Tree planting campaigns are popular because they offer a simple story: plant a tree, store carbon, help the planet. The truth is more nuanced. Forest restoration can be powerful, but bad projects can fail, displace local land uses, plant the wrong species, or claim carbon benefits that do not last.
Survival matters more than seedlings planted
A project that plants one million seedlings but loses most of them to drought, grazing, or neglect has not restored a forest. Good projects measure survival over years, replace failed plantings when appropriate, and invest in local stewardship.
Protecting existing forests comes first
Mature forests already store carbon and support biodiversity. Preventing deforestation often delivers more immediate benefits than planting new trees. The best climate strategies protect existing forests while restoring degraded land.
Credible carbon claims need rigor
Carbon projects should address additionality, permanence, leakage, verification, and community rights. In plain language: would the forest have been protected anyway, will the carbon stay stored, did the activity push deforestation elsewhere, who checked the numbers, and did local people benefit?
Better question
Do not ask only “how many trees?” Ask: which species, where, who owns the land, who cares for them, what survival rate is expected, and how will benefits be measured?