> No, it hasn't. That is just one guy's analysis. Your article doesn't even attempt an in-depth analysis. It just counts the area required. From that article:

> No, it hasn't. That is just one guy's analysis. Your article doesn't even attempt an in-depth analysis. It just counts the area required. From that article: > Those added trees could sequester 205 gigatons of carbon in the coming decades, roughly five times the amount emitted globally in 2018. So that's enough for 5 years. And after that? Plant another trillion? That article says there's only space for 0.9T, period.