I've got a lot of feelings about this topic! I am a huge tree hugger, it's literally my job, but people need to realize that trees are NOT a panacea for everything. Not every open space is meant to be a forest, there are many other ecosystems! There is so much press around these 'plant a million tree' projects, but so little thought is actually put into the planting. Is this a place suitable for trees? Is anyone going to maintain these trees, or are they using all the money on planting only for half of them to die? I can speak from experience that funders only want to fund the planting portion, never the maintenance, and it's very frustrating trying to convince them that you need to put money towards keeping the trees ALIVE, otherwise it's all for naught.
Also, I do feel that their role in carbon capture is being...a bit overstated. Yes, they do capture carbon and can help offset climate change, but it is going to take decades for them to get large enough to make an impact and we need to do something NOW. Planting a new forest is not going to offset the damage from removing an old growth forest, it's just not. I think trees have a ton of benefits and are a public good when planted in the right place in the right way, but these mass reforestation campaigns with little care put into them are not the way to do it IMO.
Great post, thank you! In James Hansen’s CSAS Note.2024.02.14.pdf, he mentions the seriousness of the planet getting darker, lower albedo. Excess afforestation accounts for some of that. There are other climax-species systems besides forests; a savanna can be the natural climax ecosystem for certain areas, on which the other flora/fauna depend. Can you think of one successful ecosystem human-tampering project without unintended consequences? Not to mention frequent misguided _intended_ consequences, frequently the result of Big Philanthropy gestures.
There is a deep flaw in the Science paper, which is that the authors assume some static ratio of forest to savanna to grassland. This is a false picture. The boundaries between these ecosystems is fluid, set by constantly changing precipitation (which is in part regulated by canopy cover) and land use. Nations should be free to decide how to allocate management to different needs.
I've got a lot of feelings about this topic! I am a huge tree hugger, it's literally my job, but people need to realize that trees are NOT a panacea for everything. Not every open space is meant to be a forest, there are many other ecosystems! There is so much press around these 'plant a million tree' projects, but so little thought is actually put into the planting. Is this a place suitable for trees? Is anyone going to maintain these trees, or are they using all the money on planting only for half of them to die? I can speak from experience that funders only want to fund the planting portion, never the maintenance, and it's very frustrating trying to convince them that you need to put money towards keeping the trees ALIVE, otherwise it's all for naught.
Also, I do feel that their role in carbon capture is being...a bit overstated. Yes, they do capture carbon and can help offset climate change, but it is going to take decades for them to get large enough to make an impact and we need to do something NOW. Planting a new forest is not going to offset the damage from removing an old growth forest, it's just not. I think trees have a ton of benefits and are a public good when planted in the right place in the right way, but these mass reforestation campaigns with little care put into them are not the way to do it IMO.
Great post, thank you! In James Hansen’s CSAS Note.2024.02.14.pdf, he mentions the seriousness of the planet getting darker, lower albedo. Excess afforestation accounts for some of that. There are other climax-species systems besides forests; a savanna can be the natural climax ecosystem for certain areas, on which the other flora/fauna depend. Can you think of one successful ecosystem human-tampering project without unintended consequences? Not to mention frequent misguided _intended_ consequences, frequently the result of Big Philanthropy gestures.
There is a deep flaw in the Science paper, which is that the authors assume some static ratio of forest to savanna to grassland. This is a false picture. The boundaries between these ecosystems is fluid, set by constantly changing precipitation (which is in part regulated by canopy cover) and land use. Nations should be free to decide how to allocate management to different needs.