Science

23521 readers

1 users here now

Welcome to Hexbear's science community!

Subscribe to see posts about research and scientific coverage of current events

No distasteful shitposting, pseudoscience, or COVID-19 misinformation.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

gaycomputeruser@hexbear.net

ZoomeristLeninist@hexbear.net

thelastaxolotl@hexbear.net

Wake@hexbear.net

A new study identifies 195 million hectares globally as optimal for reforestation. Restoring these areas could remove 2.2 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year from the atmosphere. (www.nature.com)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by realitista@lemm.ee to c/science@hexbear.net

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/6054530

A new study identifies 195 million hectares globally as optimal for reforestation without harming people or wildlife. Restoring these areas could remove 2.2 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year—equivale...

This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/science by /u/-Mystica- on 2025-06-12 01:41:50+00:00.

Original Title: A new study identifies 195 million hectares globally as optimal for reforestation without harming people or wildlife. Restoring these areas could remove 2.2 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year—equivalent to the annual emissions of the European Union.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Across scenarios, we find up to 195 Mha (million hectares) are available (2225 TgCO2e (teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalent) per year total net mitigation potential), which is 71–92% smaller than previous estimates

Kinda burying the lede, there. 2225 Tg is 2.225 Gt against current emissions of ~40 Gt.

So all we gotta do is reforest 750,000 square miles, keep a good chunk of that from burning down in an increasingly wildfire-prone climate, keep the existing forests standing, and then we're on track to reduce our net emissions by 5%.

Reforestation is an inherently good idea but I am not a fan of constantly having to pitch it as a climate change mitigation strategy.

[–] theturtlemoves@hexbear.net 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Also, forests do not keep accumulating carbon forever. At some point the system reaches an equilibrium where any new carbon trapped is offset by an equal amount respired out.

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago

Yeah, the authors mention their time frame of analysis is 30 years, so it's more like an abatement potential of 66 Gt total + some unknown quantity that they are currently unable to account for, not 2 Gt/year indefinitely.

[–] 7bicycles@hexbear.net 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I mean the current approach is "eventually somebody will invent the CO2 vacuum that runs on laughter" so I'm thinking it's kind of useful to at least argue for against the CO2 vacuum that runs on fossil fuels in a harm reduction type of way

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Not trying to get too doomer here, but the odds of implementing this plan are as likely as the invention of the laughter-fueled CO2 vacuum. The scientific literature is stuffed to the gills with good ideas. We have more good ideas than we know what to do with, but we will do nothing with them because the oil runs through the veins of our ossified political system and will continue to do so until someone redacted-1 redacted-2 the , ideally with a that causes as much as possible as a warning to future would-be . So I'm getting increasingly convinced that these studies just keep getting published because the cynical bastards know optimistic headlines can be used to keep us speeding to disaster; that so long as we "know" that potential fixes exist it can be used as justification to keep procrastinating on them.

[–] 7bicycles@hexbear.net 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm not saying you should honestly advocate for this, I'm saying you use it to poison the well whenever somebody want to build the next CO2 scrubber that creates more CO2 than it scrubs. Tree good machine bad for climate seems like an easy enough sell to a general populace and might serve to at least not get the greenwashed pollution machine that serves 0 value built.

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 1 points 2 months ago

The thing is it's not the general populace that's building them; from a recent (and exceptionally poorly written) NY times article:

The industry is not in complete free fall.
Two major direct air capture developments that were greenlit by the Biden administration, including one in Louisiana involving Climeworks that is known as Project Cypress, were not among the projects canceled by the Energy Department.
Wurzbacher said his company’s interactions with the Trump administration have been limited, but that, for now, he expects Project Cypress to move forward, albeit with some delays.
Tax credits for carbon capture projects have so far survived Republican negotiations over their signature policy bill, unlike some other clean energy tax credits. (The ability to transfer these tax credits them may be limited, which could hurt some start-ups.)
And in April, Occidental Petroleum, a major oil and gas company that is also investing in direct air capture technology, received government approval to sequester the carbon dioxide it sucks out of the air with a giant new facility it is building in Texas.
Vicki Hollub, Occidental’s chief executive, said the project would “help the United States achieve energy security,” a rhetorical nod to Trump.
She added that the project would “help organizations address their emissions,” a nod to companies that want to permanently sequester carbon dioxide underground in a bid to blunt global warming.
At the same time, she said that direct air capture could help “produce vital resources and fuels,” a reference to the practice of using captured carbon dioxide to extract more gas from beneath the ground.
Proponents have portrayed carbon capture as necessary to hit longer-term global climate targets, but the prospect of using captured carbon to produce more fossil fuels leads some climate activists see it as little more than a ruse designed to help perpetuate the oil and gas business.

The crappy CO2 scrubbers keep getting subsidized because oil companies use the CO2 to extract more oil. The dems started pulling this trick in the IRA.