[onion2k]

Does that $47m cost include the price of the land?

If the government doesn't have that much viable tree-planting space available then they either have to seize it which would make some people very unhappy, or compulsorily purchase it which would push the cost up a lot. That isn't a reason not to do it, but in order to talk about it you need to be clear about what you're actually talking about.

[pharke]

Why only those two options for getting trees onto private land? Why not an incentive system for landowners to plant and maintain trees? Let the government plant trees on your lawn and get a reduction in your land tax.

[SkyBelow]

One option is to subsidize the trees as a future investment for the one planting. While this won't do much to get people to plan trees where cities are at, in more rural areas you can convince someone to plan trees that will be able to be harvested in 50+ years. The only catch is that the people who own land are likely old enough they won't see the returns themselves, but if you present this as a method for investing in your children's future it could get buy in. A contract could also include an early sell penalty to dissuade people form cutting too early. Something like "If you sell early, the government is owed 50% of the total sell value. This percentage reduces by 1 per year until it reaches 0% at 50 years. This is in addition to any taxes owed on the sell."

Also, just advertisement and information campaign aimed at getting people to plant trees in rural areas as an investment in their children's future would encourage more planting as well.

[onion2k]

That would still be a significant cost (in lost tax receipts).

[wolco]

Tax credit on new greenhouse tax. Revenue neutral if done right.

[theothermkn]

> but in order to talk about it you need to be clear about what you're actually talking about.

We absolutely do need to know what we're talking about. For example, the seize-or-purchase dichotomy is a false one. The article mentions, for example:

> But although tree planting on such a colossal scale faces significant challenges (not least identifying who owns the land in question, and securing the rights to plant and maintain trees there), widespread efforts are already underway. [Italics mine.]

In other words, the government doesn't have to seize or purchase the land. They are after a specific right, which we could even imaging being structured, where appropriate, as a subsidized service that owners of degraded land might clamor to receive.

We could almost even suppose that the people who are presenting these figures have take these things into account, at least tentatively.

[abdullahkhalids]

Not at all. I don't think a single m^2 of land has been or will be seized or bought for any of this.

Actually, I should have been more clear - this is just the money coming out of the government budget. Some unspecified amount of money is coming from private-public partnerships and from donations. The trees are being planted on deforested public land, or just private land where the owners are happy to have forests/trees up, or in public urban spaces. Pakistan has already been hit very hard by climate change - for example by multiple catastrophic floods in the past two decades. There is a lot of public support for this venture.