Trees and forests are always subject to political winds of change, whether they’re blowing from the left or from the right. This time, efforts to improve urban tree cover are the ecological pawns in a backlash against any policy that admits to America’s history of racism.
Susan recently posted on our Facebook page about a Black organization in the city of New Orleans losing funding it had been promised to restore tree canopy decimated by Katrina. It was part of environmental justice funding that was disbursed under the Inflation Reduction Act and therefore ran up against the Trump administration’s antipathy against anything it sees as a DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) initiative.
Buffalo, where I live, has lost similar funding – from the same source – meant to improve the urban canopy of communities on the city’s East and West Sides that are also lower income neighborhoods. Of course, the grab-back is being fought, but it will take time, which is exactly what you don’t have when it comes to trees.
Urban tree canopies across the U.S. are at their weakest in low-income census tracts. One reason for that weakness goes back to racist real estate covenants that decided where the “nice” neighborhoods should be.
Researchers have found that real estate redlining established in the 1930s – which ranked neighborhoods from “A” to “D” – and racist covenants that helped create segregation have a direct correlation to lack of tree cover. The statistics are clear: A 2022 paper in the journal Landscape and Urban Planning indicates that – in 37 metropolitan areas – D-ranked neighborhoods averaged 23% tree canopy, compared to 43% tree cover in Class A areas.
Other studies confirm the disparities in tree cover between lower and higher income areas, though they may not cite redlining and covenants as a reason.
I don’t think Rant readers would need to be told why trees are desirable in cities, but here you go, anyway: They provide shade, thus decreasing heat and the energy use needed to combat heat. They sequester carbon, help clean the air and their roots soak up excess water, so heavy rainfall is less likely to send a combination of raw sewage and stormwater runoff into local waterways.
I have written about this a few times, and it was really quite shocking when I drove along East Side streetscapes – or visited them via Google maps – and noticed entire blocks with maybe one tree. Many also lacked places to put trees. Temperature studies showed 4 to 6 degree differences in summer heat in these untreed neighborhoods, and – though Buffalo extremes would not be as dangerous as those in New Orleans – Buffalo is getting hotter.
What is the point of defunding tree programs? Their purpose is to improve public health, reduce energy use and help prevent flooding. Sadly, in today’s bizarro world, anything meant to protect the environment is automatically suspect – add the word justice to it and the suspicions are confirmed.
Trees will be planted nonetheless. But it will take longer.
Image at top: Buffalo’s Olmsted parks are urban refuges.
More and more, it will fall on us,the public, to plant the trees, monitor and clean up waterways, push for adherence to restrictions on pollutants etc., as the agencies and institutions meant to protect us are gutted. Community – building is paramount ,so that all see the stakes involved and recognize their own personal benefit from such actions.
What I don’t understand is who can possibly be felt to benefit from this?. It’s insanity — to purposely degrade our environment, our communities, our relationships– unless the goal is to destroy hope. I have to agree with the comment above – as our government abdicates its responsibilities, we as individuals will have to fill the gaps as best we can, until elected officials decide to do their jobs, or until we elect people who understand what government is for.
Planting trees in your city is the responsibility of the city, not the federal government. Or the responsibility of the landowners. If each person that owned property planted one tree it would make a major difference. However, from what I’ve seen, a lot of people don’t WANT trees in their yards. They want sun to grow grass, or they don’t want to be bothered with the leaves. Commercial entities don’t want them in their parking lots because they don’t want to dedicate space for them or funds to care for and clean up around them. City ordinances could help here by requiring new developments to either save trees, or plant new native trees after building. I know one builder of houses around here that clears all the trees, builds houses, and then plants a single Crepe Myrtle in each front yard. Then they put down sod on heavily compacted soil to which they have already added rocks to allow trucks on the lots.
What is really needed is some commonsense building regulations and some good old-fashioned neighborhood pride. New trees can be planted from seeds, or acorns. Takes longer but is free.
congrats to Susan and Garden Rant for taking a stand on a politically hot topic. First of all, it is not up to individual landowners to dictate how the neighborhood should or should not benefit everyone. Here in Kentucky when mandatory garbage pick up was enacted, there were those who insisted they had a “constitutional right’ to throw their garbage down the hill. They were wrong: legally, morally and environmentally. The federal government got into the act with the EPA because environmental degradation is , logically and by definition, not just an individual/ local problem. Concepts like “society” “neighborhood” “municipality” mean that people live in communities and have to make sacrifices for the greater good. Federal grants are sought by localities which either cannot afford or lack the political will to do the right thing. The writer mentions damage from Katrina, an act of nature which was financially devastating. It is totally appropriate for the federal government to allocate grants to help such areas. This is especially true in underprivileged neighborhoods.
Good rant. Now, how many people are going to do something meaningful about it? I’ve seen much more dependence on grant money (from taxes, right? Or?) and less on reaching out to local entities for help. Asking neighbors for help. Asking community businesses for help. Etc. There are so many ways to get trees planted and educate/involve communities that don’t require federal grants and could move along fairly quickly- less paperworks too. Every community has philanthropists… and if a community is somehow lacking in philanthropy, go to the public library for information. You would be surprised by what can be discovered. The biggest part is getting the community involved! Maybe a football team or two? Or?
I have been involved in community tree planting efforts for decades. That movement is very active here. However, this is a generational lack of tree cover across zip codes that needed more funding. That’s why the money was awarded to Buffalo and many other communities and that’s why it should not have been pulled. And if our tax money shouldn’t be used to make our communities greener and healthier, I would have strong questions about what the better uses are.
On a positive note: in Tucson a man named Brad Lancaster was told by an elderly resident that she used to walk to downtown barefoot as a young woman. He was astonished because here the sidewalks get so hot they will burn your feet in the summer. Turns out his neighborhood once had tree lined streets. Over the last 25 years he got his downtown neighborhood on board to use rain water (the desert gets what they call a monsoon season) channeled and captivated to create rain gardens of native plants, and plant lots of trees. In an ideal world we would have charismatic and energetic Brad Lancasters in every community. Unfortunately in many areas (Lexington Ky being one example) the developers are the tail that wags the dog.
First, nothing has been cut! Everything has been put on hold until it can be determined if a project is of value to the American taxpayer. Second, there are things that just need to be met by community. And there are many organizations that help communities plant trees. Arbor Day is one of the largest. Bartlett Tree Service also gives out trees at all kinds of garden events: plant sales, community days, etc. Additionally, most, maybe all, States have a Forestry Dept that grow trees for State projects and other folks.
Unfortunately, it has been my experience in two instances, where trees were planted in ‘ underserved communities’ as part of educational school programs that after 3 years most of the trees were gone. Lack of water was not the issue…vandalism was, and by the ‘children’ who lived in the vicinity.
The cultural decay of community spirit and the idea of oh, so many of the last several generations that government should be the caretaker of everyone’s ‘wants’ has left many who traditionally did ‘good works in their community’ to walk away when their contributions were degraded.
Sorry folks, but without a turnaround in personal responsibilities and community involvement by all residents regardless of what section of the community they live in things will not change, sad as that may be.
I can see how you might think that community tree planting doesn’t work, given your specific experience. There is actually good data out there on community planting projects, and how very many of them fail – not because of a lack of goodwill, but often due to insufficient garnering of support from the targeted community prior to making plans. I was really pleased to hear that in New York (at least as of about a year ago), the city is having very extensive discussions with neighborhoods where future green space is planned, to see how it will best work for the people who live there. Different communities have different needs (and sub cultures) and what I might want in my neighborhood is not necessarily what someone else will want in theirs. Every neighborhood will benefit from more green space and more trees if they are lacking –there is excellent correlation with mental and physical health as well as less crime (hard to assess the per taxpayer benefit here, but it doesn’t mean there isn’t one), not to mention the environmental benefits –but without this kind of liaising, I think most projects are doomed to fail.
As a former Health Inspector in a moderate sized city, I noticed a number of things when I did property inspections.
1). Slumlords buy the oldest properties in town, run them into the ground and don’t care to have trees on the properties as that’s just more money going out to rake leaves etc. Trees are almost always the first thing to go. And who lives in those homes? Usually the poorest (of all colors). Racism has no place in this discussion.
2). The older sections of town did not have a lot of trees because old trees die and need to be eliminated. And you don’t replace them because, you don’t want to rake leaves. And as old houses get torn down, a lot of times the trees go as well. A bare vacant lot sells better and does not require maintenance except mowing the grass.
3). When the city did plant trees in the past, they used trees like silver maple, that are soft, easily damaged and tear the living daylights out of the sidewalks, etc. They are being targeted for removal by the city arborist, only to be replaced with
4). Bradford pears. Another soft tree that is supposed to be sterile but spreads like wildfire. And definitely not native to the area.
5). The “rich areas” of our town are being built on farm fields. Guess how many trees are planted in a farm field! None. And these folks don’t want or care for trees because (you guessed it!), they are too busy to rake leaves!
I will proudly admit to being a conservative environmentalist. I manage not only my own tree filled city lot (and cry when one gets so damaged it needs to be removed and complain A LOT when I mulch my leaves in the fall), but also a 40 acre “old farm” with 13 acres of the most beautiful trees I have ever seen. (My joke with the family is if I go for a walk in the woods and don’t come back, look for the smiling body sitting against a tree. I can’t think of a more peaceful way to go out.) Unfortunately, most people of all persuasions do not understand the ecological, environmental, and other benefits of those pesky old trees. Plant more! You bet! The city currently is “marketing” a plan to plant park strip trees for $50/tree and have a list of beautiful selections. How successful that will be is unknown at this time. But this old codger has printed the list and plans on planting even more trees on the 40 acres. But only native species. And my wife says not twigs, but 4-6 footers.
I am the definition of an optimist: a 69 year old man planting trees, knowing I may not see the results. But my kids and grandkids and hopefully, great grandkids might. And that gives me hope for the future.