A new study identifies 195 million hectares globally as optimal for reforestation. Restoring these areas could remove 2.2 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year from the atmosphere.
A new study identifies 195 million hectares globally as optimal for reforestation. Restoring these areas could remove 2.2 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year from the atmosphere.
cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/6054530
A new study identifies 195 million hectares globally as optimal for reforestation without harming people or wildlife. Restoring these areas could remove 2.2 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year—equivale...
This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/science by /u/-Mystica- on 2025-06-12 01:41:50+00:00.
Original Title: A new study identifies 195 million hectares globally as optimal for reforestation without harming people or wildlife. Restoring these areas could remove 2.2 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year—equivalent to the annual emissions of the European Union.
Kinda burying the lede, there. 2225 Tg is 2.225 Gt against current emissions of ~40 Gt.
So all we gotta do is reforest 750,000 square miles, keep a good chunk of that from burning down in an increasingly wildfire-prone climate, keep the existing forests standing, and then we're on track to reduce our net emissions by 5%.
Reforestation is an inherently good idea but I am not a fan of constantly having to pitch it as a climate change mitigation strategy.
Also, forests do not keep accumulating carbon forever. At some point the system reaches an equilibrium where any new carbon trapped is offset by an equal amount respired out.
Yeah, the authors mention their time frame of analysis is 30 years, so it's more like an abatement potential of 66 Gt total + some unknown quantity that they are currently unable to account for, not 2 Gt/year indefinitely.
I mean the current approach is "eventually somebody will invent the CO2 vacuum that runs on laughter" so I'm thinking it's kind of useful to at least argue for against the CO2 vacuum that runs on fossil fuels in a harm reduction type of way
Not trying to get too doomer here, but the odds of implementing this plan are as likely as the invention of the laughter-fueled CO2 vacuum. The scientific literature is stuffed to the gills with good ideas. We have more good ideas than we know what to do with, but we will do nothing with them because the oil runs through the veins of our ossified political system and will continue to do so until someone
the , ideally with a that causes as much as possible as a warning to future would-be . So I'm getting increasingly convinced that these studies just keep getting published because the cynical bastards know optimistic headlines can be used to keep us speeding to disaster; that so long as we "know" that potential fixes exist it can be used as justification to keep procrastinating on them.