Science Snippets: Can World's Forests Solve Climate Disaster?
Draft script:
As I have reported many times in this space, climate change is abrupt and irreversible. These two conclusions were reached by the designed-to-fail Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in two reports published more than five years ago. New information challenges my conclusions. I welcome this challenge, and will address it here.
An article at earth.com was published 14 October 2025. It is titled Satellites detect a strange phenomenon occurring if forests around the world. The first two paragraphs raise an important question, and hints at a response: “Forests are the planet’s lungs, drawing carbon from the air and exhaling life back into it. Yet for decades, these vital ecosystems have been shrinking at alarming rates, replaced by farmland, cities, and empty clearings.
As climate anxiety rises, many have turned to tree-planting drives and billion-seedling pledges to restore Earth’s green cover. But what if nature itself already holds the most powerful solution?”
The next three short paragraphs exude enthusiasm: “A new study published in Nature suggests exactly that. Researchers found that up to 530 million acres of deforested tropical land – an area larger than Mexico – could regrow naturally if simply left alone.
This natural resurgence could absorb 23.4 gigatons of carbon over 30 years, drastically aiding global efforts to fight climate change.
Beyond carbon, it could also restore biodiversity, improve water quality, and stabilize local climates.”
Beneath a subsection titled “Natural regrowth of forests,” a description of the approach is offered by the first author of a peer-reviewed paper in the renowned journal, Nature. She said “Tree planting in degraded landscapes can be costly. By leveraging natural regeneration techniques, nations can meet their restoration goals cost-effectively.”
“Our model can guide where these savings can best be taken advantage of.”
Another co-author of the peer-reviewed paper is quoted in the earth.com article: “We used satellite images to identify millions of small areas where tree cover increased over time. We then excluded the areas planted by humans with machine learning, focusing on natural regrowth.”
The article at earth.com explains the approach used in the study: “The research tracked tree cover changes from 2000 to 2012 and verified if those forests persisted through 2015. The result was a rich global dataset showing where nature has quietly been reclaiming ground.
Using these insights, the team built a predictive model capable of mapping regeneration potential at a resolution of just … 30 meters.
Each pixel on the digital map represents the probability of natural forest recovery – an extraordinary level of precision that helps local policymakers see opportunities at both national and community scales.”
Beneath a subsection titled “Cheaper than planting trees,” we find an overview of the research approach and its findings: “Tree planting often dominates environmental policy, but it is not always the best or most efficient path. The study compares the costs of active reforestation with those of natural regeneration and finds a striking difference.
Regrowing forests naturally can cost as little as $5 per acre, while tree planting efforts can exceed $10,000 per acre for the same area.
The researchers note that naturally regrown forests often harbor greater biodiversity and remain stable for longer periods than those established through planting campaigns.
This approach doesn’t mean doing nothing – it means creating the right conditions for recovery. Assisted natural regeneration may involve removing invasive species, fencing out grazers, or preventing fires.
These small actions can speed up recovery while allowing natural seed dispersal and ecological succession to take the lead.
The study shows that the highest regrowth potential occurs within 300 meters of existing forests, where seeds and pollinators thrive in abundance.”
Research published in Nature demonstrates that the living planet can take care of itself. Forest regeneration occurs naturally, with or without human action. Unfortunately, billions of people taking adverse actions for many decades have created a planet that can benefit from human actions. Can we overcome the adverse actions we have employed for many decades? It would surprise me. After all, as I have pointed out quite a few times, nature bats last.
I think it would help to put that 23 gigatons in perspective. How much would that actually do? What percentage of an offset would that be? And given capitalism and how it operates, is there a way of not only leaving this area alone in perpetuity but preventing more forests from being cut down for wood and grazing land?
I understand the methodology laid out and how the Nature.com article drew its conclusions, because I've spent the last decade volunteering at a NFP native tree nursery on the tiny motu I live on, in the lightly populated South Pacific, our regenerative project has been spectacularly successful, with amazing support in our tiny community for the project. To my knowledge we're the only place that is inhabited by humans, where the birdsong is increasing, I'd love to be corrected on that detail if there were more.
However, there's always a caveat with me...... "could regrow naturally if simply left alone."
Very little at scale is done without a profit motive and scaling is imperative for the conclusions of the paper to bear any tangible benefits. Plus, we'd need to stop global deforestation to even tread water. That's impossible under capitalism and an ever-increasing human population.
In our recent homage to the late great Paul Ehrlich, I mentioned how Paul and Geraldo Ceballos emphasized how important biodiversity is and how fragmented ecosystems have a habit of unravelling simply because of their fragmentation.
Back to the issue of "could regrow naturally if simply left alone."
There is a multi-decadal time lag between when emissions are injected into atmosphere and when the full effects manifest, for large pulses of CO2, i.e. when entire forests burn, it can take centuries for the full effects to manifest, there is no "Simply left alone".
I'm not critiquing the paper, just to be a contrarian but it's imperative we look at the predicament holistically and avoid 'Toxic Positivity."
I'll drop our homage to Paul Ehrlich, and a paper detailing how large emission pulses can take centuries to manifest below for further reference.
https://kevinhester.live/2026/03/30/team-nature-bats-last-homage-to-professor-paul-ehrlich/
"Using simulations with an Earth System Model we show that the time lag between a carbon dioxide (CO2) emission pulse and the maximum warming increases for larger pulses. Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries."
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-time-lag-between-a-carbon-dioxide-emission-and-Zickfeld-Herrington/718aa7ae4230b07d945e01c6c233e8d0ae12078f?utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2Q_tjGCfrCbrffqV-tB5jwa19O1VX46cnQSye_qg0NcBI8Um0AZ0s_b4U