This topic really surged after the #TeamTrees movement, but has fallen off pretty significantly. I’ve heard a lot about how reforestation just doesn’t have the carbon capture capability required for it to be sustainable in the long run, but I would think that enough trees would offset at least SOME greenhouse emissions.
In: Planetary Science
Far far from an expert but here are some concerns. It will no doubt help but there are some considerations.
1) But the returns on investment are not high. It takes a lot of land, careful management and resources. There are successes and failures (monoculture, susceptibility to diseases). Overall, though, this is not as cheap or sure way to sequester CO2 as the media and certain groups portray it to be.
2) Takes a long time. Obviously trees take a long time to grow sometimes half century to a century to mature. Many feel that any efforts taken today are many decades to late to address the acute problem in the next quarter century.
3) Subject to a bit too much hype. There are multi-goal projects that make sense – say reforesting not only for carbon capture but to slow or reverse desertification. But the concern is that it can be seen as a silver bullet when it can really only be a small part of a sustainability solution.
Controversially, reforestation is used as a means of obtaining carbon credits. This has been called into question for the reasons above. Companies that take money to plant trees that do a poor job nonetheless get to sell these carbon credits to CO2 emitters.
Latest Answers