Tree Equity Is Trivial

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

With so many social ills plaguing our cities, some dyed-in-the-wool liberals are obsessed with tree equity.   Their complaint: White neighborhoods have more trees than minority neighborhoods.

Constantly looking for something to ruminate upon (no wonder they’re depressed), the lefty tree-huggers maintain that being immersed in nature has benefits impacting cognitive function, blood pressure, mental health, physical activity, and sleep.  But before lamenting the inequitable dispersal of green spaces, how about addressing issues that are more predictive of well-being, such as education, a sense of safety, and nurturing families?

With our cities in progressive turmoil, dwelling on tree equity is perhaps the apotheosis of Parkinson’s Law of Triviality, which essentially states that people give disproportionate attention to trivial issues while being inattentive to important things.  

For sure, trees are lovely when not falling on us, dispersing pollen, or hosting incontinent birds aiming for our noggins.  There’s a reason people “forest bathe.”  While their benefits are appreciated, they’re trivial compared to the greater impact on well-being that crime, education, stable families, and supportive communities have.  Education, not tree proliferation, is the number-one predictor of long-term health.

Tree equity is not a panacea to urban blight.  It should not detract from addressing more fundamental dysfunctions in minority communities, such as the high levels of crime in some of the most forested cities in America.  It will require further study, but it seems more trees are associated with more crime.

For example, crime-ridden Seattle, Wash., is ranked (using MIT-affirmed algorithms) as the most forested city in America, boasting a forest cover of 66 percent on a landscape of 83.94 square miles.  This is closely aligned with other rankings that show the density of Seattle’s forest as second in the entire country (seventh in the world, indeed).  Clearly, the abundance of trees is not ameliorating concerns over crime, rents, and homelessness, as people are escaping the Emerald City for “greener” pastures.

Per the MIT researchers’ ranking system, Portland, Ore., is the third most forested city, with 44 percent of a total of 133.43 square miles of landscape covered by forests.  However, residents are fleeing in record numbers not because of abundant trees, but largely because of crime.

Other forested cities of note include Atlanta, Ga., which ranks a high 8th, having a tree canopy covering about 32 percent of its landscape.

Now let’s see some evidence-based data showing how those forested cities compare when it comes to crime and education.  Is the greenery really soothing their inhabitants’ souls, making them more Zen-like?  In a word — nope!

Take Seattle, once a resplendent city that is now under leftist scourge (remember the dystopian CHOP zone during the 2020 protests?).  Per NeighborhoodScout.com, a site that provides custom analytics on demographics, crime, and public school ratings:

With a crime rate of 66 per one thousand residents, Seattle has one of the highest crime rates in America compared to all communities of all sizes … when NeighborhoodScout compared it to communities of similar population size, its crime rate per thousand residents stands out as higher than most.

Their schools are a disgrace, too, having canceled their gifted and talented programs because minorities are not well represented, which highlights the embarrassing achievement gap.  Still, they have plenty of trees.

Portland’s robust woodlands don’t seem to be assuaging the minority residents’ crime instincts, either.  In fact, “Portland has a combined rate of violent and property crime that is very high compared to other places of similar population size.”  Other places with fewer trees, too.

While busybody social and climate warriors worry their perverted little minds over tree equity, woody Oregon’s school performance metrics are abysmal.  Portland doesn’t even measure performance, and it’s hard to improve what is not measured.  But they have time to measure tree occupancy, of course.

Atlanta (as a reminder, ranked as the 8th most forested city using the MIT scale) has crime and school stats that are equally detrimental to long-term well-being, far outweighing any trivial benefit from the ubiquitous trees.  The same can be said for other cities in the top ten.

Since the trivial tree-equity brigade like to remind us of the emotional benefits of a verdant environment, it’s time for some perspective: safety and education are much more direct predictors of health. 

Leftists are imprisoned in an equity paradigm.  Well, it’s not the preponderance of trees.  Here’s what’s truly inequitable:  as of 2022, about 63% of black children live in single-parent families (and that’s probably a conservative number).  By contrast, about 24% of non-Hispanic whites do, and only 16% of Asian/Pacific Islanders.  It takes someone like former NFL player Jack Brewer, not unprincipled lefties, to tackle the fatherlessness crisis.

So, rather than fall victim to Parkinson’s Law of (Tree) Triviality, social activists might focus on more intrinsic issues affecting the enduring achievement gaps, like improving schools (including attendance, no phones in classroom, choice, thwarting the teachers union, etc.), and promoting the nuclear family rather than overreliance on the granny state.  Accusing the trees, roads, outdoors, dogs, math, electricity/solar — and just about everything else under the sun — of contributing to racism, only excuses their lethargy to succeed.

Forget tree-less communities — focus on family fatherlessness, which greatly exacerbates poverty and crime.  Besides, by the time the trees are mature enough to exert salubrious environmental influences, the minorities will be in the burbs due to Biden’s zoning laws.

Biden and his bureaucratic minions are coming after the suburbs.  The rezoning that the structural equity proponents propose will allow apartments and multiplex residences.  Ultimately, it will undermine the American Dream of a single-family house with a splendid white picket fence, a loyal dog, and playful children in a leafy suburb — dreams increasingly realized by minorities as their rates of homeownership rise.

Surely, the proposed rezoning in the suburbs means more concrete, more broken families, more congestion, more crime, and fewer gardens and trees — for whites and minorities who work hard.  Meanwhile, the trees they’re planting back in the city may block solar radiation from reaching solar rooftops in disadvantaged communities, thus thwarting the EPA’s Solar for All program.

By comparison to education, crime, family stability, and attaining the wholesome American Dream, tree equity is trivial.

Raw Pixel.

” captext=”Raw Pixel” src=”https://freeread.causeaction.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/z9eemh5ipxq65jtgvmrg_640.jpg”>

Image via Raw Pixel.