Planting trees
is not the solution
A tree needs at least one year to store 20 kg of CO2. However, when a tree reaches maturity it becomes a very useful tool for extracting carbon from the atmosphere. In fact, forests absorb almost a third of the CO2 that we generate each year by burning fossil fuels. So it would be very easy to compensate for the CO2 we emit by simply multiplying the planet’s forest area by three or four times.
However, these calculations are unrealistic because although forests are a carbon sink, they are also a CO2 emitter at the same time.
When forests burn, are cut down or decompose naturally, the trees re-release the carbon absorbed during their lifetime. The cycle is very complex and it is difficult to establish what part of the emissions is natural and what part is due to human actions. Also, betting on uncontrolled reforestation can end up having undesirable impacts on biodiversity and people.
Some of the most important negative impacts can be highlighted:
- Planting a forest where there used to be meadows and pastures can alter the water cycle and the availability of fresh water, increase the risk of fires or affect biodiversity.
- Draining peatlands or wetlands to build forests will end up releasing the large amounts of carbon that these ecosystems naturally (and very efficiently) store.
- The reforestation of certain areas requires a costly maintenance investment that generally isn´t accounted for , this is troublesome to the point that forests are often neglected once they have been planted due to budget shortages.
- Reforesting degraded forests is a good idea, but it can increase the vulnerability of the communities that depend on them if their rights are not taken into account.
And the most important negative effect that can occur if we engage in reforestation as a CO2 absorption measure, is that we would eliminate any possibility of being able to feed everyone based on the expected exponential increase in population.
By 2050, according to the World Resources Institute, we will have to increase world food production by 70% to be able to meet the demand of the entire population. If we add to this effect the desertification that is affecting the southern hemisphere of the planet, we find that we will have to at least triple the agricultural areas in the world to supply the entire population.
In other words, if we dedicate ourselves to reforesting large areas instead of converting them into productive zones, we will end up with a healthy planet, but without sufficient resources to feed the entire population.