It would help, but maybe not enough. Humanity isn't the only reason the planet isn't covered in trees, they just don't grow in many places such as deserts, mountaintops, etc.
I'm pretty sure anywhere there is a functioning port or navigable water way the number of trees within a day's walk is insufficient to support the needs of the population that humanity would need in that location to restart civilization. The fact that you can get in your car and drive to a beautiful forest doesn't actually help much.
The sarcasm is fine, but I have no sense of whether or not the point is even valid. Do you have any back of the napkin maths to illustrate how effective covering the Earth’s land masses in trees would be, even if we could terraform all the big deserts? Planting a load of trees is at least actionable, but I wonder if it’s also futile.
If land is left alone, trees will plant themselves! Instead of using humans to plant trees, we should look at why humans are not allowing trees to grow.
Two other issues:
1) Technology is the wrong way at looking at this for most of the planet. It's only in small areas of the globe where nature needs a guiding hand via irrigation and fertilization for example. Just leaving stuff alone will work for most places.
2) Tree planting efforts are great for publicity and marketing which is mainly a human benefit. The urge to meddle and "fix nature" is both a symptom and cause of the situation we got ourselves in.
It's like buying hair transplants on your head when you could just stop shaving.
But that's not the situation we're in. We can't plant enough trees without destroying a lot of cities. There are in fact better places to place trees than other places, besides the fact that we can't plant enough and they don't do enough fast enough. The issue is that we currently don't have a full solution. We're close, but not all the way there.
reply