This article is frustrating for me. Especially his take on trees. The article states the target goal/amount of trees planted would only reduce carbon 6%. Ok, but, it will reduce temperature. I live in WV near a state forest. It is typically 7°-15° F cooler at my house than in town. Additionally, the sun in the summer doesn’t even hit my house until noon-ish, which significantly reduces my air conditioner consumption.
I chose to share this mostly for awareness. I am not especially fond of his perspective.
Trees remove CO2 then die and release it back.
We can’t grow back forests like they were at any relevant speed to even ‘make a dent’ in CO2 emissions.
The only way to stop is to end coal, oil and gas oxidation to CO2. All other things are misdirection, at best.
Yeah, but ecological damage isn’t about CO2. It’s about global ecosystem collapse. Reforestation helps stopping damage to local wildlife, keep bees alive, etc. If we focus only on CO2 we run the risk of falling into technocratic strategies of minimaxing it’s mitigation. All that while ignoring what we are trying to preserve in the first place.
Trees also help lowering local temperature, and a small but significant part of that carbon will be absorbed by fungi and stored bellow the Earth. And with diversity, they can provide resources for communities such as fruits, teas, and other good stuff.
I think the take on trees is massively important when it comes to outdoor planning (or whatever you call it) in cities. Green patches in cities help reduce temperature, making it a safer environment. Oftentimes trees are available in the rich parts of cities but not the poor parts.
