“Planting trees” is often seen as part of the solution to global warming because they suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. In this sense trees perform what’s called “sequestration” - one of the methods for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.

Sometimes this can be small scale (planting a tree in your own back yard or neighbourhood - the focus of this action) or large (for native vegetation regeneration or sustainable forestry).

I suspect the article you mention is focused on the large scale - and is probably aiming to be a warning for those that think “planting trees” is the solution to climate change.

My gut reaction is that this just reinforces the fact that we need to reduce the amount of CO2 being expelled into the atmosphere in the first place - through transport and electricity generation for the most part.

Planting trees does have benefits in many cases and ultimately creates a nicer place to live (esp. on the small scale). The larger scale operations often have ancillary benefits too (such as regenerating land, creating wildlife corridors etc.), not just the CO2 reduction.

So although it’s important to be aware of the potential issues, on balance I think it’s safe to say that planting a tree is a good thing to do

I had a similar discussion in relation to tree-based offsets here:
http://futuremakers.com.au/carbon-offsets/

“It seems like simple arithmetic: A tree can absorb up to a ton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime, so planting one should be an easy way to mitigate climate change. Turns out it’s not so simple. Recent studies have shown that trees in temperate latitudes- including most of the U.S.- actually have a net warming effect on the climate. The heat that dark leaves absorb outweighs the carbon they soak up.”

does anyone know more about this??

I always thought trees were helping fight global warming,
turns out not all the time.

TIM