An ill-posed question, and badly so, to be thrown into the public space as such and bootstrap a good discussion. (well it is twitter after all, so lets lower th

An ill-posed question, and badly so, to be thrown into the public space as such and bootstrap a good discussion. (well it is twitter after all, so lets lower the standards). It is no feat to show that just to offset a year's worth of CO2 emissions of USA one would need to plant in excess of 10^11 trees (all trees in Canada every year). So on the face value, not a 'solution' if I understand the implicit context; although what the metric to use, what is 'climate-change' in this context, time frame, and myriad other things come to mind for this to be informative. However, what is probably less known is that forests (not necessarily the ones managed for industrial purposes) serve a role that cannot be overestimated as they drive the water cycle on land, and play the key role in stabilizing environmental conditions for life as a whole. Unfortunately, we have practically next to zero understanding (in coherent frameworks) of these ecological, non-local processes (apart from knowing that they exists). So planting (for industrial purposes in order to avoid large scale deforestation), but mainly protecting the existing ecologically functioning forests is preferred (ideally) over any technological solution (available so far) (although not because CO2 seq. is the main role of forests). [https://efi.int/forestquestions/q7 https://efi.int/forestquestions/q7]