody running for any public office.
Like Einstein said- Some people would have been better off being born with only a brain stem and no brain because they use and misuse and fail to use their brains. There are so many of these idiots today. Isn't it weird to be able to see their thoughts? How could people who've gone to school be so idiotic??
First it's Palin and now this guy
How dare they give us oxygen and provide material for paper and cardboard. This Dana Rohrabacher, sure plays with a full deck of cards! :-|
P.S.: Notice Mr Dana Rohrabacher, it's all sarcasm, just in case you're unswift enough not to get my drift.
With JERKS like him mankind will cease to be. Who voted for this man???????????
By the time the new plants are capable of making a difference, we'd have over heated from lack of trees to breathe in the Carbon Dioxide. The lack of trees would eliminate shade. It takes 20 years for a tree to grow. What do we do until then? Build a giant fan on the moon and aim it at Earth?
Maybe we should star clear cutting our politicians... They seem to be a very prominent source of Greenhouse Gasses.
That is all.
The party 'leadership' and politicians are probably all psychopaths (in the clinical sense) - and probably many of the party members. Look it up on Wikipedia, and analyze Republican positions and actions with it in mind.
They belong in insane asylums, not elected office.
Well,.. he's sort of right. Fully grown plants have already absorbed a lot of carbon from the atmosphere. If you could remove them from the equation (say, by burying them), then new plants would grow, and while they are growing they absorb much more than a mature plant does. Still, not the greatest idea.
One must consider what will happen to all the carbon that exists in the mature trees. When it is cut down and burned that carbon will be released back into the atmosphere. So there would be a mass release of carbon into the atmosphere just for young plants to take up only a portion of it? That's just not logical.
Real life trolling at its peak. My man...
He got that line from Ronald Reagan. Srsly.
Oh California.... How can you be so beautiful, but produce such fruitcakes with zero common sense?
There seriously needs to be an IQ test done before one can run for public office.
Maybe he should do some more reading before ever speaking in public again.