100,000 Amazon Trees Chopped Down to Build Road for COP30 Climate Conference
Spare a thought for the BBC’s Justin Rowlatt as he considers his upcoming trip to the Brazilian city of Belém to report on COP30. Saving the world and its environment is his gig so how will he face the prospect of travelling down a new four-lane highway cut through the dense Amazon rainforest to help speed him and his 70,000 other political activists to their luxury hotels? Based on trees per acre, an estimated 100,000 mature specimens have been chopped down and logged to build the eight-mile Avenida Liberdade causing untold disruption to local wildlife. Happily, all is not lost in despair. If he wishes, the BBC’s activist-in-chief can consider recent findings published in Nature Plants that increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have led to substantial growth in the remaining Amazon forest, with mature trees growing by over 6% a decade. Perhaps he could start promoting on the BBC the enormous benefits of CO2, rightly known as the gas of life. He could front a campaign to assuage his dented COP conscience along the lines: ‘Forward with Carbon Dioxide, not Chainsaws.’
Needless to say the fatter trees of the Amazon have received little publicity in narrative-driven mainstream media. Extensive Green Blob-funded grooming is deployed to keep this type of inconvenient global ‘greening’ material out of the papers. Little mention is made of the astonishing CO2-fuelled growth in global vegetation seen across the planet in the last 40 years. Increases of around 15% are common, some deserts have started to shrink and world famine has been alleviated by higher crop yields. SciLine is connected with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, publisher of Science, and it recently suggested that writers head off the ‘greening’ story by noting that “in many cases, CO2 disproportionately favours weeds over crops, causing more problems for agriculture”.
In 2022 Rowlatt authored an alarmist series on BBC Radio 4 and World Service called The Climate Tipping Points in which he highlighted the potential “collapse of the Amazon rainforest” as one of the major irreversible changes tiggered by global warming. Not yet, it seems, for while Rowlatt was spouting this computer model agitprop, the scientists out in the field preparing their recently published paper found “aggressive changes” in mature tropical forest biomass. Yet again, it might be noted, climate model predictions fail the test when confronted with actual scientific data. As MIT Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen has said about the evidence-lite climate dogma: “The narrative is a quasi-religious movement predicated on an absurd scientific narrative.”
The team of researchers found that over 30 years of Amazonian plant data records across 188 mature forest plots, the trees had become considerably larger over time. The basal area, the size of the tree trunk near ground level, increased by 3.3% a decade. Trees fight for light and space in close proximity and height and size are an obvious advantage. While the larger trees were found to increase by over 6% a decade, the smaller plants also thrived, suggesting, the scientists note, that any recent negative climatic influences have been “more than alleviated” by the positive effects of increased resources such as CO2 fertilisation. In effect the smaller trees operating in more difficult low light conditions can use the extra CO2 to photosynthesise more easily and survive for longer.
In an article published in Watts Up With That?, Anthony Watts was clear on the important findings of the paper. It’s “plain old plant biology” he said, adding: “CO2 fertilisation is no longer a theory tested only in labs. This study confirms it at continental scale: Amazon forest are thriving, not suffering, in a world with more CO2.”
It’s likely that the Guardian will be assembling a team to travel the Avenida Liberdade Highway of Shame to attend the increasingly irrelevant COP Net Zero boondoggle. The newspaper recently reported that the big Amazon trees were more climate resistant “than previously believed”, proving that the ‘reverse ferret’ is alive and well in media land. “Previously believed”, of course, only applies to those who are unaware of the paleo record stretching back hundreds of millions of years. Perhaps it was a first for Popular Mechanics, which gave us its ‘Amazon’s Trees Are Weirdly Getting Bigger Every Decade, Which Defies Logic‘. Might be best not to give up the day writing job here. Finally, and perhaps scraping the barrel for any coverage of this important paper, NBC News noted the view of one scientist that fattening trees is “in some ways” a positive news story. “But it also means that the forest is now more vulnerable to losing those trees.” The obvious statement was then made that any benefit in larger trees sizes “can be quite easily negated by deforestation and logging”.
Something all those virtuous delegates to COP30 might just know something about.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Killing Gaia to save her. As these corrupt climate nazis roll into the Amazon in their private cars and limos, after a comfortable journey in their private jets. Follow that money – about U$1 Trillion a year on offer for the climate con. I wonder if Pope Idiot will show up to bless a fallen tree.
He’ll be too busy getting WOOD for his nearest Alter Boy !
Blatant HYPOCRISY”- Chunts all 70k of them !
Chunty is Scots vernacular for chamber-pot. A fitting receptacle, don’t you think?
👍
How will any of the Climate Zealots and Evangelists counter this?
My guess is their usual response of refusing to even try, and just ignoring it, like all the private jets that will fly to COP30, owned or chartered by those imploring the World to stop flying to save the planet.
Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. Just surprised they didn’t dig a new canal so they could attend in their Super Yachts.
Can their grip ever be broken 😡
Don’t give them ideas.
My TV remote control is programmed to silence Justin Rowlatt as soon as he is mentioned.
Can you show us how, please? I want one.
Right forefinger on top right hand button!
Just one more 8 mile long killing zone for the Amazonian wildlife. Any low-flying bird, bat or insect, any frog, snake or mammal, and even many people, trying to cross this new jungle suicide strip, risks instant obliteration. But hey – it’s all in the name of saving the planet. What could possibly be wrong with that noble objective?
No global standards when it comes to health & safety re details like that. Money is king, after all.
No bat bridges to guide them safely over the new road? Any newts in the way? Were detailed wildlife impact assessments produced over a period of 5 years or more and considered in the planning?
Hmm.
Edit: Tylney’s point. That said, killing a few humans would probably be right up the alarmists’ street (pun intended). Ref: Chris Packham
If he goes there, he could console himself by observing that Brazil makes a fair bit of ethanol as a fuel from locally grown products (like cane sugar), which will benefit from increased carbon dioxide! It’s “net zero”, not absolute zero, after all.
recently suggested that writers head off the ‘greening’ story by noting that “in many cases, CO2 disproportionately favours weeds over crops, causing more problems for agriculture”.
Okay, fair enough, where’s your evidence (not a f***ing model) that proves that claim?
Today, the BBC have this utter guff!
Australia’s rainforests are releasing more carbon than they absorb, warn scientists
Again, where is the proof, and a computer model is proof of nothing!
Also, is it really Carbon? The only naturally occurring forms of Carbon are Graphite and Diamond, so which is it that they are releasing more of?
What tests were carried out to confirm this claim? Where is the raw data, and what is the Null Hypothesis here?
The greening is favouring vegetation in desert and arid areas where crops don’t grow.
But farmers have always had to deal with weeds which is why they use herbicides and weeding equipment: controlling weeds and other pests is part of farming.
And the CO2 is making crops grow faster and more healthy, so weeds are less competition.
CO2 can’t exactly discriminate what it is taken up by! Its a gas!
Its absurd to suggest that weeds are favoured.
When cereal crops ripen they turn from green to brown and possibly no longer photosynthesise at that point, having possibly little or no chlorophyll, or not green chlorophyll at least! Its just like deciduous trees absorb the Chlorophyll from their leaves in Autumn, before the leaves die and fall.
At that point any green weeds may then have a growth advantage of the wheat, barley, oats or whatever.
Where was Sting when this was happening?
Nice one! 🙂
I remember his wife Trudy describing how she used to deliberately let mosquitos bite her, because it wasn’t fair to swat them. Daft.
It’s ok, they can just plant GRASSLANDS, which produce the most oxygen on land, like algae do in the sea. Not trees, which resorb all the oxygen they have emitted during the day… back into themselves at night.
“The obvious statement was then made that any benefit in larger trees sizes can be quite easily negated by deforestation and logging”.
That is certain to happen along the route of the new road they have built through the forest once the COP is over.
The hypocrisy of the green lobbyists is as breathtaking as the stupidity of their blinkered followers.
The recent disclosure by energy supplies, that gas could halve in price but we would still not see a reduction in prices in our homes, proves what this is all about.
‘Green taxes’ and subsidies for the incredibly wealthy ‘renewables’ suppliers is the largest proportion of our bills by a huge margin. This is about profits and backhanders to the middlemen flogging Chinese wind and solar equipment. No doubt many of our MPs will end up as ‘consultants’ or members on the boards for these scam artists. That’s if they aren’t taking large donations already.
Does anyone think climate scepticism is really gaining ground? I’ve just watched a YouTube video of a BBC programme chaired by Brian Cox, with an exclusively alarmist panel including George Monbiot, recommending the usual daft ‘solutions’ to the ‘climate crisis’.I wrote what I hoped was a reasonable comment, but it was swamped by the flood of admiration for Cox and Co. On the other hand there’s suddenly a load of sceptical fora on Facebook which I think just changed its rules to allow such things…good sign? But our lovely Miliband shows no sign of doubt, of course.
It is becoming more and more difficult to understand those we have voted into office, who are managing our countries. What are they doing? Each day a new horror story appears. Today’s, the chopping down of trees in the Amazon to make a road for attendees of the cop conference. The absolute insanity of this is creating a disquiet among us, I never thought possible. Was there no where else to hold the conference? Could it not be done online? Why is sun dimming and weather manipulation, a known phenomonen, being allowed despite the unknown outcomes. Sounds like a mRNA vaxx that was injected into millions of people five years ago. Our planet is under attack by those meant to manage our welfare. Why?