> You sound like you doubt the viability of automated and distributed tree planting which may be more statistically significant? I get your point that hundreds

> You sound like you doubt the viability of automated and distributed tree planting which may be more statistically significant? I get your point that hundreds may not do, what about hundreds of thousands, then? No, my point was that if the solution is increased numbers, it's already cheap and viable to get humans to do it rather than deploying expensive tech. (By hundreds, I meant hundreds for each group of 3 school kids in one afternoon.) > Let's agree that we can't know as long as nobody tried. I don't even know that nobody tried. I'm sure the actual experts (as opposed to us armchair ones) thought of it.