"It Is Time To Stop Suggesting A 'Nature-Based' Solution To Ongoing Fossil Fuel Use. There Isn't."

EDIT

Prof Myles Allen, Professor of Geosystem Science, University of Oxford, said:

“In the paper, the authors compare the extra CO2 in the atmosphere with the amount they assess could be stored in forests, but this is misleading, because it neglects the fact that only about 50% of the carbon we release into the atmosphere stays there, the rest being mixed into the near-surface oceans and the like. To date, we have emitted 600 GtC and an additional 300 GtC (50%) of that CO2 remains in the atmosphere. If we had emitted 600 GtC and removed 200 GtC, there would be 200 GtC (50% of 600-200) remaining in the atmosphere. Comparing removal potentials with “atmospheric burden” exaggerates their importance by around a factor of two.

“Restoration of trees may be “among the most effective strategies”, but it is very far indeed from “the best climate change solution available,” and a long way behind reducing fossil fuel emissions to net zero. The additional 200 billion tonnes of carbon the study highlights represents less than one third of human-induced carbon dioxide emissions to date, and less than 20 years of emissions at the current rate. So, yes, heroic reforestation can help, but it is time to stop suggesting there is a “nature-based solution” to ongoing fossil fuel use. There isn’t. Sorry.”

Dr Phil Williamson, Honorary Reader, University of East Anglia, said:

“There is a clear message from the analysis of Jean-Francois Bastin and his colleagues: there is the land available, nearly a billion hectares, for a massive global tree-planting initiative that should help avoid climate catastrophe, without encroachment on existing arable land. There is also a warning: this is a time-limited opportunity, since the scope for forest-based carbon removal is reduced in a warmer world. What is not made explicit is that very rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions must also occur at the same time. Whilst reforestation can undoubtedly assist in achieving net-zero, and subsequently net-negative emissions, it is potentially misleading for the authors to claim that “ecosystem restoration is the most effective solution at our disposal to mitigate climate change”. The most effective solution remains as before: ending emissions, through the worldwide phase-out of fossil fuels within a few decades. Unless that is also done, the newly-planted forests won’t survive for long enough to have the desired effect.”

EDIT

Prof Daniela Schmidt, Professor in Palaeobiology, University of Bristol, said:

“Planting trees in areas which have lost cover or in areas where they are now able to grow due to warming is a clear strategy to combat climate change suggested in the Paris Agreement. Assessing if this approach is feasible is a complex question depending on the climate conditions at a given place and the needs of the trees. This novel study assessed a vast dataset of information of tree growth and generated a model which allows the quantification if planting trees is feasible in areas large enough to allow a significant drawdown of CO2. It is important to remember though that this action replaces existing ecosystems and agricultural land. Planning the areas for reforestation needs to take into account the ecosystem which is currently there and the consequences replacing these with forests would have.”

EDIT

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-looking-at-trees-carbon-storage-and-climate-change/