The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

The last Friday in April is National Arbor Day. You knew that, didn’t you? Born in the Victorian era, Arbor Day began mainly as a gentle reminder to admire trees as things of beauty. As an environmental observance, it has been upstaged by the more comprehensive Earth Day (itself now almost 50 years old). But Arbor Day has been very much updated.

The status of trees as uniquely important environmental players has risen in recent years. Trees are now on the front lines in the battle against climate change. That’s because forests absorb nearly 40 percent of human-made fossil fuel emissions every year. Burning wood and rotting trees release carbon dioxide into the air.

This makes massive deforestation a harbinger of doom for the environment as we know it. Fortunately, there are ways to head this off. Proposals to create a carbon-offset market for trees, if put in motion, could reverse the destruction. Right now, these cap-and-trade setups are open only to utilities and industrial companies. Adding trees to a cap-and-trade system would let owners of forested acres make real money by not cutting down trees.

The fate of tropical forests, particularly in Southeast Asia, is of greatest concern. The ranching, mining and timber industries have played a major role in leveling more than a billion acres of tropical forest over the last 40 years. The loss of these trees contributes an estimated 12 to 15 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions a year.

Here’s a simplified version of how a market for trading carbon offsets now works: Company A reduces its emissions below a government-set cap. Company B’s emissions, by contrast, exceed the limit. To avoid paying a penalty, Company B buys offset credits from Company A.

The price of credits is set by supply and demand. That these systems are market-oriented pleases conservatives committed to fighting climate change. Trade in these markets already totals billions of dollars a year.

Some 40 countries now put a price on carbon. Some do it via cap-and-trade. Others, such as Canada, place a tax on fossil fuels, with most of the proceeds going back to Canadians through reductions in their tax bills. The United States does none of the above, but California and nine Northeast states have established their own cap-and-trade systems.

Where do trees come in? Removing trees increases emissions. Letting them grow reduces them. Putting a price on leaving them alone would act as a powerful incentive to not cut them down.

There remains the dilemma that many locals in and around tropical forests currently make a living in ways that require their destruction. Under a proposal known as the Rainforest Standard, however, mechanisms would be set up to spend some of the money building new livelihoods not dependent on axing trees. Examples include ecotourism, fishing and harvesting tree products, such as nuts and palm fruit.

Ordinary homeowners don’t have big forests to preserve but can nonetheless use trees to reduce their carbon footprint. Trees shading the house have a cooling effect in hot weather, reducing the need for air conditioning. And there is some money in this, of course, in the form of lower electricity bills.

So National Arbor Day is coming. Bear in mind that your state’s Arbor Day may fall on a different date than the national one. Many states move their observance to coincide with the best times in their area to plant trees. The big news this year is that in addition to providing beauty and serenity, trees can play a major role in saving our world from catastrophe. Is there a poem for that?

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at

IMAGE: A fire burns near trees in a peatland area on the outskirts of Palembang on Indonesia’s Sumatra island, September 9, 2015. REUTERS/Beawiharta


Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning


YouTube Screenshot

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade, ending the constitutional right to an abortion after almost 50 years, some conservatives and mainstream media outlets have suggested that anti-abortionists may be willing to support more generous family welfare programs to offset the financial burden of forced birth. These suggestions, whether made in bad faith or ignorance, completely misunderstand the social function of prohibiting abortion, which is to exert control over women and all people who can get pregnant.

In adopting or replicating the right’s framing of anti-abortionists as “pro-life,” these outlets mystify the conservative movement’s history and current goals. Conservatives have sought to dismantle the United State’s limited safety net since the passage of the New Deal. Expecting the movement to reverse course now is absurd, and suggesting so serves primarily to obfuscate the economic hardship the end of Roe will inflict on people forced to carry a pregnancy to term.

Keep reading... Show less

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters

YouTube Screenshot

Donald Trump's hand-picked candidate Blake Masters is the latest to endorse the unpopular idea.

The front-runner in the GOP primary to run for Senate in Arizona in November against Democratic incumbent Sen. Mark Kelly suggested on June 23 that Social Security should be privatized, an approach to the popular government program that experts say could jeopardize a vital financial lifeline for retired Americans.

Keep reading... Show less
{{ }}