Is planting trees in naturally open canopy areas such as the savanna needed to absorb mankind's "unnatural" CO2 emissions or is it mere disregard for the law of unintended consequences? Alternately, would simply letting forests do what forests do best be more sensible? If the latter is pursued and a naturally heavily forested place like northern New England alters its use of forests to heighten carbon capture, what are the local economic effects, particularly given the biggest CO2 emitter is China?
Reforesting is a good idea, but it is necessary to know where and how
An article recently published in Science, entitled “The global tree restoration potential”, presents what it calls “the most effective solution at our disposal to mitigate climate change”. The lead author is Jean-François Bastin, an ecologist affiliated with the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich).
The article attracted enormous media attention. It reports the results of a study in which Bastin and collaborators used remote sensing and modeling techniques to estimate that forest restoration in areas totaling 900 million hectares worldwide could store 205 gigatonnes of carbon.
The full article can be read at the following weblink:
Study Finds the Wealthy & Celebrities Aren’t Changing Their Flying Habits to Reduce CO2 Emissions
Some are responsible for a thousand times more CO2 emissions than the average.