With Global Warming a fading dream of the Gang Green, those environmental radicals, a new crisis must brew lest the world stop listening to the watermelon fantasies that drive the modern Left. Here is one possible replacement for AGW.
It seems that forests are dying of thirst, and should we not do something about water consumption and pollution all the world’s forests will die of dehydration.
From the Science News article:
“Trees in most forests, even wet ones, live perilously close to the limits of their inner plumbing systems, a global survey of forests finds.
Seventy percent of the 226 tree species in forests around the world routinely function near the point where a serious drought would stop water transport from their roots to their leaves, says plant physiologist Brendan Choat of the University of Western Sydney in Richmond, Australia. Trees even in moist, lush places operate with only a slim safety margin between them and a thirsty death.”
Of course, this uses a backdoor Global Warming approach; droughts, which are going to occur according to AGW theory, will kill the world’s forests and we are all going to die.
“I think this is a really big deal,” says David Breshears of the University of Arizona in Tucson. As forest ecologists and plant physiologists confronting climate change, “we’ve been trying to be careful as a community not to be alarmist,” he says. But the new paper adds yet another perspective that’s worrisome. “They all keep pointing to: ‘Whoa, our forests are really vulnerable.’ “.
Huh? CAREFUL AS A COMMUNITY NOT TO BE ALARMIST??!!! Not sure what planet David Breshears inhabits, but it is clearly not Earth; this whole thing has been alarmist from the end of the Global Cooling scare at the beginning of the 1980’s.
But the stupidity of this is staggering; the fundamental argument of Global Warming theory is that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide causes a small but significant increase in planetary temperatures which EVAPORATES WATER which in turn drives more heat, leading to a positive feedback cycle. The argument is that AGW causes a warmer, WETTER, world. Won’t an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere mean these trees will flourish? They certainly like more carbon dioxide and more warmth.
The coming battle is going to be over water, I suspect. The EPA has made a move to declare storm water a pollutant and to regulate it, for example.
Of course, they have been doing this for some time with air. In 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court granted the authority to the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide aka air.
We’ve seen rumblings of this over water here in the United States with Congress mandating low-flow toilets and micromanaging river levels (and causing the great flood of 2010 on the Mississippi River basin.) We have seen it out west, where the Obama Administration shut off water from the Colorado River to the largely Republican Imperial Valley ostensibly to protect an endangered species but in reality to test the effectiveness of using water as a weapon.
Here is the rallying cry.
And water continues to be an issue in the Imperial Valley.
The Imperial Valley is one of the richest pieces of farmland on Earth, and is unlike the rest of California as it is a staunchly Republican oasis in a blue, blue California desert. The Obama Administration cut off the flow of water to the Imperial Valley to protect an endangered species, and restored water flow (after many farm crops were destroyed and farmers driven into bankruptcy) immediately prior to the 2010 midterm elections to blackmail Republicans.
And the Imperial Valley was shut out of talks that established an agreement between the U.S. and Mexico over allotments of water from the Colorado River.
This in violation to United Nations principles, I might add.
“Finally, the ability of communities and populations to participate in governance and decision making processes, particularly with respect to resource cooperation in transboundary contexts (UNESCO, 2009), will also enable them in protecting their entitlements through political incentives that are inherent to democratic processes (Sen, 1999, p. 178).”
Also, read this. The Clean Water Act is driving businesses under by requiring them to use ultra pure water - even in their toilets, in a land where water is scarce.
We see it in ever-tightening standards of water quality (remember the brouhaha over arsenic in water during the Bush years?)
Air and water and dirt. These are the fundamental building blocks of life, and if government controls them it controls everything. Global Warming for the air, ocean acidification and pollution and water shortages for the water, and soil? The U.S. government already owns 650 million acres of land, or nearly 30% of the entire territory of the country. It can and does choose to close any of this land off to economic development or even usage. And our government has been very busy acquiring land with usable resources, such as shale fields. In addition, I have repeatedly chronicled the government’s war on private family farms, and the strangling regulations that are being imposed in the name of “food safety”. And the government is also busy subsidizing ethanol production and other agricultural products, giving them a foothold on most private farms. Of course, urban land is subject to all manner of regulation for “health” and “safety” and most often for aesthetics. We have come to accept de-facto government control of the soil.
So, air, water, and soil. The building blocks of a pharoahic system are being put in place.
And so studies like this one are intended to cement that stranglehold. This is intended to impose new, more stringent regulations on the American People.
It’s not the trees that thirst, but the Left who cannot drink in enough power.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement