Analysis by Patrick Worms, Mongabay Series on 10 August 2020

Though forests burn, trees retake farmland globally as agroforestry advances. Agroforestry is an ancient agricultural technique being rediscovered all over the world as limitations of the globe’s highly industrialized agriculture become obvious. Agroforestry is the intentional combination of woody perennials like trees and shrubs with crops and also livestock to create a resilient “food ecosystem” that benefits farmers, biodiversity and the climate.

https://news.mongabay.com/2020/08/though-forests-burn-agroforestry-advances-as-trees-retake-farmland-globally/

Today will go down in history as one of the most monumental days in forest conservation.

The Great American Outdoors Act was signed into law. This federal legislation will, for the first time ever, guarantee full access to the $900 million per year that was promised to the Land and Water Conservation Fund when it was created more than 50 years ago. That means twice as much forest conservation each year — leading to more public forests for people in the United States to enjoy and more private forests permanently conserved for future generations.

Thank you to everyone who made this win possible, expressions on social media and financial support. Appreciation also goes to Congressional leaders for this legislation.

All of the policy wins since American Forests was created 146 years ago have grown from that type of commitment. Like legislation that led to the creation of the U.S. Forest Service in 1905 and subsequent legislation to expand our national forest system to the eastern states in 1911. And, more recently, in 2018, legislation that provides long-term funding for the Forest Service to more fully address our growing threats from wildfire.

We are just getting started! Read our latest story to learn more:

https://www.americanforests.org/af-news/great-american-outdoors-act-signed-into-law/

Let’s keep the momentum going! America loves its forests, and Congress is ready to act. We hope you stay with us for the ride.

Jad Daley, President and CEO
American Forests, 1‌220 L S‌treet NW,
Suite 750, Washington, DC 20005

Yeah it sounds good, in English but is it a rounding of a number derived from an exercise like this: we want to sequester xxxxx tons of carbon per year. The average mature tree sequesters X tons annually, therefore we need–oh, let’s say a trillion trees, that has a nice ring. Then it’s presented as though it’s just a matter of PAYING for someone to plant these trees–thus this scheme can be used as offsets, wherein polluters in the Global North can (theoretically) pay someone in the Global South to plant these trees, or to kick indigenous people out of forests to theoretically protect existing forests, (REDD+) while not cutting their emissions. But we need to cut the emissions of the big polluters in the global North, and the only way to do that is to cut emissions in the global North.

The key question is WHERE are these trillion trees to be planted?

Actually, trees plant themselves–they don’t need human intervention (the intervention we need is to somehow stop humans from cutting down existing forests). It would be pointless to plant trees in the Antarctic, even though there is plenty of empty land there. Trees will only grow where it’s not too hot, not too cold, not too wet and not too dry. The places that are appropriate for forests already have forests–unless humans have removed them, either for the timber or to use the cleared land for agriculture or living space.

We certainly aren’t going to be needing LESS agricultural space, especially since some of the other Nature Based Solutions involve fermenting or burning crops for fuel. Nor are we going to need less living space. We could do with a transition that involves much less highway and parking space, but it’s questionable whether the emissions from jackhammering up all that concrete would outweigh the advantage gained by planting trees in the space afterward.

Sure, there are some spaces to plant more trees, like lawns in suburbia. But a trillion? I doubt it.

The problem with all the schemes to deal with climate change coming out of IPPC and similar organizations, is that they start with the bedrock principle of this civilization: we can only do what will make rich people richer. Real solutions involve reducing the wealth of the wealthy and the power of the powerful so they are NOT PRACTICAL. In other words–solving this problem (not only climate change but plummeting biodiversity) is not compatible with capitalism.