Reforestation aforest

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">see deforestation, wood/paper, rainforest</font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">see carbon offsets
</font><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><a href="https://www.desmog.co.uk/2020/07/06/big-oil-forest-fever"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.desmog.co.uk/2020/07/06/big-oil-forest-fever</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Elon Musk, Greta Thunberg, Rishi Sunak, Donald Trump — trees suddenly have an eclectic mix of fans, all drawn to the apparent simplicity of their carbon-locking power. Now Big Oil has joined the party, in a big way.</b></font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Over the past year, <b><span class="caps" style="">BP</span>, Total, Eni, Equinor and ConocoPhillips </b>have invested millions of dollars in forest projects to offset their greenhouse gas emissions. Shell, in particular, has taken a lead, promising to spend $300 million on “natural ecosystems” as part of its market-leading net-zero emissions plan.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The recent surge in corporate pledges gives the impression that nature-based solutions (<span class="caps" style="">NBS</span>) provide the key to a decarbonised future. But given oil companies’ status as some of the world’s largest emitters, and the industry’s long history of lobbying against climate action, Big Oil’s push for more trees has been met with scepticism.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There is little doubt that planting trees — <a href="https://friendsoftheearth.uk/climate-change/doubling-trees-will-help-stop-climate-chaos" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">often cited</a> as a cheaper and more readily available complement to carbon capture technology —  must form part of the solution to climate change. But are trees really the answer to Big Oil’s climate conundrum? Or are schemes that rely on preserving and planting millions, billions or trillions of trees (depending on who you ask) just an excuse to continue drilling for more fossil fuels?</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>A close inspection suggests that as the projects and regulations currently stand, the trees that Big Oil plans to plant simply can’t live up to the hype. Planting trees may be part of the solution, but not at the expense of widespread systemic change in the energy sector.</b></font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>This investigation reveals:</b></font></p><ul style="margin: 1.5em 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 30px;"><li><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The details of Big Oil’s tree planting plans, and the <span class="caps" style="">NGO</span> partners they are cooperating with;</font></li><li><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">How Shell has been gaming the voluntary carbon credit market, claiming credits that may be double counted, or that may not qualify to be counted towards their climate goals;</font></li><li><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">How renewed interest in nature-based projects has reignited debates around the effectiveness of forestry projects to reduce global emissions;</font></li><li><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And how national agencies, including the Dutch Forestry Commission (Staatsbosbeheer) and Forestry and Land Scotland (<span class="caps" style="">FLS</span>) continue to partner with Shell, despite concerns they are helping the company greenwash its image.</font></li></ul><h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Investing in nature</font></h3><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nature-based solutions (<span class="caps" style="">NBS</span>) can be anything that involves the use of the natural world — such as forests, grasslands and wetlands — to remove harmful emissions from the atmosphere. The creation and preservation of these lands is enabled by big polluters purchasing credits to offset their emissions.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Corporations’ forest offset fever was in part sparked by the 2015 <a href="https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Paris Agreement</a>, the global climate treaty that committed nations to curbing warming to at most 2°C above pre-industrial levels. The agreement made clear that natural carbon sinks would be vital for countries to hit the goal.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Alongside the Paris Agreement, a <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/114/44/11645" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">joint study</a> co-authored by <span class="caps" style="">NGO</span> The Nature Conservancy (<span class="caps" style="">TNC</span>) in 2017 was particularly influential in shaping the <span class="caps" style="">NBS</span> narrative. It claimed natural solutions could mitigate 37 percent of emissions (or 11 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide) by 2030 to reduce warming to well below 2°C. The report is frequently cited by corporate-friendly global organisations, from the World Economic Forum (<span class="caps" style="">WEF</span>) to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (<span class="caps" style="">WBCSD</span>).</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But the <span class="caps" style="">TNC</span> study came <a href="http://desmogblog.com/2019/07/06/big-oil-natural-climate-solutions-nature-conservancy" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">under fire</a> from critics of projects that fall under the umbrella of ‘Redd+’ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, plus conservation). They claimed that it ignored the major social and environmental implications of such extensive land use, and is fundamentally infeasible.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Such concerns did little to stem the rising popularity of nature offsets, however, which is most evident in the recent upswing of the voluntary credits market.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Between 2016-2018, sales of Forestry and Land Use (<span class="caps" style="">FALU</span>) and Redd+ offsets <a href="https://www.forest-trends.org/pressroom/demand-for-nature-based-solutions-for-climate-drives-voluntary-carbon-markets-to-a-seven-year-high/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">soared by 264 percent</a> — compared to a 21 percent increase in all other categories. Airlines and oil companies have helped fuel this trend, according to the report by EcoSystem Marketplace (<span class="caps" style="">ESM</span>), which singles out the <a href="https://www.forest-trends.org/pressroom/demand-for-nature-based-solutions-for-climate-drives-voluntary-carbon-markets-to-a-seven-year-high/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">“emergence of major voluntary buyers, such as Shell”</a>.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Significantly, in the past year, Shell, <span class="caps" style="">BP</span> and Total updated their climate plans to include ‘Scope 3’ emissions — a major shift.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Historically, polluters have only reported output from their own operations (Scope 1) and from the electricity purchased and used by the company (Scope 2). But these two categories account for just five to 10 percent of emissions. Scope 3, however, includes all harmful gases from fossil fuel products sold to customers.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Without a rapid transition away from fossil fuels, these energy companies will have to rely heavily on carbon offsets to fulfil these expanded targets. That’s where forests come in.</font></p><h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Big Oil investments</font></h3><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Many of the <span class="caps" style="">NGO</span>s that partner with Big Oil to deliver the companies’ much-needed forest projects say the corporate partnerships are vital to provide the necessary investment for nature-based emissions programmes. The projects cost money and Big Oil has it, the argument goes.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But these investments should be treated with extreme caution, and only be accepted once all other avenues have been explored, campaigners argue.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="caps" style="">TNC</span>, which <a href="https://www.shell.com/sustainability/our-approach/environmental-and-community-partners.html#iframe=L3dlYmFwcHMvRWFydGh3YXRjaC92Ml8wLw" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">works with Shell</a> and a number of other corporations on climate strategies, told DeSmog, “many of these nature-based solutions are available for support and investment now, but there is not enough public investment.”.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="dquo" style="margin-left: 0px;">“</span>Big businesses have an opportunity to scale these environmental benefits on a global scale,”, a spokesperson said, though they acknowledges this must be “with dual investment in natural climate solutions and through ambitious and immediate changes in energy systems, transportation and other activities.”</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[graf]</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Big Oil has certainly suddenly become committed to the <span class="caps" style="">NBS</span> cause.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A long-term Redd+ investor, Shell appears to be going further in how it presents its natural climate solutions to the public than any other company. Shell’s <a href="https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/what-is-shells-net-carbon-footprint-ambition.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">newly updated 1.5</a><a href="https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/what-is-shells-net-carbon-footprint-ambition.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">°</a><a href="https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/what-is-shells-net-carbon-footprint-ambition.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">C climate strategy</a> – to be fully mapped out later this year – will rely heavily on <span class="caps" style="">NBS</span>, following last year’s <a href="https://www.shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2019/shell-invests-in-nature-to-tackle-co2-emissions.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">$300 million investment in natural ecosystems</a>.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Meanwhile, rival <span class="caps" style="">BP</span> has donated <a href="https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/press-releases/bp-invests-in-forest-carbon-offsets-leader-finite-resources.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">$5m to <span class="caps" style="">US</span> carbon company Finite Carbon</a> to generate its own voluntary carbon market for businesses. <span class="caps" style="">BP</span>, which has also previously invested in Redd+ projects, is also set to unveil its net-zero plans in late-2020.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Of all the oil majors, Italian giant Eni appears the most committed to the traditional Redd+ model, with investments planned in Zambia, Mozambique, Ghana, Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo (<span class="caps" style="">DRC</span>), Vietnam and Mexico. To help reduce the energy intensity of its products by 80 percent by 2050, Eni plans to store 20 million tonnes per year of carbon dioxide equivalent in forests and wetlands by 2030.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">France’s Total has also launched a new fund to invest $100 million a year in <span class="caps" style="">NBS</span>, but has estimated these will provide only five million tonnes per year in greenhouse gas reductions by 2030 – just 12 percent of its current Scope 1 emissions.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Taking a different approach, state-owned Equinor in Norway has indicated it is “readying” itself to buy the equivalent of one million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year from <a href="https://www.emergentclimate.com/faqs/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Emergent</a>, a “catalyst” that claims it is “priming the market pump that will drive capital toward forest protection on a global scale”. </font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Norway has long invested in Redd+ projects to offset carbon from its North Sea oil cash cow. But Equinor’s move signals that companies increasingly have an interest in controlling how future offsets are processed.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In contrast, Spanish major Repsol is focusing on investing in <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/04/27/renewables-offset-35-times-co2-carbon-capture-storage" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">carbon capture and storage technology (<span class="caps" style="">CCS</span>)</a> — an expensive technology that has been around for decades but is yet to be proven at-scale, and which campaigners regularly reference as <a href="https://www.desmog.co.uk/2017/11/15/industry-betting-big-ccs-shield-fossil-fuels-bonn-climate-talks" style="text-decoration-line: none;">a false solution</a> to climate change — to meet its ambitious 2050 net zero target. Repsol <a href="https://www.repsol.com/en/press-room/press-releases/2019/repsol-will-be-a-net-zero-emissions-company-by-2050.cshtml" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">has indicated</a> it would additionally offset emissions through reforestation and other natural climate sinks “if necessary”.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">European majors’ pledges are far more significant than their <span class="caps" style="">US</span> and international counterparts, where <span class="caps" style="">NBS</span> barely register in investor reports.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Spokespeople for ExxonMobil and Chevron told DeSmog they had no current plans to invest in <span class="caps" style="">NBS</span>, with both companies heavily funding <span class="caps" style="">CCS</span> to attempt to align with the Paris Agreement’s goals. Meanwhile, Saudi Aramco, the <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ranked-saudi-aramco-chevron-and-other-top-companies-responsible-for-one-third-of-all-carbon-emissions-2019-10-09" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">biggest fossil fuel polluter in the world</a>, announced the planting of one million trees at home, but has not clarified whether these will go towards creating offsets.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tracey Cameron from sustainability <span class="caps" style="">NGO</span> Ceres, which works with the world’s biggest polluters to cut emissions through the <a href="http://www.climateaction100.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Climate Action 100+</a> initiative, says a nuanced approach is important when it comes to using nature for offsetting.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="dquo" style="margin-left: 0px;">“</span><span class="caps" style="">NBS</span> should definitely be part of the solution. It should be thoughtful, but also judicious in where it’s used,” she told DeSmog.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">However, “it should be used in those areas where there are no alternatives, or where the final mile can’t be hit. It’s part of the strategy but not <i>the </i>strategy. That has to be that the fundamental business has to change,” she argues.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Right now, there’s little evidence that fundamental business model is shifting. Big Oil’s <span class="caps" style="">NBS</span> investments are tiny when compared to their fossil fuel business.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Before the coronavirus pandemic, Shell alone planned more than 35 new oil and gas projects by 2025. And the company invested just £2 billion in renewables last year, compared to £30 billion in oil and gas.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So far Total and Eni are the only companies to have declared their nature-based targets in full. Together these equate to just 25 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030, only 60 percent of their respective Scope 1 emissions, and less than half of Shell’s.</font></p><h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">New pastures</font></h3><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Shell more than any other has leapt at the possibility of forestry offsets helping it meet its ambitious climate targets.  While continuing to buy credits from tropical forests in Peru and Indonesia, Shell is the first energy company to explore creating carbon credits within Europe.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Its $300 million investment in “natural ecosystems” includes two forestry projects in Spain and the Netherlands. The projects highlight a key problem with the current system — it is still unclear who gets credit for the emissions offsets created by forestry projects (or even who can legally claim them).</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2019, Shell paid the Dutch Forestry Commission (<i>Staatsbosbeheer</i>) €17.4 million to plant five million trees over the next 12 years, in areas where an aggressive fungal disease had destroyed the ash tree population. Shell’s <a href="https://www.shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2019/shell-invests-in-nature-to-tackle-co2-emissions.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">press release</a> clearly stated that both projects are “expected to generate carbon credits within five years”.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This appears to be speculation, however, as a Dutch Forestry Commission spokesman acknowledged that the plan was “a work in progress and credits are not yet possible”. That’s because the <span class="caps" style="">EU</span>’s Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (<span class="caps" style="">LULUCF</span>) regulation means all emissions savings from forestry and land use (<span class="caps" style="">FALU</span>) projects in the <span class="caps" style="">EU</span> are channelled into meeting national climate targets (<span class="caps" style="">NDC</span>s), and cannot be counted towards corporate goals.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The <span class="caps" style="">EU</span> regulation has been implemented since the Kyoto Protocol (first adopted in 1997), but will be enshrined into national targets under the Paris Agreement from next year until 2030 — making Shell’s initial promise to generate credits by 2024 implausible.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...[grafs]</font></p></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/07/a-surprisingly-cheap-and-simple-plan-could-put-a-huge-dent-in-climate-change/"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.alternet.org/2019/07/a-surprisingly-cheap-and-simple-plan-could-put-a-huge-dent-in-climate-change/</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx many</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>A surprisingly cheap and simple plan could put a huge dent in climate change</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">written by Jessica Corbett / Common Dreams<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>July 5, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Amid record-setting temperatures worldwide and predictions by experts that this year will be among the hottest humanity has ever seen, researchers behind a new study say a rapid global effort to plant billions of trees and the restoration of forests would be the “most effective” strategy for battling the planetary climate emergency.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Based on a model of the potential for restoring trees worldwide to capture atmospheric carbon that is heating the planet, a Europe-based research team found that currently “there is room for an extra 0.9 billion hectares (2.22 billion acres) of canopy cover, which could store 205 gigatonnes of carbon in areas that would naturally support woodlands and forests.”</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lead researcher Tom Crowther, a professor at the Swiss university ETH Zürich, explained to Metrothat “if we act now, this could cut carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by up to 25 percent to levels last seen almost a century ago.” A worldwide planting program, researchers estimate, could remove two-thirds of the carbon that human activity has put into the atmosphere.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In terms of cost, Crowther said that “the most effective projects” do restoration at about ¢30 per tree, meaning that restoring a trillion trees would be about $300 billion—which, he added, makes tree restoration “by far the cheapest solution that has ever been proposed.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Putting that figure into context, the U.S.-based youth-led Sunrise Movement tweeted, “For a fraction of the cost of the Trump tax cuts, we could pay for a trillion new trees and offset 2/3rd of all emissions to date.”</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sunrise Movement ??</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">@sunrisemvmt</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> For a fraction of the cost of the Trump tax cuts, we could pay for a trillion new trees and offset 2/3rd of all emissions to date.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">(^rough cost estimate but still crazy cheap)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We have solutions ready to go; we’re just missing the political will to act.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions …</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2,690</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tree planting 'has mind-blowing potential' to tackle climate crisis</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Research shows a trillion trees could be planted to capture huge amount of carbon dioxide</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">theguardian.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1,161 people are talking about this</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The report, published Friday in the journal Science, describes tree restoration on a global scale as “our most effective climate change solution to date” while also warning that “climate change will alter this potential tree coverage.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">We estimate that if we cannot deviate from the current trajectory, the global potential canopy cover may shrink by ~223 million hectares (₅₅₁ million acres) by 2050, with the vast majority of losses occurring in the tropics. Our results highlight the opportunity of climate change mitigation through global tree restoration but also the urgent need for action.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In its reporting on the new research, Vox noted that “there is distinction here between restoration, also known as reforestation, and afforestation. The latter refers to planting new trees where there were none before. The former refers to bringing trees back to areas that were previously forested, whether that’s through planting trees or allowing the woodlands to regrow on their own.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This research team focused on the former—planting trees where they once were. While the potential is great, accomplishing it is no easy task, Vox reported, because “deforestation is still rampant and is accelerating in some parts of the world. Rather than building up forests as a resource to offset greenhouse gas emissions, we’re currently losing them, and emitting more carbon in the process.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Crowther, however, appeared optimistic—given the potential impact and wide range of people and institutions that can actually take action.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“What blows my mind is the scale,” Crowther told The Guardian. “I thought restoration would be in the top 10, but it is overwhelmingly more powerful than all of the other climate change solutions proposed.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to the newspaper:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Crowther emphasized that it remains vital to reverse the current trends of rising greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and forest destruction, and bring them down to zero. He said this is needed to stop the climate crisis becoming even worse and because the forest restoration envisaged would take 50-100 years to have its full effect of removing 200bn tonnes of carbon.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Some activists and experts—including Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg and Glen Peters, a research director at Norway’s Center for International Climate Research—responded to the new study by emphasizing the importance of also changing human behaviors that produce planet-heating emissions, considering how long it could take to plant enough trees to remove carbon from the atmosphere.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Greta Thunberg</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">@GretaThunberg</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Yes, of course we need to plant as many trees as possible.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Yes, of course we need to keep the existing trees standing and rewild and restore nature.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But there’s absolutely no way around stopping our emissions of greenhouse gases and leaving the fossil fuels in the ground. https://twitter.com/Peters_Glen/status/1147037393725329408 …</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Glen Peters</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">@Peters_Glen</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The only way we can keep below 1.5°C or 2°C is to stop emitting fossil fuels”...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It could take hundreds of years to add enough mature forests to remove what we will emit in 20 years at the current rate of 40GtCO2/yr.@StephenLeahyhttps://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/07/how-to-erase-100-years-carbon-emissions-plant-trees/ …</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Crowther pointed out that planting trees is a solution that doesn’t require U.S. President Donald Trump “to immediately start believing in climate change, or scientists to come up with technological solutions to draw carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It is available now, it is the cheapest one possible, and every one of us can get involved,” he said, considering that in addition to any government-backed efforts individuals and charities can plant trees.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The model reveals restoration opportunities worldwide, with the six largest countries—Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Russia, and the United States—collectively containing about half of the sites.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Crowther described Brazil—which contains the majority of the Amazon rainforest and is currently under the control of right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro—as his “dream hotspot to get it right,” but he reiterated that “the potential is literally everywhere—the entire globe. In terms of carbon capture, you get by far your biggest bang for your buck in the tropics, but every one of us can get involved.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Author and anthropologist Jason Hickel praised the research as “brilliant” and noted that in addition to sucking carbon out of the atmosphere to combat the global climate crisis, tree restoration could provide job opportunities.</font></div></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div></div>