Bill Gates and others behind massive deforestation scheme, for 'global warming,' of course

We're being held hostage by "green" megalomaniacs with man boobs and CIA-linked eco-terrorists.

As reported by Joshua Philipp, investigative reporter and host of the Epoch TV's Crossroads program, Bill Gates's company Breakthrough Energy Ventures is a main player behind a new deforestation scheme.  Per Philipp, Gates and "other investors" have contributed $6.6 million in a "stealth effort" to a California startup called Kodama Systems, which is offering a "novel" approach to the net zero agenda.

Wondering who those "other investors" might be?  Well, for one, a woman named Jackie Kossman.  Kossman is a partner at Congruent Ventures, a San Francisco–based investment firm, and according to her company bioshe previously worked for In-Q-Tel (the venture capital firm of U.S. government intelligence agencies, notably the CIA).

So what does Kodama Systems have in mind?  Well, the company is launching efforts to deforest about seventy million acres, or around 110,000 square miles of trees, and then bury the biomass, all with the help of the U.S. Forest Service.  (For referencethe entire state of Nevada is also 110,000 square miles.)  Yes, really, they're going to waste the wood instead of turning it into lumber, despite there apparently being a "housing crisis" with not enough homes on the market, and despite sky-high lumber prices, allegedly due to supply and demand and supply chain issues.  Watch a clip from Philipp below:

As Philipp states, the initiative would remove "1 billion tons of bone-dried biomass," but I have to wonder if they intend to ax live trees, too.  From the MIT Technology Review, another CIA-linked institution, reporting on the deforestations plans:

Forest experts have long warned that decades of overly aggressive fire suppression policies in the US have produced dense, overgrown forests that significantly increase the risk of major conflagrations when wildfires inevitably occur.

Of course, my initial reaction is one of supreme annoyance at the admission that "overly aggressive fire suppression policies" were actually destructive to the environment, rather than helpful.  Anyone with a functioning brain could have told you, with complete confidence, that when a bureaucracy, or twiddling-their-thumbs unconstitutionally minded legislators, develops policy, the "solution" is going to be worse than the "problem."  The government has a "Midas Touch" of sorts, although everything it touches turns to dung instead of gold — not such a good deal for us, the citizenry.

The obvious reality is that at some point, "scientists" and "experts" promised there was a problem, and the solution was "fire suppression" policies.  Things went from copacetic to imbalanced — they created a problem where one didn't exist!  Now "scientists" and "experts" are saying we need to chop down trees and bury them?  These ideas are becoming more and more ludicrous by the minute.  It took me all of 0.41 seconds to find a litany of pro–climate change sources highlighting the importance of "deadwood" in the health of forests and the ecosystem as a we should strip it all away?  Start the clock, because it's only a matter of time before MIT publishes another article touting some "novel" idea to fix the "overly aggressive carbon reduction policies" of 2023.

I also have to ask, how do these geniuses plan to chop down 110,000 square miles of trees, and move enough dirt required to entomb trees that, for comparison, would blanket the entire state of Nevada?  Here's another reference: the Empire State Building weighs 365,000 tons (and remember that the initiative plans to remove 1 billion tons), so this is roughly the equivalent is 2,740 Empire State Buildings.

Obviously, they'll need heavy machinery, and a lot of it.  How much diesel will they burn to complete the project?  (Now, I personally don't believe that humanity's use of petroleum products is creating an existential threat, but these clowns do, so how do they justify it?)

If the "need" to "offset" carbon were actually a real problem, this would be the exact wrong way to do it.  Remove the carbon consumers to fight "too much" carbon.  Make it make sense.

Just like how socialism is still socialism even when "democratic" comes before it, green tyranny is still...tyranny.

Image: Free image, Pixabay license, no attribution required.

If you experience technical problems, please write to