In articles like this, there's recurring themes: 1) However much C is stored by protecting forests / planting trees, is peanuts compared to humanity's GHG emis

In articles like this, there's recurring themes: 1) However much C is stored by protecting forests / planting trees, is peanuts compared to humanity's GHG emissions. Read: phasing out fossil fuels is the #1 task that we should focus on, as it has the biggest effect - by far. Planting trees etc helps, but it's not what will get us where we need to be. 2) Re-forestation is hard. Saplings die, growing trees takes time, and they may fall victim to drought/forest fires later on. Correspondence between [trees saved/planted] and [carbon credits] is... well, not 1:1. To put it mild. 3) Carbon capture is mostly a fantasy. Existing plants capture a minute fraction of human-emitted C at high cost, and this won't change for the foreseeable future. Maybe CC will work at scale, some day. And for that reason, exploring the tech is worthwhile. But as it is, it's not a 'solution' in any way, shape or form. A different but similar story goes for geo-engineering. 4) We're racing past 1.5°C warming, no matter what. We'll probably run past 2°C warming, too. 2.5°? 3°? Even more? Don't rule it out! Prepare.