Nature-based solutions to climate change: What's the difference between rewilding and reforesting?

[UngulateNerd92]

Earlier this week, the third IPCC report was released - this time looking at how we can mitigate global warming. Although new technologies were the focus of much of the report, many people are also looking for natural solutions to the climate crisis.

There is also a growing awareness of a global biodiversity crisis, with two-thirds of wildlife lost since 1970.

As a result, reforestation has become a hot topic with many people believing that it’s the best way to absorb carbon emissions from human activities.

Another concept which is on the political agenda is rewilding, letting nature ‘heal’ by stopping human interference in certain areas and encouraging biodiversity to thrive.

But what are the differences between reforesting and rewilding two things? And is tree planting on its own enough to slow down climate change?

https://www-euronews-com.cdn.amppro...t-s-the-difference-between-rewilding-and-refo

 

[Zooplantman]

Several studies recently have revealed the pointless waste of resources that is most tree planting projects. Simple plopping seedlings or even saplings into fields and clearings does not result in healthy established woodlands most of the time. And often inappropriate tree species are used. When you consider the water, packaging, transportation fuels and human resources spent on the projects they often are a net loss for climate protection. But we prefer to believe in working harder on climate schemes than working smarter on the causes of climate change.
Without fundamental societal, world-wide changes to how we relate to resource use and a rethink of consumer economics and lifestyle, there is no scheme large enough to capture the carbon we produce. We have had the same conversation for fifty years and have not slowed the damaging trends enough to matter. This is human pathology not conservation.