There may be a new entry on the list of things the left wants to sacrifice on the altar of the Climate Goddess. We already knew about their plans for your air conditioners, gas-powered vehicles, and stoves. However, some people in California are considering getting rid of palm trees. ‘But wait,’ you’re probably thinking. ‘Aren’t trees supposed to be good for the environment and the climate? Aren’t you always preaching to us about planting a trillion trees?’ That’s correct. Yet, believe it or not, this particular idea might not be as entirely crazy as it sounds. And it turns out that palm trees aren’t really even “trees” to begin with. (Los Angeles Times)
Cities across California are struggling to navigate a warming world, as well as mitigate the effects of urban heat islands. Many have developed climate action and resiliency plans that use trees as a primary defense against sizzling asphalt and stone.
Yet as officials seek to greatly expand the urban tree canopy — with House Republicans often suggesting planting a trillion trees to fight climate change — many cities are razing their shadiest and most mature trees. In some cases, they are replacing them with palms.
In Beverly Hills, crews felled more than 50 ficus trees, ranging from 60 to 100 years old, along Robertson Boulevard for a sidewalk restoration project. The city plans to replace them with alternating crape myrtles and Mexican fan palms.
To be clear, it’s not that palms are bad for the environment. They’re just not as good for it as other species. They are also not native to California. They were imported because of their exotic appearance in the 1800s and early 1900s for purely decorative purposes.
Until very recently, various parts of California had been chopping down the redwoods and other native hardwood trees and replacing them with palms of various types. But that’s turned out to be a mistake for a variety of reasons. First of all, palms aren’t actually trees. They are a large type of woody herb that is actually more closely related to grass. And they suck up a lot of water out of the ground.
One of the chief benefits of trees is that they create shade, lowering the ground temperature. They also trap water in the soil in their root systems while creating lots of oxygen and sucking carbon dioxide out of the air. Palms have a very different profile than redwoods and other large deciduous trees. They are skinnier and their collection of fronds doesn’t cast anywhere near as much shade. And then there is the issue of the occasional coconut falling and hitting someone while they’re out jogging, but that’s really not a climate-related concern.
There was a time when parts of California, particularly in the north, were covered in lush, old-growth forests of redwoods and similar trees. People cut most of them down. The desert regions of the state have slowly but surely expanded and it was the people of California who have been responsible for that. The palms have not proven to be a suitable replacement, which shouldn’t come as a surprise since they didn’t grow there naturally.
So as crazy as it sounds, this is probably a good idea whether you believe in or care about climate change or not. So let’s say they rip up all of the palms and put in redwoods. They’re still going to need buildings, right? But if you’re installing new trees, you’re going to need different buildings to match. According to the National Resource Defense Council, the answer is “sustainable buildings.” To me, that just sounds like buildings that are unlikely to fall down, which would probably be wise. But no… they mean buildings that produce less carbon for the trees to consume.
Beyond the measures that can be taken by individuals, we need to see a dedication from private businesses and governments to further building decarbonization, which simply means making buildings more efficient and replacing fossil fuel–burning systems and appliances with clean-powered ones. Policy tools can help get us there, including city and state mandates that all newly constructed homes, offices, and other buildings be outfitted with efficient all-electric systems for heating, cooling, and hot water; requirements that municipalities and states meet the latest and most stringent energy conservation standards when adopting or updating their building codes would also be impactful. Indeed, many places around the world are implementing building performance standards, which require existing buildings to reduce their energy use or carbon emissions over time.
There you have it. Now, even with the more appropriate trees, the buildings still have to follow the same old plotline we’ve been hearing for years now. Rip out everything powered by natural gas, oil, or any fossil fuels. Replace those things with electricity-driven devices, even if you have no idea how you’re going to generate that much electricity on the grid. Or better yet, do without many of those conveniences. Air conditioning is sinful, even if you live in a desert that you helped create. If it gets cold at night, pick up a couple of extra hemp blankets. And pack more people into each building. Have you considered living in a pod? I hear the new ones are quite stylish.
