An interesting article in The Guardian suggests massive tree plantings could go a long way toward solving our climate change crisis. For those seeking a kind of natural deus ex machina to solve the problem, it is likely hopeful news. However, it seems to me that the idea is doomed to failure:
Planting billions of trees across the world is by far the biggest and cheapest way to tackle the climate crisis, according to scientists, who have made the first calculation of how many more trees could be planted without encroaching on crop land or urban areas.While the entire article is well-worth the read, in my view there are serious flaws to this grand scheme.
New research estimates that a worldwide planting programme could remove two-thirds of all the emissions that have been pumped into the atmosphere by human activities, a figure the scientists describe as “mind-blowing”.
The analysis found there are 1.7bn hectares of treeless land on which 1.2tn native tree saplings would naturally grow. That area is about 11% of all land and equivalent to the size of the US and China combined. Tropical areas could have 100% tree cover, while others would be more sparsely covered, meaning that on average about half the area would be under tree canopy.
The scientists specifically excluded all fields used to grow crops and urban areas from their analysis. But they did include grazing land, on which the researchers say a few trees can also benefit sheep and cattle.
First, while the study shows that two-thirds of land throughout the world could support this program, it would require a global co-operation on a scale that has never existed and likely never will. That most nations now recognize the peril we currently face seems to have little effect, if judged only by our current inertia and ubiquitous divisions.
Secondly, the costs involved in such an undertaking would be massive. That it would be the most cost-effective mitigation we could undertake likely forks little lightning. We need only see the results of recent polling for proof that we are a decidedly short-sighted species:
... while nearly two-thirds of Canadians see fighting climate change as a top priority, half of those surveyed would not shell out more than $100 per year in taxes to prevent climate change, the equivalent of less than $9 a month.Next, the worldwide planting being advocated would require regular monitoring and constant nurturing. War-torn countries and current political realities would make this very difficult, if not impossible. Would someone like a Kim Jong Un or Donald Trump (and I use them only as examples of a widespread intractability) really be open to such 'intrusions'?)
Finally, the plan fails to take into account the massive damage already being wrought by climate change. Floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and massive wildfires that affect millions of hectares of land currently would surely make this scheme more of a pipe dream than a feasible approach to the crisis. And don't forget about the feedback loops already well underway.
All that being said, I still support the effort this report advocates. However, it would be a massive mistake to regard it as the solution to our climate woes and believe that we can continue partying as if it were still the 1950s. At best, it represents but a modest beginning, just an arrow in the quiver we so desperately need.
