It would be nearly impossible to plant enough trees to compensate for the climate impact of burning through the world’s fossil fuel reserves. Offsetting the estimated 182 billion tonnes of carbon held in the reserves of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies would require covering more land with trees than the entirety of North and Central America.
“There simply isn’t enough land available for the level of afforestation that would be needed to offset fossil fuel-related emissions,”
I’ve been saying this for years. Honestly, the whole carbon offsetting thing is very similar to the men will do anything but go to therapy meme. We are willing to just about anything other than CUT EMISSIONS.
Further what’s planted is often a monoculture, and does not restore the ecosystem lost.
I think it’s brought up a lot in terms of undoing the damage. Even if we cut emissions to zero today, that doesn’t fix all the carbon that’s already been put out over the last 100-150 years. We need both reduced emissions to prevent damage and carbon capture to undo preexisting damage.
I agree, but a lot of the sequestration options out there suck. By all means replant, but do it wisely. Geological storage has been shown to be way less efficient than desired.
There is some promise in C sequestration in tailings, because it’s permanently bound, but it’s situational.