"Things You Wouldn't Know If We Didn't Blog Intermittently."
The EU has committed to planting 3 billion trees in the effort to combat climate change. That is a very big number, especially considering that the EU is pretty foresty already. Microforest have to be part of that strategy.What's not mentioned is that they are little oasis for birds and insects migrating.
The biggest problem I see with regard to trees vs. climate change is that trees provide only a very temporary reservoir for carbon. In a couple decades or perhaps a century, all of the sequestered carbon is returned to the atmosphere. The only way to prevent that is to cut down the tree and shellac it as furniture, or to bury it in an effort to create coal.
As long as you allot an area to a forest in perpetuity, that is a lot of carbon captured, compared to say the same area used as a farm. It's not a zero sum, even if you eventually use that wood to make paper or heat homes. But then again, people prophesied floods and hurricanes, methane release and even ocean acidification. Who would have thought, that forest fires would be one of the earliest consequences. Maybe they suggest microforests so the fires can be managed.
As long as you allot an area to a forest in perpetuity, that is a lot of carbon captured, compared to say the same area used as a farm.True that. Note that with fighting climate change, there is no one simple solution. The problem is mindbogglingly complex. The solution is multifaceted and even more complex. It is however, relevant that we do not get paralyzed over ideal solutions. Everything that is a significant change for the better is good. Trees are a great carbon sink. That's good. Let's go. Secondarily, we should also make sure that when those trees stop being trees, we use them in a way that is carbon neutral. For instance by mulching them. Or by using them to build long lasting structures. Worst option, but still carbon neutral, is to burn them for energy. BTW, trees are not only a good carbon sink. They also provide shade, natural habitat, prevent erosion, absorb water which prevents flooding, etc. The Dutch government has made it policy a long time ago to use the "inner" parts of highway exchanges as small natural parks. Most of them are marshy water collection points. Helps with flooding, provides good protected habitat because few humans are there. Good stuff. It costs a little money, but the benefits are larger than that. Politically, it's hard though to get the road builders and nature conservancy folks to work together well. Road builders like to cut trees. Nature folks like to grow them.