See our two Technical Comments on the global potential of reforestation to mitigate climate change. Cannot plant in grasslands and savannas, there is a lot of C in non-forests soils, need to understand how the carbon cycle works.
several authors contribute to discussion in on the validity of recent claims about potential for global #forest restoration - here: , here: and here:
Seriously upgrade your weekend and read these excellent comments by the world's carbon cycle gurus on the global tree restoration potential …… ……
That said, even these corrected estimates of tree-planting's potential are still quite substantial! They just suggest that reforestation is at best part of the solution to climate change, rather than *the single biggest thing we could do.*
See our two Technical Comments on the global potential of reforestation to mitigate climate change, in today's Science. Look for other TC and Letters in the same Issue 18Oct09-6463.
3 comments in Science on "0.9 billion ha restoration potential" HT & authors' response Glad authors dropped "most effective solution" red herring, defend rest
Bastin et al.’s estimate that tree planting for climate change mitigation could sequester 205 gigatonnes of carbon is approximately five times too large
Broad critisism on the claim that planting trees is the best climate solution. Among many issues with the paper, one personal beef: trees absorb more sunlight than tundra and warm rather than cool the Arctic!
Veldman et al say paper’s claim “is approximately 5x too large”. They add it "inflated soil organic carbon gains, failed to safeguard against warming from trees at high latitudes…and considered afforestation of savannas [etc] to be restoration.”
See our two Technical Comments on the global potential of reforestation to mitigate climate change, in today's Science Issue 18Oct19-6463