Study Says It Makes Economic Sense to Pay Africans Not to Cut Down Trees

An article in Nature demonstrates why liberals must under no circumstances be trusted with other people’s money:

A two-year project that paid a total of US$20,000 to 180 people in 60 Ugandan villages not to cut down trees on their land was worth the money, researchers say. By delaying carbon dioxide emissions, the project’s benefits to society were more than double its costs.

Since the economic benefits of “delaying carbon dioxide emissions” bear no relation whatsoever to objective reality, it would be child’s play to prove that paying Africans $1 million per minute not to cut down trees is a bargain. The amount of global warming that is prevented by an African not cutting down a tree is directly correlated to the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Over the past two decades, individual countries have authorized billions of dollars in cash payments to preserve trees. In 2008, the United Nations launched the REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) programme, which permits countries to offset their emissions by paying people in other nations to halt deforestation.

The federal government extracts money from your paycheck and gives it to the United Nations, which in turn gives it to Africans in return for promising not to cut down trees, because global warming.

Now that a scientific study has proven that this makes economic sense, we can expect the payments to be expanded. Maybe it will save us from global warming if we pay Africans not to flatulate.

On a tip from Lyle.