[hunterx]

That's quite absurd. Planting 1T trees would be extremely nice to the environment yet we fail to see the big picture. In oceans we have less than half of the phytoplankton than we used to have only a century ago[1].

""The amount of carbon that we can restore if we plant 1.2 trillion trees, or at least allow those trees to grow, would be way higher than the next best climate change solution," Crowther told CNN."

Phytoplankton actually contributes more than trees do to tackle the big construct of "climate change".[2]

In the article, all the climate change action is taken against the CO2 levels in the atmosphere - but I think we can all agree there is more to it than just CO2 (and we can go quite deep on that rabbit hole and slash apart lots of this big amorphous mass of a construct).

On top of that, there are quite some theories on what drives climate change [3] and different views on it [4]. Yet all mediums speak from the same theory which is CO2 is bad. Period.

Now, as said before on a comment by Krageon and Arbalest, it will be the comparable to a person planting 129 trees.

Don't get me wrong I love trees, forest and all that - no question that's beautiful and has more profound effects than climate change alone in our environment and society - but one gets fed up by the `simplicity` we think as a society of these problems.

I guess this is my personal opinion but I think we can do better with technology (which is why we are all in this community anyway) than that. And, again in my opinion, should be the way we lead and liaise with this problem instead of `go plant more trees`.

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-shows-oceani...

[2]https://novapublishers.com/shop/phytoplankton-biology-classi...

[3]http://climatica.org.uk/climate-science-information/long-ter...

[4] https://www.bettermeetsreality.com/a-history-of-earths-carbo...

[pgeorgi]

> should be the way we lead and liaise with this problem instead of `go plant more trees`.

Why should it be one or the other? Let's do both (plus many more things).

Even the authors of this study mention that "planting trees" isn't enough, even for the CO2 issue alone, since planting trees is merely a mitigation for past damage.

[hunterx]

The point I was trying to make is not that it's exclusive and hence why I reiterated I'm not against planting trees. Or trees in general, in any case I like them quite a lot as I come form the countryside and miss the forest and mountains a lot.

One of the points I was trying to converge is on the danger these types of articles pose and is they are delusional. It makes society think oh well, that's a big problem but we have a readily available solution, just plant more trees and all is solved.

The other is on one of the statements which is dubious.

I do a lot of work on this area hence why I'm saying all of the above and that's what I found when speaking with general public. And also with people with `high educational degrees` which (in theory) take things more critically and think them through.