Planting Trees While Rome Burns
There is an urgent need to address the unintended consequences of our pursuit of green and to return to mitigating the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the root problem.
We have been undergoing a dramatic quest for green in the face of climate change, green in the urban, green in the rural, from greening the desert to reforestation and afforestation. These “green” solutions (afforestation, exurban tree-planting, urban forestry) are being pursued reflexively as climate mitigation even as climate change undermines the conditions that make them appropriate, viable, or safe.
There are many claims about the benefits of trees. For example, according to Los Angeles based TreePeople, trees combat climate change, cool streets and the city, clean the air, provide oxygen, conserve energy, save water, help prevent water pollution and soil erosion, shield children from ultra violet light, reduce violence, provide food, heal, reduce noise, create economic opportunity, they are teachers and playmates, bring diverse groups of people together, promote healthy soils, provide canopy for wildlife, get people out of doors beautify space, capture rainwater, and are a cost effective solution to climate change. Trees are the solution to many urban woes, par excellence, and they are cheap ― once planted, they grow (given a little water along the way).
Yet there is also evidence that the amount of CO2 trees can absorb in cities is dwarfed by the amount emitted in most cities; there is CO2 emitted in their maintenance as well, and they generally require water to do well. In certain climate zones, water is scarce, and watering trees means less water for domestic use. Trees can also trap particulates along streets, retain urban heat at night, and increase allergies. Afforestation in certain regions can contribute to the depletion of groundwater and affect local biodiversity. Tree planting is not as simple as just planting trees, as they can have unintended consequences…
