'Tree Inequity' plaguing
A research group called American Forests, in conjunction with the United States Forest Service, recently announced that people "of color," living as many do in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, often have fewer trees around them than do those residing in wealthier white communities. The group claims that trees are disproportionally planted in those wealthier and whiter neighborhoods and that this has "deprived many communities of color of the health and other benefits that sufficient tree cover can deliver."
The USFS funds the utilization of a 100-point system to determine whether there are "enough" trees planted in a given neighborhood, known as the new Tree Equity Score.
Australia's treeless Nullarbor Plain "stretches about 1,100 kilometers (684 mi) from east to west."
Photo credit: Bahnfriend CC BY 4.0 license.
Assumedly, fabulously wealthy Black people such as Oprah Winfrey, Barack and Michelle Obama, LeBron James, and Patrisse Khan-Cullors (co-founder of the Black Lives Matter movement), all of whom live in one or more exclusive white neighborhoods, are surrounded by a veritable forest of trees. Or at least as many as their whiny little "oppressed" hearts desire.
Conversely, the extraordinary numbers of well-off white people living in desert communities in Arizona and other locations often have few or no trees on their properties. So perhaps, say, the Department of the Interior can institute new Cactus Equity and Golf Hole Equity scores.
And, if the Tree Inequity Problem were to be resolved, you know some progressive entity would scream that trees in Black communities are a sign of systemic racism, a dog whistle about monkeys or lynchings.
As always, professional offense-takers and virtue-signalers are barking up the wrong tree. And driving me up one.
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.