You can call me Al(bedo)
As a climate journalist, people often ask me: shouldn’t we just plant loads of trees?
The simplicity of digging spades into soil and turning landscapes leafy green is very appealing. Trees suck in carbon, so surely we should be planting as many as we can?
If only it were that easy. This week, I spoke to researchers who found that estimates of the climate impact of restoring tree cover are too high - by up to 81%.
That’s because the pros of new planting could be offset by an often unforeseen con: fresh tree cover can change the ability of the earth's surface to reflect sunlight back into space, known as the albedo effect.
For example, if a forest is planted where there was previously just snow cover, the land will reflect less solar radiation. That can negate the climate benefits of trees sucking in CO2.
Overall, trees play a huge role as "carbon sinks", with the world's forests absorbing a net 7.6 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. That's about 1.5 times the annual emissions of the United States.
But because of our friend Al(bedo), the climate benefits or drawbacks of reforestation depend on the location, said the researchers from Clark University, The Nature Conservancy and ETH-Zurich, a Swiss university.
Their conclusion: we ought to be far more selective about where we restore trees. So where should we be planting trees, and why?
A Malaysian fisherman plants mangrove saplings in Sungai Acheh in Penang, Malaysia December 28, 2021. Thomson Reuters Foundation/Beh Lih Yi