The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
The Pros and Cons of Planting Trees to Address Global Warming
Who doesn't love a tree or two, even far more — the right tree in the right place?
Along with the refreshing shade they provide on hot days, trees of course also store carbon, and they'll suck it right out of our fragile atmosphere as they grow. Who could argue with more trees, more forests — more shade! — in a warming world? Nary a soul, one suspects, whether of conventional "tree hugger" category or rabid climate science detractor.
Earlier this year, the one-trillion tree campaign was big news at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Salesforce founder Businessman Marc Benioff announced at the meeting that his company will "support and mobilize the conservation and restoration of 100 million trees over the next decade."
Back in Washington, D.C., President Trump and Republican lawmakers said they too support the international campaign — although Arkansas Republican Rep. Bruce Westerman came under fire for proposing a "Trillion Trees Act" that would pair a commitment to planting trees with a plan to increase logging on public lands. Numerous other Republican representatives are endorsing the trees effort.
Cautions Against Just Randomly Digging and Planting
Over the past few weeks, chatter has picked up that planting trees is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to combating climate change. Trees are a good thing, but:
- We also need to protect existing forests — the Amazon, for example.
- We need to ramp up wind, solar, and geothermal energy.
- We need to burn less fossil fuel.
- We need to eat more of the right foods and less of the wrong ones and, above all else, eat sustainably.
- We need higher vehicle-mileage standards and more electric cars.
- We need to get our act together so we can better adapt to rising seas, more droughts and wildfires, and unpredictable swings in weather.
Like other initiatives to tackle climate change, planting trees requires some forethought. Recent news coverage of the trillion tree campaign points to several things people should be thinking about before digging and planting.
Authors of a 2019 study from the Swiss research university, ETH Zurich, estimated that the planet can support about 2.5 billion more acres of newly planted trees — without tearing down cities and doing away with farms. And they say those trees could store about 200 gigatons of carbon (GtC) once they mature. That's equal to one-third of all the carbon that humans have emitted into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide pollution, the authors claimed. The New York Times summarized the study last year.
Scientist Zeke Hausfather, long a regular contributor to Yale Climate Connections, suggested in a series of tweets at the time that the study was misleading on a few counts. For one thing, cumulative emissions from land use and burning fossil fuels were closer to 640 GtC, "so removing 200 GtC would represent one-third of historic emissions." Hausfather also pointed to the practical and economic challenges of planting trees on every acre of available land.
India is intimately familiar with this challenge. Last summer the country planted hundreds of millions of trees as part of an initiative to keep one-third of its land area covered in trees. But the nation's high population and rapid industrialization pose challenges to sustained reforestation. Only about 60% of the saplings are expected to survive — the rest succumbing to disease and a lack of water.
A Skeptical Science article by Dana Nuccitelli, a regular contributor to Yale Climate Connections and an environmental scientist, cites additional studies that have raised several other key points. Among them:
- Tundra and boreal regions unpopulated by trees play an important global role in reflecting energy from the sun back into space. Planting trees in these regions would darken landscapes at these high latitudes, causing them to absorb energy from the sun rather than reflect it — ultimately contributing to higher global temperatures and offsetting cooling created by planting trees.
- The ETH Zurich researchers mistakenly considered natural savannas, grasslands, and shrublands as places where forests could be restored.
- And in their ETH Zurich study, they estimated a carbon sequestration rate of 0.22 GtC per million hectares (i.e., for every 2.47 million acres). But 0.22 GtC is twice the amount cited by previously published estimates.
Trees Deserve a ‘Moment’ of Fame, but Keep Reality in Mind
So while the right kinds and numbers of tree species in the right places have lots of appeal, big questions remain over exactly what can be accomplished by planting one trillion trees — and whether it may cause more harm than good.
James Temple, senior editor for energy at MIT Technology Review, summed up the view of many experts in a January 28 piece when he wrote:
It's great that trees are having a moment. Nations absolutely should plant and protect as many as possible. … But it's also a limited and unreliable way of addressing climate change.
Temple raised a few more important points, some of which have been echoed elsewhere. Among them: trees take time to grow and reach maturity — decades and even centuries for redwoods and other behemoths that can store massive amounts of carbon. If you think you're going to immediately offset your carbon footprint from flying across the country by planting a tree … think again.
Another point Temple made: You really have to work the numbers to get a true sense of the challenge. For example, he wrote, the U.S. produced 5.8 billion gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2019. To offset that much CO2 pollution, you'd have to plant a forest — and wait for it to fully mature — that is more than twice the size of Texas.
The one-trillion tree campaign raises still more questions for forest ecologists — one of them having to do with biodiversity. If the campaign results in what are essentially tree plantations lacking biodiversity and genetic variation, often referred to as monoculture, those artificial forests won't get very far.
"People are getting caught up in the wrong solution," Forrest Fleischman of the University of Minnesota told The Verge in late January. "Instead of that guy from Salesforce saying, 'I'm going to put money into planting a trillion trees,' I'd like him to go and say, 'I'm going to put my money into helping indigenous people in the Amazon defend their lands.' That's going to have a bigger impact."
A campaign to plant "one trillion trees" sounds ambitious, it sounds daring, and it sounds exciting. And in many ways it could be all of those. But keep in mind that since 2015 and just in the Sierra Nevada — that sliver of mountain habitat that runs along the spine of California — nearly 150 million trees have died, victims of drought, disease, and invasion by beetles. Warmer winters have contributed to a population explosion of these destructive insects, and it's a story being played out across the American West where forest fires are growing in frequency and intensity.
So maybe we can plant a trillion trees around the globe. But if we don't do much else about climate change, will we just be fueling the fire?
So maybe we can and should plant a trillion trees around the globe. Go for it. But a wide array of experts insist that if we don't also take numerous other actions to address climate change — specifically including major cuts in fossil fuel emissions and in particular carbon dioxide — we may just be fueling the fire.
In the end, it comes down to more trees and lots of other actions, not to more trees or.
Reposted with permissions from Yale Climate Connections.
- China's First Fridays for Future Sees Teen Planting Trees - EcoWatch ›
- England to Plant 130,000+ Trees to Fight Climate Change - EcoWatch ›
- Ireland to Plant 440 Million Trees in 20 Years to Fight Climate Change ›
- Planting Billions of Trees Is the 'Best Climate Change Solution ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
'How Dare You Put Our Lives at Risk': Pennsylvania Democrat Brian Sims Rips GOP Members for 'Coverup' of Positive COVID-19 Tests
Brian Sims, a Democratic representative in the Pennsylvania legislature, ranted in a Facebook Live video that went viral about the hypocrisy of Republican lawmakers who are pushing to reopen the state even though one of their members had a positive COVID-19 test.
- Partisan Differences in Social Distancing during the Coronavirus ... ›
- COVID-19 Is Turning Into a Partisan Battle, Too: The Politics Daily ... ›
- Coronavirus in US: Partisanship is the strongest predictor of public ... ›
- Pennsylvania Republicans Want Prosecutors To Investigate State ... ›
- Philly Democrat Brian Sims sparks firestorm after posting videos of ... ›
In another reversal of Obama-era regulations, the Trump administration is having the National Park Service rescind a 2015 order that protected bears and wolves within protected lands.
- Wildlife Advocates Celebrate: Romania Bans Trophy Hunting ... ›
- Father and Son Charged With Killing Mother Bear and 'Shrieking ... ›
- Trump Admin. Wants to Reinstate 'Cruel' Hunting Tactics in Alaska ... ›
By Linda Lacina
World Health Organization officials today announced the launch of the WHO Foundation, a legally separate body that will help expand the agency's donor base and allow it to take donations from the general public.
<iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-1265660879669886976" id="twitter-embed-1265660879669886976" lazy-loadable="true" src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1265660879669886976&created_ts=1590592043.0&screen_name=WHO&text=Media+briefing+on+%23COVID19+with+%40DrTedros+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2Fj5ZoeBdBvO&id=1265660879669886976&name=World+Health+Organization+%28WHO%29" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="16f209220db97fa1572877a1700956f5"></iframe>
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
By Nicholas Joyce
The coronavirus has resulted in stress, anxiety and fear – symptoms that might motivate a person to see a therapist. Because of social distancing, however, in-person sessions are less possible. For many, this has raised the prospect of online therapy. For clients in need of warmth and reassurance, could this work? Studies and my experience suggests it does.
Telehealth Versus Traditional Therapy<p><a href="https://www.cigna.com/hcpemails/telehealth/telehealth-flyer.pdf" target="_blank">Private insurance companies</a> like Cigna and Aetna, have come around; they now provide coverage for what they see as a "legitimate" service. And <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/american-wells-2019-consumer-survey-finds-majority-of-consumers-open-to-telehealth-adoption-continues-to-grow-300906438.html" target="_blank">surveys show</a> consumers are receptive to telehealth counseling: no driving to an appointment, no searching for a parking space, no worries about childcare while they're away, no need to switch providers if they move, and no problem if the specialist happens to be far away.</p><p>Online therapy opens doors for clients who wouldn't otherwise seek help, <a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/empirical-examination-of-the-influence-of-personality-gender-role-conflict-and-self-stigma-on-attitudes-and-intentions-to-seek-online-counseling-in-college-students/oclc/941976505" target="_blank">particularly patients</a> who feel stigmatized by therapy or intimidated by a stranger sitting across the room from them. Often, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295" target="_blank">people open up</a> more easily in telehealth sessions. Firsthand accounts have detailed <a href="https://www.romper.com/p/i-tried-online-therapy-for-a-month-this-is-what-happened-13630" target="_blank">positive experiences from consumers</a>.</p>
Overcoming Prejudices About Online Counseling<p>Now COVID-19 is forcing most traditional psychotherapists to adapt their practice to <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/expressive-trauma-integration/202003/covid-19-etherapy-in-times-isolation" target="_blank">online counseling</a>. After experiencing the medium, they are <a href="https://www.wecounsel.com/blog/why-every-therapist-in-private-practice-needs-a-telehealth-option/" target="_blank">overcoming their prejudices</a>. Many will convert some or all of their caseloads to telehealth after the pandemic ends. Most of our clients seem to be good with it: responding to a satisfaction survey, 85% of USF students strongly or somewhat agreed their telehealth experience was comparable to an in-person visit.</p><p>All this allows a continuity of care for clients that before was impossible; there is, however, a caveat. Because of the coronavirus, some of my clients at USF who live out-of-state have moved back home. That means, legally, I can no longer serve them. Even though they are still USF students, my license is valid only in Florida.</p><p>For telehealth to work effectively, our national system of licensing and regulation law needs to adapt. Although the federal government temporarily halted HIPAA regulations to promote telehealth during this time, not all states are allowing out-of-state practice. The coronavirus may not be here forever, but spring break and Christmas holidays always will. We need seamless telehealth across state lines.</p>
- How to Deal With Cabin Fever - EcoWatch ›
- 75,000 American Deaths Predicted From Overdose and Suicide ... ›
As many parts of the planet continue to open their doors after pandemic closures, a new pest is expected to make its way into the world. After spending more than a decade underground, millions of cicadas are expected to emerge in regions of the southeastern U.S.
Kevin Frayer / Stringer / Getty Images
By Jessica Corbett
Even after the world's largest economies adopted the landmark Paris agreement to tackle the climate crisis in late 2015, governments continued to pour $77 billion a year in public finance into propping up the fossil fuel industry, according to a report released Wednesday.
<iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-1265623289118015492" id="twitter-embed-1265623289118015492" lazy-loadable="true" src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1265623289118015492&created_ts=1590583080.0&screen_name=envirodefence&text=New+research+from+%40PriceofOil+%26amp%3B+%40foe_us+shows+Canada+has+the+2nd+highest+public+finance+for+fossil+fuels+in+the+G20%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FCC21WVmLhZ&id=1265623289118015492&name=EnvironmentalDefence" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="3a8dab253abb0ab96502809508dffa35"></iframe>
<iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-1265668484349992961" id="twitter-embed-1265668484349992961" lazy-loadable="true" src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1265668484349992961&created_ts=1590593856.0&screen_name=PriceofOil&text=%F0%9F%93%96New+Report%F0%9F%93%96%3A+As+%23G20+governments+spend+historic+levels+of+public+finance+on+%23COVID19+stimulus%2C+our+new+report+w%2F%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2Fbw8awZru86&id=1265668484349992961&name=Oil+Change+International" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="4c26ee7a9cd92203449579ca4aa553e7"></iframe>
- Fossil Fuel Firms With Ties to Trump Administration Get Small ... ›
- Taxpayers Charged $7 Billion a Year to Subsidize Fossil Fuels on ... ›
- Government Subsidizes Fossil Fuel Industry With $20+ Billion in ... ›
Twenty-three states and Washington, DC launched a suit Wednesday to stop the Trump administration rollback of Obama-era fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks.
- Trump Dismantles Environmental Protections Under Cover of ... ›
- Trump Admin Goes After States for Protecting the Environment ... ›
- Justice Department Drops Investigation Against Four Automakers ... ›
- Trump Expected to Announce Weakened Fuel Efficiency Rules ... ›