[martingoodson]

There is evidence that performing minor activities like tree planting actually reduces willingness to take meaningful action against climate change. This is called the 'low cost' hypothesis [1].

If you wanted to reduce public pressure against fossil fuels you would instigate something exactly like a tree planting program.

[1] https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v166y2019ic2.html

[grawprog]

Treeplanting itself is of mixed usefulness. I've done some treeplanting, sometimes it's done well, native species are used, trees are planted properly in appropriate spots, other times, no care in tree selection is used, and introduced/invasive or just unsuitable trees are planted, trees are planted inmproperly or in locations where they won't grow and a lot of money and time ends up wasted for no benefits.

[ars]

> that performing minor activities

Can I assume you are also opposed to straw and plastic bag bans? Unlike tree planting which at least does something, those bans are almost entirely worthless.

[mikeyouse]

Neither of those have anything to do with climate change.

[Charlie_26]

Plastic production requires oil

[8bitsrule]

Plastic incineration creates CO2.

[gamblor956]

Bans on straws and plastic bags have a direct measurable impact on local marine wildlife and in the reduction of microplastics.

Now that Asian countries are introducing bans, we should start seeing slowing microplastic accumulation. Within a decade microplastic accumulation should peak. By then we'll have more efficient means of addressing microplastic pollution.

One point not often brought up is that microplastics in the ocean contribute to ocean temperature rise, since the plastics are able to retain (and thus radiate) more thermal energy. This one of the reasons the great garbage patches are hypoxic--warmer water holds less oxygen.