top of page
Writer's pictureTurtle in Chief

The siren song of the simple solution 

We're facing a climate cataclysm of unimaginable magnitude. At this point I believe that we're wasting our time trying to convince climate deniers of the reality of climate change. I mean this as a positive statement, because there are enough believers to start making a difference if we take well-thought-out and coordinated action. We still need to force politicians to enact meaningful legislation, but I'm not including them in the category of deniers. With a few notable exceptions, elected officials didn't get where they are by being stupid. You can be sure that even as they feed constituents' fantasies of climate change as an elaborate hoax, they are making contingency plans. Rather than convincing, they just need gotten rid of.

Once these climate action obstructors are gone, what then? While the Green New Deal offers a glimmer of hope that some are attepting to envision a comprehensive plan in this country, many news articles offer simple, linear narratives with a built-in quick fix. Plant more trees! Eat less meat! Suck carbon from the air with giant machines! These news stories are comforting because they offer simply ways to combat climate change, but they often don't provide much analysis. For instance, the proposition of planting more trees is just an idea. To turn it into a solution it needs localized, site-specific, system-thinking-based analysis combined with political considerations. In other words we need to answer the questions, where and how is this plan biologically suitable, and how to we get it legislated and funded?

Let's take a look at the "plant more trees" idea. Reforestation is absolutely necessary to sequester carbon, restore functioning ecosystems, and prevent further extinctions of forest dwelling organisms. It is mainly feasible in areas that were previously forested, and still receive adequate rainfall to support survival of forests. Even in such areas, extreme soil degradation can make reforestation difficult. Attempting to grow trees in arid regions, or areas that previously supported forests but are now extremely degraded, will require large inputs. Whether the effort is worth the result would need to be judged on a site by site basis.

Rainforests cannot be recreated simply by planting trees. The great richness of such forests is held in the vegetation itself, and when it is removed a thin, poor soil remains. Once a large enough area is cleared, rainfall is affected, making restoration challenging if not impossible.


Especially in rainforests, but also anywhere native forests are being destroyed, stopping deforestation in the first place is the priority. This presents enormous political challenges, but makes far more sense that reforestation. At long as the cutting continues, reforestation programs will be competing with deforestation elsewhere. This is obvious, but needs to be stated in any discussion of tree planting.

What about immediately replanting trees after harvesting existing forest? While saplings sequester carbon as they grow, a plantation will not replace the functioning ecosystem that was destroyed. We need to be on the lookout for schemes that put forward continual harvest of trees followed by regrowth of plantations as a solution. This is just monocropping trees, not true reforestation.

For true reforestation, identifying appropriate areas is key. In the eastern United States restoring forests makes sense, but there are considerations. Trees simply planted and left must survive browsing deer and strangling, invasive plants. Before embarking on expensive projects we should consider doing nothing. Because forest is part of natural succession here, the cost/benefit analysis of simply letting land revert to forest holds up better to scrutiny than that of a tree planting program. Abandoned farmland will revert to forest, as will your lawn if you stop mowing.

Unlike many parts of the world, here there aren't vast tracts of land abandoned due to degradation. So where should trees be grown? In the last few decades subsidies to farmers who planted corn, driven in part by ethanol mandates, encouraged the encroachment into sloped land, low land, and land closer to waterways. At the very least we should reverse this trend and pay farmers to let such areas revert to trees. How about money for non-farming landowners to grow trees? Drive around and observe land that's being mowed for no good reason before you pass judgement on that idea.

Of course, most parts of the world aren't like the eastern U.S. Reforestation fantasies usually involve vast tracts of degraded land in other countries that is of no use for agriculture. These areas are prime candidates politically for reforestation because no one has to be kicked off land that has been abandoned. However in many cases such areas were originally grasslands and have been degraded due to overgrazing, changes in rainfall patterns, or both. Attempting to reforest these lands would be working against nature, and the natural course of action would be restoring them to healthy grasslands. By far the easiest way to accomplish this is by utilizing grazing animals to mimic the process of grassland development, and in fact this might be the only way. Unfortunately current simplified narratives (eat less meat!) vilify domesticated ruminants as the cause of land degradation and it's politically unpopular to champion sheep and cattle raising as a method of restoration. (More on this in a future post. )

I used the word fantasy in the last paragraph because the reality of tree planting programs around the world might not fit the scenario of restoring uninhabited land. It's possible that we may witness forced removal of the poor or indigenous from their lands using the justification of conservation or rewilding, which is already happening in India. Also conceivable is the use of coerced labor in certain parts of the world. Corruption is virtually guaranteed if governments offer lucrative contracts to tree planting companies without adequate oversight.


All of these complications should not prevent us from planting trees if informed analysis recommends it. Trees are wonderful carbon sequestering organisms that also provide countless other benefits under the proper circumstances. I hope this post motivates readers to investigate climate change solutions more thoroughly, and dissect the narratives that are being presented to us.

11 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Commentaires


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page