So why really? I have followed the global warming alarmism issue for many years, and I am aware of the general theory brought forward that trees in general cool the air through evatranspiration, reduce air pollutants, and act as carbon sinks when leaves absorb sunlight (which cause warming) or theory of carbon sequestration.Reducing carbon emission is unlikely with the adamancy of developed countries to cooperate, while alternative and renewable energy sources are still in the fledgling stage. That leaves the massive planting of trees—to absorb the existing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which will mitigate global warming and climate change—as the only doable recourse. Furthermore, tree planting has multifarious beneficial effects on mankind.
Why then have world leaders not focused on this endeavor?
She asks why? Many have debunked this, at the very least, because the amount of long-term net carbon sequestration is not very high, thus not a very good reducer of warming. Also, it appears that trees and forests in the world do not actt the same way in terms of carbon sequestration. Areas near the equator or the tropics may allow greater sequestration but other areas in the world would have different if not opposite effect on sequestration and warming.
So why have leaders not focused on planting more trees to fight global warming? I think it is obvious. It isn't slam dunk. Period.