Tree planting has become a popular strategy in the fight against climate change. But it’s not as simple as just putting saplings in the ground. A big study looking at reforestation in 130 countries found some surprising results.
Sometimes, natural regrowth is more cost-effective than planting trees. This means letting forests come back on their own without human help.
But planting trees still has its place. In some areas, it’s faster and more efficient than waiting for natural regrowth. The best approach? A mix of both methods. Using natural regrowth and planting together is about 40% better than using either method alone.
Where you are in the world matters too.
Natural regrowth works well in places like:
- Western Mexico
- Parts of South America
- West and Central Africa
- India
- Southern China
- Malaysia
- Indonesia
On the flip side, planting trees is often better in:
- The Caribbean
- Central America
- Brazil
- Northern China
- Mainland Southeast Asia
- The Philippines
- North, East, and Southern Africa
Why the difference? It depends on things like:
- How much it costs to use the land
- How fast trees grow in that area
- How much it costs to plant and care for trees
It’s important to remember that growing trees isn’t the only answer to climate change. It helps, but it can’t replace cutting down on fossil fuels. Even if we planted trees everywhere possible, it would only make up for about 8 months of global greenhouse gas emissions over 30 years.
Trees do more than just store carbon. They’re good for wildlife, provide wood products, help local communities, and affect the environment in other ways. So when deciding where to grow trees, we need to think about all these factors.
The good news? This study shows that reforestation could help fight climate change more than we thought, and often at a lower cost. It’s not a magic solution, but it’s a useful tool in our climate change toolbox.
