This was only a small part of his speech. Most of the speech was an appeal to support "nature," specifically building up habitats for aquatic and terrestrial p

This was only a small part of his speech. Most of the speech was an appeal to support "nature," specifically building up habitats for aquatic and terrestrial plants, which he claims represents "30% of what needs to be done to avoid catastrophic warming." Just focusing on emissions won't solve the problem. https://youtu.be/FuxHDD_pLf0?t=17121 https://youtu.be/FuxHDD_pLf0?t=17121 He further claims that giving power to indigenous people to use their historical knowledge will help. I'm not so sure. Burning forests has been used for centuries by indigenous people in the Americas. It transformed the landscape radically, as described in the book 1491 by Mann. There's currently speculation that the "Little Ice Age" of (ca. 1600s-1700s) was actually a rebound event caused by the mass extinction of indigenous peoples from the Americas due to smallpox and other plagues brought by Europeans: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/31/european-colonization-of-americas-helped-cause-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/31/european... In other words, wiping out the people who were burning forests regularly caused reforestation and uptake of CO2 large enough to cause global cooling. In a sense, Ford is right - reforestation has the potential to reverse the trend of rising CO2. But in another sense, Ford is wrong in that turning lands over to indigenous people could actually accelerate the release of CO2 and loss of forest. There are no good choices. Part of the problem is that the ideal course of action is murky at best, and will involve mass displacements at worst. There is no "science" of global terraforming, and we only incompletely understand all the factors influencing climate. Imagining otherwise won't solve the problems.