> It's not a given that it will get better again. Not on timescales that matter to our species anyway. But it could. https://getpocket.com/explore/item/massiv

> It's not a given that it will get better again. Not on timescales that matter to our species anyway. But it could. https://getpocket.com/explore/item/massive-forest-restoration-could-greatly-slow-global-warming https://getpocket.com/explore/item/massive-forest-restoratio... The right trees, planted in the right locations (0.9 billion hectares), could store 205 gigatons of carbon dioxide. ... That's two thirds of all the CO2 humans have generated since the industrial revolution. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares So we could plant not just 0.9 billion hectares but 3 billion. Twice as much CO2 as we have generated since the industrial revolution. > Couldn't we do that while still burning fossil fuels? Not sure why we'd have to stop burning in order to have the option to work on capture and mitigation. Because those technologies don't work at the scale needed. Check how much we're producing and how much carbon those factories are able to store. We'd need tens of thousands of them.