PLANTING 1 TRILLION TREES MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY BE A GOOD IDEA

Tree-planting campaigns have taken off, with everyone from YouTube creators to high-powered CEOs embracing trees as a solution to the climate crisis. But even as the arboreal campaigns have grown, dozens of scientists have warned that planting all those trees could potentially cause more harm than good. Others point to another solution with a more proven track record and that might be more deserving of global support — empowering the people who live in and safeguard forests already.

Trees just got a big boost at The World Economic Forum this month, when the forum announced a new initiative aimed at planting 1 trillion trees around the globe within the decade to combat climate change.

It’s got the backing of big names: Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff is contributing an undisclosed amount of his own cash to the effort, while his company has committed itself to planting 100 million trees. Even Donald Trump, who has thrown a wrench into US and global efforts to tackle climate change, said the US would sign onto the campaign, called 1t.org.

But the science behind the campaign, a study that claims 1 trillion trees can significantly reduce greenhouse gases, is disputed. “People are getting caught up in the wrong solution,” says Forrest Fleischman, who teaches natural resources policy at the University of Minnesota and has spent years studying the effects of tree planting in India. “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,’” Fleischman says. “That’s going to have a bigger impact.”

Tree-planting started really trending in 2019, when a study published in the journal Science caused a commotion. It claimed that planting a trillion trees could capture more than a third of all the greenhouse gases humans have released since the industrial revolution. After the initial media blitz rallied excitement for the seemingly simple climate solution, a group of 46 scientists, including Fleischman, responded to the study with their critique.

To be clear, critics of the campaign are still fans of trees. They still think forests play a role in solving the climate crisis — their skepticism mostly centers around efforts to plant trees in places they weren’t before, or to plant large swaths of a single species to essentially create “tree plantations” instead of real forests. Another big concern surrounding the call for planting a trillion trees is that it could distract from other efforts to slow down climate change, like stopping fossil fuel pollution and deforestation in the first place.

Still, not all tree-planting initiatives are created equal. The location, species planted, and how people are involved can all jeopardize success.

In India, leading environmental groups opposed a project to plant 2 billion trees in the Cauvery river basin supported by the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation. They claimed in a letter that the campaign threatened to dry up streams and destroy habitats. People who live alongside and depend on the river would be affected too, says Prakash Kashwan, a political science professor at the University of Connecticut.

Now talking about effects

.Revival of afforested rivers solving water crisis

.After 40 years a single tree can absorb 1 ton CO2 annually so we will be eliminating 1 trillion tons of CO2 annually which certainly solve our global warming

.During the afforestation project, lakhs of laborers will be hired creating mass employment .

.Animals and birds will find a new and safe home

.After years forest will be source of precious minerals and products

.Climate change will be stopped or slowed

.So many trees will bring good rainfall for farmers and cool shelters for humans

.Air pollution will reduce so will be breathing problems and so will be fewer mortality rates.

.Endangered species and ecosystem will thrive back again

Thank you for reading!!