Across the West, government agencies have declared war on two familiar trees: the Siberian elm and the Russian olive. They’re labeled invasive, noxious, and undesirable. Before we destroy them, we should look at what we’d really be doing and what we stand to lose.
Scientists estimate it would take around two trillion trees to offset just 25 percent of the Earth’s carbon emissions. Destroying existing trees—of any species—moves us in the wrong direction.
Like all trees, Siberian elms and Russian olives clean the air, sequester carbon, and provide shade and cooling in an increasingly hot and dry climate. Because they grow quickly, they absorb carbon faster than many slower-growing trees. They also offer habitat for birds and animals. All with virtually no maintenance or cost.
While we’re spending billions on “green” technologies to fight climate change, these trees are doing the same job—quietly, cheaply, and naturally. Trees have kept Earth’s air clean for millennia.
Labeling these species as “noxious” or “invasive” is misleading. A noxious weed is defined as a plant harmful to crops, ecosystems, humans, or livestock. Siberian elms and Russian olives don’t meet that standard. They don’t poison animals or people, and they don’t destroy cropland unless they grow directly in it.
What’s worse, the government’s plan to eradicate them includes the use of herbicides—chemicals that actually do pollute soil and water. In trying to “protect” the environment, we’d be poisoning it.
Some say these trees use too much water. Every living thing on Earth uses water. Are the elms and olives truly wasting it?
We pour water onto lawns, ornamental gardens, golf courses, and nursery plants. These trees, on the other hand, draw on the water naturally available in their environment. Meanwhile, humans consume vast amounts of water—and fossil fuels—to fill pools, run fountains, and cool data centers. If we want to address water use concerns, we should start there.
“Not native” has become a loaded term. Thousands of plants sold in nurseries each year are not native, and few object. The Earth’s environment has always been changing; species have come and gone for millions of years. That’s evolution. To deny that change is to deny nature itself.
In fact, Siberian elms and Russian olives were originally introduced by government programs because they thrived in dry climates. They didn’t invade; they adapted.
The idea that these trees push out “more desirable” species doesn’t hold up in many areas. In towns and rural regions, you mostly see Siberian elms, Russian olives, cottonwoods, and the occasional transplanted pine or juniper. If there were “more desirable” trees trying to grow naturally, they’d be here.
This isn’t to say Siberian elms and Russian olives belong everywhere. If they’re damaging your foundation, clogging a sewer line, or overtaking a garden, by all means, cut them down, but removing large, established trees that provide cooling and shade can make your home hotter and your energy bills higher.
The campaign against Siberian elms and Russian olives says more about human arrogance than environmental stewardship. These trees have done what we asked of them: survive, grow, and clean the air in a harsh climate. Now, because they do it too well and too freely, the government wants them gone.
If we truly value clean air, cooler cities, and affordable carbon capture, maybe it’s time to take a deeper look at any proposed war on these trees. The climate in the Taos area has gotten noticeably hotter and drier in the 40 years I’ve lived here. To certain agencies, these trees may be weeds—but to the planet, they’re essential.
- Mike Petree, Owner
Petree Nursery & Greenhouses