THERE IS UNREST IN THE FOREST, TROUBLE WITH THE TREES. FOR THE MAPLES WANT MORE SUNLIGHT, AND THE OAKS IGNORE THEIR PLEAS: Tree Planting So White? Bizarre Racism at Vice.
Hey, Whitey! Yeah, you, the one about to send cash to your favorite environmental grift! Cease and desist. White people should not try to combat climate change. Only black, brown and various “indigenous” people can do it right.
I know this because I read it on Vice. A delightful young person named Anya Zoledziowski has penned an article asserting that “Tree Planting Is a White Person’s Solution to Climate Change.”
What’s white about it? I’m still not sure, but Zoledziowski is an “award-winning staff reporter at VICE World News,” whose “reporting focuses on a wide-range of social justice issues, including Indigenous affairs, race, politics, sex worker rights, and the disproportionate harm experienced by racialized communities as the climate crisis worsens.” So I have to trust her.
Her article comes on the heels of a dopy social media episode where somebody claimed they’d plant a tree for every picture of a pet people responded with. Shockingly, they didn’t have enough trees. Dumb situation, but Zoledziowski is here to make you think deeper about it.
“The reality,” she says, is that tree-planting initiatives are not always done right, and are rarely subjected to meaningful oversight—have you ever checked if that trendy brand planted a seedling after you bought your plaid?”
What is it with the left and racist — checking notes — trees this year? Earlier: $3.5T spending package includes big money for ‘tree equity,’ bias training and more.
Among the most contentious provisions, the bill gives a substantial funding boost to the Internal Revenue Service, which stands to gain an additional $78.94 billion over the next 10 years. The money would help the IRS strengthen tax enforcement activities, expand audits and modernize its technology. An additional $410 million would go to IRS oversight.
Democrats also are putting equity at the center of the bill. The Agriculture Committee has earmarked $3 billion for a tree-planting program “with a priority for projects that increase tree equity.” The legislation dishes out another $4 billion for “neighborhood access and equity grants.” Meanwhile, its “electric vehicle charging equity program” comes with a $1 billion price tag.
The bill generally doesn’t elaborate on the meaning of equity in this context, though American Forests defines “tree equity,” for example, as a tree-planting program that “identifies the cities that can gain the most significant health, economic and climate benefits by increasing tree canopy in places of high need.”
The legislation would add billions of dollars in climate change funding, starting with the “Civilian Climate Corps,” which would get at least $7.5 billion across multiple committee budgets. The organization, which President Biden has placed at the top of his climate wishlist, would employ thousands of young people to carry out conservation and climate change-related projects on public lands.
But what on earth is “tree equity?” Here’s a word salad of an article from June that tries to explain it: Finally Quantified: Tree Equity Has an Impact on Poorer Neighborhoods.
The effects of the decades-long systematic denial of mortgages to people of color, called redlining, are undeniably visible across the country. One effect has been the persistence of poverty in predominantly Black communities across the United States. Another is a distinct lack of tree cover in these communities. For the first time, the inequality in neighborhood vegetation has been quantified through the Tree Equity Score, developed by the nonprofit conservation organization American Forests.
Assessing nearly 500 municipalities representing more than 70 percent of the U.S. population, staff at American Forests found that neighborhoods consisting mostly of people of color have an average of one-third less tree canopy than majority white communities.
What’s the issue with tree equity, or lack thereof?
The prevailing problem with having too few trees in an urban area is the heat. Some neighborhoods have so much exposed concrete absorbing sunshine that they become heat islands, which can be up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than nearby areas with natural cover. One study found that urban heat islands can experience warming up to twice as strong as that caused by global warming.
In the face of elevating heat, the Tree Equity Score opens new opportunities for effective planting. Its tally puts an exact number on the trees needed to achieve equity amongst neighborhoods, leading to better health and livability. American Forests has calculated a total of 522 million trees needed nationwide, but not planted just anywhere. The online, publicly-accessible map shows exactly where cities need to plant trees — the goal, after all, is community uplift through equity.
“We don’t just need more trees in America’s cities. We need tree equity,” Jad Daley, president and CEO of American Forests, told Fast Company.
Not surprisingly, Twitter users had loads of fun dunking on the phrase “tree equity” in late September: “Spending $3B on ‘tree equity’ is really the perfect encapsulation of Democrats in 2021.”
Question: Are trees more or less racist than roads and bridges in 2021’s intersectional bingo?