Turns out the best way to combat climate change is NOT flying in private jets across the world to meetings on how to stop the peasants from using fossil fuels, modern technology, and heat.
A “mind-blowing” study found that planting trees is far more effective at capturing CO2 than carbon credits, or other heavy-handed government actions.
How did the “science is settled” gate-keepers let this one slip through…
The abstract of the study states:
The restoration of trees remains among the most effective strategies for climate change mitigation…
Excluding existing trees and agricultural and urban areas, we found that there is room for an extra 0.9 billion hectares of canopy cover, which could store 205 gigatonnes of carbon in areas that would naturally support woodlands and forests. This highlights global tree restoration as our most effective climate change solution to date.
The study claims that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere could be cut by 25% if this area was planted. And like the abstract says, they aren’t even talking about farmland or currently settled areas, so food production and human habitats would not be affected.
Although this would require about 500 billion additional trees, there is no need for humans to plant all those trees. Just seeding new forests would be adequate to reforest large swaths of the earth.
Plus, each individual on earth doesn’t have to take responsibility for growing 71 trees. Organizations can mass scale this solution… even some unlikely ones.
For instance, in honor of Arbor Day, PornHub is planting one tree for every 100 videos watched in one particular category. So far they are up to 11,000 trees. Apparently, some people are already doing their part…
Planting trees is a good idea, even if you don’t think atmospheric carbon is too high.
Because if it were up to me (and it IS up to each of us making individual choices) then these new trees would be food trees.
Imagine a world where just walking down the street offered as much food as a supermarket aisle… except it was actually good for you, and free.
That’s really not that far fetched. Look into the closest forest, even a small strip of woods in between a parking lot and roadway. There are hundreds if not thousands of trees, shrubs, vines, mushrooms, and groundcover in there.
Chances are, there are already some edible plants present, like shagbark hickory nuts, raspberries, common brier, dandelions, puffballs, or common plantain (not the banana-like fruit, the leaf).
Imagine how much food could be packed into such a small area if humans were deliberately designing these woods to be food forests.
You start with large canopies like walnut or pecan trees, then move down to smaller fruit trees like apple and peach, then shrubs or smaller trees like blueberry or banana. Next add the vine layer with raspberry or beans, ground-cover (and underground) with peanuts or sweet potato, vegetable ground cover like lettuce or chicory, spices, and finally some edible mushrooms like boletes.
There are so many different plants to choose, based on your climate and what you like to eat.
After you do the initial hard work of creating a food forest, it perpetuates itself. That’s the whole point, forests are complete systems.
And as I’ve pointed out before, people that like to shift the burden to some faceless collective like “society” actually do less to impact their environment positively.
Studies show that people who favor government action don’t walk the walk, they just talk the talk.
That’s compared to a skeptic like me who has actually planted dozens of trees, built solar-powered cabins and solar-powered rainwater systems.
That’s the real inconvenient truth– inconvenient for the power-hungry. Individual action is the only thing which actually adds up to make a difference.
But believing the lies your overlords tell you is not required to be a proper steward of the environment.