I hate blanket statements like the idea that planting trees will save the world.
It all depends on which tree, where they plant it and how one maintains the trees.
When one looks at most trees in the city, one finds that the city will release more carbon into the atmoshere than the tree will ever sequestor. A prime exampe are the trees planted beneath power lines which have to be trimmed on a regular basis.
I like the term "blood carbon."
The sad truth is that some environmentalists want to see the people displaced. The most rabid environmentalists like seeing businesses shut down and people moved from their homes.
It is a great sense of power.
Personally, I believe that local people are the solution. People who carefully study the local resources are the ones best positioned to preserve nature as their seek to optimize the use of the local resources.
!WINE
Posted using STEMGeeks
In many cases interests play an important role, and a saying from my land applies.
"The big fish eat the small ones", and in this matter of climate change in a very "abstract" way, using the words of some of the speakers at the Davos forum.
The important thing is that the solution here is the one that has always been proposed, planting trees in the cleared areas.
That's what needs to be done first.
Then you can consider secondary ideas.
Thank you for your comments and greetings....