Anyway. I agree trees are over-sold. They aren't going to solve everything, they bring risks, and are easy to get wrong. But I'm also conscious of throwing the baby out with the bathwater

Yes, peatland restoration is arguably a higher priority. I don't think that means we should do 0 woodland creation until peatlands are 100% restored. Wouldn't we get more diverse benefits from investing in diverse solutions?

How do you judge significance though? Lots of solutions have small effects. Should I just buy a second car? It won't significantly increase global emissions.

Agree about time, but won't we be grateful for a stronger (or less weak!) land sink in 30 years time? Doesn't every tCO2 matter?

Are you saying that growing woodlands sequester no carbon? Or not enough to be considered a solution?

Because new woodlands, if done well, can counteract the decline of the land sink

Some recent beaver activity too

I've considered it. Interested to know how the data are labelled - e.g. could you filter by season, activity type, year? This paper found a relationship between heatmap intensity and brown bear usage, by screen-grabbing and georeferencing the online heat map: www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

Yep, I guess it comes down to how the technology gets framed, and what the people paying for it claim in return

OTOH, why would we reject something with the potential to reduce global temperature by 0.7-1.2C? Or, what if you divided "emissions reductions" into its constituent interventions - each would have a small potential on its own. Don't we need everything?

*Aden

I don't think this is quite right. As long as A < C then additional adults tend to reduce T. It's only once there as many adults as kids that additional adults slow things down.

Sounds bad, but "The trees felled to accommodate this infrastructure were productive conifer that would in any event have been harvested at some stage"