Workers
plant
a
Douglas
fir
during
a
reforestation
campaign
in
the
Harz
Mountains
in
northern
Germany
on
April
26,
2025.
Swen
Pförtner
/
picture
alliance
via
Getty
Images
Why
you
can
trust
us
Founded
in
2005
as
an
Ohio-based
environmental
newspaper,
EcoWatch
is
a
digital
platform
dedicated
to
publishing
quality,
science-based
content
on
environmental
issues,
causes,
and
solutions.
Researchers
have
revealed
new
maps
that
show
the
best
places
to
regrow
forests
across
the
world
to
tackle
the
climate
crisis.
The
areas
include
western
Canada,
the
eastern
United
States,
Colombia,
Brazil
and
Europe.
They
add
up
to
a
total
of
482
million
acres
that,
if
reforested,
would
remove
2.43
million
tons
of
carbon
dioxide
each
year
—
nearly
as
much
as
all
the
total
carbon
emissions
produced
by
the
European
Union,
reported
The
Guardian.
“Natural
climate
solutions
(NCS)
are
ecosystem
stewardship
actions
that
protect,
manage,
and
restore
natural
and
working
lands
to
provide
measurable
climate
change
mitigation,
and
have
garnered
increasing
international
and
policy
recognition,”
the
authors
of
the
study
wrote.
“Reforestation
—
the
restoration
of
forest
cover
via
tree
planting,
direct
seeding,
or
natural
regrowth
in
places
where
forests
are
absent
but
naturally
occur
—
is
especially
promising
because
it
is
the
largest
and
most
cost-effective
option
for
carbon
removal.”
New
maps
show
reforesting
areas
across
the
globe
could
remove
1.5bn
tonnes
of
CO2
a
year
without
harming
people
or
wildlife.
Reforestation
opportunity
maps
like
this
are
essential
as
regrowing
trees
remains
a
cost-effective
option
for
removing
CO2
from
the
atmosphere.
Graphic:
@theguardian.com[image
or
embed]—
Atmos
(@atmosmag.bsky.social)June
11,
2025
at
2:37
PM
The
research
team
that
developed
the
new
maps
considered
earlier
maps
that
had
suggested
regrowing
trees
was
possible
in
larger
areas,
but
took
a
more
conservative
approach,
focusing
on
regions
with
the
most
potential
and
least
number
of
issues.
The
team
focused
exclusively
on
dense
forests
with
closed
canopies,
excluding
areas
that
had
recently
been
impacted
by
wildfires.
The
482
million
acres
that
could
potentially
be
reforested
is
an
area
90
percent
smaller
than
had
been
shown
on
previous
maps.
The
researchers
took
into
consideration
the
importance
of
avoiding
social
conflicts
with
Indigenous
Peoples,
which
is
critical,
since
nearly
100
million
people
live
within
the
prospective
replanting
area.
Maps
that
show
opportunities
for
reforestation
are
important
since
tree
planting
is
the
biggest
and
least
expensive
carbon
removal
option.
However,
it’s
important
for
these
initiatives
to
focus
on
areas
that
are
most
suitable
for
regrowing
trees
in
order
to
maximize
their
impact.
“Reforestation
is
not
a
substitute
for
cutting
fossil
fuel
emissions,
but
even
if
we
were
to
drive
down
emissions
tomorrow,
we
still
need
to
remove
excess
CO2
from
the
atmosphere,”
said
senior
author
of
the
study
Dr.
Susan
Cook-Patton,
lead
reforestation
scientist
with
The
Nature
Conservancy’s
Natural
Climate
Solutions
team,
as
The
Guardian
reported.
“Many,
many
years
of
evolution
have
gone
into
trees
figuring
out
how
to
suck
CO2
from
the
atmosphere
and
lock
it
into
carbon
stores,
so
it’s
ready
to
scale
now.”
Cook-Patton
said
that,
as
the
world’s
climate-fueled
disasters
increase,
there
is
no
time
to
waste
on
“hazily-understood
interventions.”
“We
must
fast-track
our
focus
toward
the
places
with
greatest
benefits
for
people
and
nature
and
the
fewest
downsides,
the
places
most
likely
to
be
win-win.
This
study
will
help
leaders
and
investors
do
just
that,”
Cook-Patton
said.
The
scientists
who
created
the
map
prioritized
three
criteria:
improving
water
quality
and
biodiversity;
avoiding
social
conflicts;
and
highlighting
areas
where
reforestation
goals
had
already
been
established
by
governments,
which
makes
action
more
politically
realistic.
The
land
area
that
met
all
the
criteria
was
small,
and
the
researchers
hope
NGOs
and
governments
will
use
their
maps
to
pinpoint
the
best
solutions
in
their
countries.
Excellent
coverage
of
our
new
paper
in
Nature
Communications
in
the
Guardian.
Will
post
a
thread
later,
but
this
is
a
great
summary:
www.theguardian.com/environment/…[image
or
embed]—
Forrest
Fleischman
(@forrestf.bsky.social)June
11,
2025
at
7:18
AM
“Previous
studies
often
failed
to
address
how
reforestation
could
have
negative
effects
on
human
well-being,
especially
for
poor
people
living
in
the
remote
rural
areas
often
targeted
for
reforestation,”
said
study
co-author
Dr.
Forrest
Fleischman,
an
associate
professor
of
environmental
and
natural
resource
policy
at
the
University
of
Minnesota.
“These
negative
effects
are
more
likely
when
people
lack
secure
land
rights,
are
highly
dependent
on
natural
resources
for
food
and
fuel,
and
live
in
countries
where
political
rights
are
not
respected.”
While
removing
these
places
from
the
map
reduced
the
potential
reforestation
areas
by
roughly
a
third,
the
remaining
lands
would
still
be
able
to
remove
approximately
1.65
billion
tons
of
carbon
each
year.
These
regions
were
mostly
focused
in
Canada,
the
U.S.,
Australia,
Europe
and
Brazil.
“Who
wants
to
see
the
natural
grasslands
like
the
Serengeti
covered
in
trees
and
not
lions,
elephants
and
other
wildlife?
And
planting
trees
in
places
that
burn
isn’t
going
to
store
carbon
long-term,
and
so
of
course
these
areas
should
be
excluded,”
Lewis
said.
“The
most
conservative
map
removes
potential
forest
restoration
across
almost
all
of
Africa
and
Southeast
Asia,
due
to
fears
of
[land
rights]
conflict.
This
risks
perpetuating
poverty,
if
investments
in
nature
avoid
poor
countries
with
limited
governance.
Plans
to
invest
in
nature
to
improve
local
livelihoods
and
also
benefit
the
climate
and
biodiversity
should
be
seized,
as
these
often
go
hand-in-hand.”
Subscribe
to
get
exclusive
updates
in
our
daily
newsletter!
By
signing
up,
you
agree
to
the
Terms
of
Use and Privacy
Policy,
and
to
receive
electronic
communications
from
EcoWatch
Media
Group,
which
may
include
marketing
promotions,
advertisements
and
sponsored
content.
