Great article about an important topic, but isn't there an even bigger elephant in the room? I mean the fact that any nature based "solutions" do not mitigate fossil carbon. = if a tree is planted it replaces a tree that was there before so the carbon from the previous tree will (with luck) eventually take up that carbon but not a gram of fossil carbon. or if you replanted every single tree on the planet still not a gram of fossil carbon would be sequestered. please tell me if im wrong
Thanks for this. You're right - nature based "solutions" do not mitigate emissions from burning fossil fuels. That was what I was trying to say in the final paragraph. I should have added the words "by burning fossil fuels" at the end to make it absolutely clear.
There are all sorts of problems with planting trees as a so-called climate solution. My posts on tree planting are collected here:
Great article about an important topic, but isn't there an even bigger elephant in the room? I mean the fact that any nature based "solutions" do not mitigate fossil carbon. = if a tree is planted it replaces a tree that was there before so the carbon from the previous tree will (with luck) eventually take up that carbon but not a gram of fossil carbon. or if you replanted every single tree on the planet still not a gram of fossil carbon would be sequestered. please tell me if im wrong
Thanks for this. You're right - nature based "solutions" do not mitigate emissions from burning fossil fuels. That was what I was trying to say in the final paragraph. I should have added the words "by burning fossil fuels" at the end to make it absolutely clear.
There are all sorts of problems with planting trees as a so-called climate solution. My posts on tree planting are collected here:
https://reddmonitor.substack.com/t/tree-planting
And my posts loosely about fossil fuels, carbon offsets, and REDD are collected here:
https://reddmonitor.substack.com/t/fossil-fuels