Dear forum.

I would like to know what would be, from a scientific point of view, the best way to reforestation in a large scale, say at last 5 million square kilometres, within a timeframe of 50 years?

On 10/12/2025 at 1:12 AM, worldwoodproject said:

Dear forum.

I would like to know what would be, from a scientific point of view, the best way to reforestation in a large scale, say at last 5 million square kilometres, within a timeframe of 50 years?

Doesn't that depend on the kind of forest you are trying to establish and doesn't that have to take into account? local conditions?

On 10/12/2025 at 6:12 AM, worldwoodproject said:

Dear forum.

I would like to know what would be, from a scientific point of view, the best way to reforestation in a large scale, say at last 5 million square kilometres, within a timeframe of 50 years?

Check out the FSC

Here you go,

https://fsc.org/en

Check out the FSC

Here you go,

https://fsc.org/en

Sorry but couldn't find data about reforestation proceedings. They are more about forrest managment. But thanks for the answer.

Doesn't that depend on the kind of forest you are trying to establish and doesn't that have to take into account? local conditions?

Yes sure, I should give more background. I would like to know how to grow enough forest to offset the human eCO² production while the forest would be still in growth phase and sinks CO². I do know that the CO² storage ability progresses toward a point where it reaches equilibrium but before this point there is a use in planting forest for CCS reasons. What kind of forest is needed for this is part of the question as well as where to put it and how to handle the logistics. For all these questions there are scientific disciplines out there with ppl who now khow to answer parts of these questions.

@worldwoodproject

Having explored this subject for some years I'd say that you really have to look at specific bioregions and what lands are available for such carbon sink projects. In some areas, seagrass restoration is a stronger candidate, in others, bamboo, in others there are already fast growing commercial woodlands, e.g. Southern yellow pine, because there's a profit motivation. In other areas, restoration of tallgrass prairie can fix carbon where forests aren't feasible. And then there's rainforest restoration, with all its political hurdles and commercial forces in opposition. There's no single magic bullet, and each project has particular and often enormous legal and financial hurdles. Here's a good example of an approach which absorbs 35 times (per unit area) what a rainforest does:

BBC Bitesize

How can seagrass help slow down climate change? - KS2 Sus...

Learn about the remarkable properties of seagrass and how it is helping in the fight against climate change with Bitesize KS2 Sustainability.

Edited October 20Oct 20 by TheVat

21 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I'd say that you really have to look at specific bioregions and what lands are available for such carbon sink projects.

First class advice. +1

Removing and excluding grazing livestock in previously forested areas seems like the least effort way to get more forests. Where deforestation was relatively recent there will be seed stored in soils and some wind borne, animal borne or other vectors result in seeding, otherwise mass seeding and planting will become necessary. It is unlikely to be enough to restore what deforestation (including from livestock grazing) preceded it and the resultant ecosystem will be species poor in comparison to pre-deforestation. A lot of the deforestation goes back a long way and preceded industrialisation.

Agriculture will only give up land where improved productivity allows reduced land requirements; agricultural productivity is critical to expanding re-forestation.

Given the needs of agriculture I remain doubtful enough suitable land will be freed up for total biomass to grow beyond pre-deforestation levels and do not think any sustainable increase in total global biomass that is less than that should count as offsetting ongoing emissions.

It is one thing to have plants draw down lots of CO2, another to have that continue indefinitely without topping out. Another thing again to cost effectively store/sequester biomass carbon (via permanent burial?) - which biomass could otherwise be biofuel. Where biomass does get burned or otherwise used it is almost certainly going to return carbon to the atmosphere - what emissions reductions bio-fuels can give over fossil fuels counts for the displacing the fossil fuel emissions but won't reduce atmospheric concentrations.

Edited October 21Oct 21 by Ken Fabian