Be-leaf it or knot: Are tree-planting initiatives up to snuff or are they going up in smoke?

Back in the March 21, 2022 edition of the Skeptics Newsletter, I wrote about the scheme/scam of becoming a fake Scottish Lord (or Laird as the case may be). One of the new sales tactics is to take on a conservation mission to your purchase, the promise that you are saving some wildcats, creating a nature reserve, or having a tree dedicated in your honour. The impact of these add-ons is questionable, subject to lawsuits and allegation of funny financial dealings. Even more concerning is the lack of transparency about who is advising these companies about the reintroduction of nativa trees and the deforestation of invasive ones.

On Friday, September 2nd, my Vice newsletter appeared in my inbox with an article that claimed that tree-planting programmes were more likely to create tree-cemeteries than thriving forests. Reporting on the failure of a carbon sink in Norfolk, England, Sophia Smith Galer attributed the death of 90% of 6000 trees planted to mismanagement: trees were planted at the wrong time of year and so shallowly that they couldn't take root. These mistakes actually had a more deleterious effect as the grassland where the planting took place was rich in wildflowers and already a carbon sink; inadequate planting practices had actually destroyed the ecosystem rather than enhanced it.

Sophia Smith Galer also reported on similar missteps in a similar scheme ran by Middlesbrough Council Trees planted on a sweltering hot day and planted of species not native to the area while the Hackney Council challenged accusations of planting too late in the year with no mulch for the poor performance of their urban forest. Cities and countries worldwide are committing to plant trees numbering in the millions and billions and meeting the same obstacles. Pakistan's plan to plant 10 billion trees has been criticised for poor planning as saplings are placed in areas suffering from water scarcity Many trees in the city of Copenhagen die simply because no one took into account how the city operated: saplings died due to being hit by bikes and cars or poisoned due to the salt that was put onto the road. Tree planting programmes in Africa are notorious for mismatching the sapling with the existing ecosystem while not truly committing to true reforestation; instead, the saplings are intended to replenish commodities like rubber. Planting programmes that fail to thoroughly research their setting fail to understand how barren land is actually used, damaging the economy along with the surroundings. Again, in Pakistan, grazing animals are banned from pastures that were converted into planting spaces, which has inadvertently increased the risk of wildfires and forced many to give up farming altogether.

Tree planting was a pretty popular activity in Canada. Not because anyone enjoyed it mind you; it is labour intensive and requires an ungodly number of people to get done. The Boy Scouts were especially unwilling recruits, spending spring and summers pushing helpless saplings into unforgiving terrain as a service/fundraising activity. It is a long-established green-washing global-warming prevention activity that doesn't require a city council or national government to give serious consideration to the real drivers of pollution and climate change, such as the deforestation that requires reforestation in the first place.

Despite the ease with which volunteers can be recruited to sacrifice their Saturday morning, trees are unexpectedly expensive. It can take many years before a sapling can be effective in reducing carbon emissions and planting them the right way the first time is expensive. There is also the issue that as cities continue to expand and grow, they can become microclimates in their own right, complicating the question of whether a native species (or in the case of some cities, the tree that they are most known) is actually preferable to a non-native species. One example is the Los Angeles' palm trees, which are slowly dying due to beetle and fungus infestations; most will not be replaced and the city is considering alternatives that provide more shade while requiring less water.

Science also does not back-up the goals of many of these planting programmes. Trees are absolutely effective in cooling and carbon management and so forth. Given how difficult it is for many cities to meet their one million tree goal, planting enough trees to store 25% of the current atmospheric carbon pool (approximately one trillion), as suggested by one lab, is impossible. Many grasslands, which reflect rather than absorb heat, would be destroyed in the process and are just as if not more valuable as carbon sinks.

In 2021, Dr. Alice Di Sacco and Dr. Kate Hardwick published a paper with 10 golden rules to reforestation. One of the chief failings of tree plantation initiatives that they identified was monoculture (planting of a single species) rather than natural restoration practices that reflect the actual diversity of a region. Monoculture has been a noted issue in urban reforestation programmes where a large number of trees can be wiped out with a single infestation. Amongst their recommendations were to select a variety of plant species if artificial reforestation was necessary but to otherwise let natural regeneration take its course if existing flora and fauna allowed it. This later method cost the least amount of money and required the least amount of human impact.

New Zealand has made a pledge to plant one billion trees by 2028. Their programme currently appears sound environmentally and ethically and appears to balance both commercial plans with the need for permanent forests. However, exotic trees as part of plantation forests are part of the plan and account for 30% of the trees planted as of the 30 month monitoring report; most of these exotic trees are located in the South Island. We already know that doTERRA's has invested in a multi-year, multi-million dollar contract with a New Zealand company to provide the MLM with Douglas Fir essential oil; however, there is no indication that they are part of this particular initiative. Things appear promising overall but the proof and benefits are unlikely to be enjoyed in any of our lifetimes; growing a tree takes decades longer than the minutes it takes to plant it.