Y& #39;all, planting trees willy-nilly will not solve our emissions problems.

@CrowtherLab made (at least) 7 major errors:
1. Total historical emissions are 2x their number (600 GtC, not 300)
2. They overestimate max C per forest area

1/4

3. They ignore existing soil & veg carbon in target areas
4. They ignore that it takes time for carbon to accumulate (= time lags in sequestration)
5. They ignore feedbacks w/ albedo in future projections...
6. ...& feedbacks w/ [CO2]
7. Afforestation is not reforestation!

2/4

The evidence (3 independent technical comments!):
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6463/eaay8060
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/3... href=" https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6463/eaaz0388
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/3... href=" https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6463/eaay7976

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/3... href="https://www.twtext.com//hashtag/notaforest"> #notaforest #bonnchallenge @jgpausas @SimonLLewis

3/4

Comment on “The global tree restoration potential”

Bastin et al .’s estimate (Reports, 5 July 2019, p. 76) that tree planting for climate change mitigation could sequester 205 gigatonnes of carbon is approximately five times too large. Their analysis...

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6463/eaay8060

Their rebuttal:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6463/eaay8108

4/4">https://science.sciencemag.org/content/3...

I missed one, arguing that, even if planting trees had the proposed outcome, planting enough trees is not actually possible: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6463/eaay8334">https://science.sciencemag.org/content/3...