Solving climate change with One Trillion Trees- possible physically, impossible politically.

The most distressing thing I read recently was that we could solve global warming by planting a trillion trees. It would cost about $3-400 billion in total, that's about 2 billion for each country, and would return the atmosphere to near-pristine condition by sequestering carbon. I calculate you could do it in about 5 years.

It distresses me because I cannot for the life of me think of a way this could be funded and executed. Governments have access to land and cash, but so far their tree planting efforts have been attempts to greenwash themselves and resulted in utter failure - except Ethiopia, which has done quite well because they approach it as an actual acheivable policy rather than a feelgood news story. But one country can't do the whole thing, Ethiopia is doing 4 billion trees, which is 0.4% of the total required.

 

Ethiopia is doing this because they have problems with drought and deforestation, so they need to "re-terraform" their country fast. Most countries won't bother. So we're left with the private sector.

Again, I cannot think for the life of me how you could make a tree profitable. I suppose you could increase the amount of commercial planting by replacing plastics with wood and paper where possible, then ensuring that the inevitable waste is buried, rather than burned - but there's a limit to that. And fruit trees, too... but most such farms aren't great for the environment as they require tons of water to be piped in, and we need to replace our forests, not build more farms.

Charity: Charities have been trying to solve hunger, a similar problem, for decades, with zero results. Charity is basically a way for assholes to salve their consciences. It does not solve social problems because it is not meant to solve social problems - it is meant to perpetuate itsself, make donors feel good about themselves, and provide tax shelters for the rich.

I fear it cannot be done. It's the collective action problem; like vaccination, we could have done it in the 20th century, when we had a global community and people were less selfish, but I can't for the life of me see it happening now. 

 

The problem is related to Game Theory, the Prisoners' Dilemma, which we are all prisoners of these days. If everyone works together, we all share a reward - the environment gets fixed and we don't have to die. If one or two countries shuck their responsibility, they get a double reward - they share in the improved environment without having to pay their share of the $400 billion. So there's a massive incentive to do nothing, let someone else take up the slack.

 

But then hey, there's a lot of rich countries that could afford to do it almost single handed! Look at America and China! Even little old Britain could do a good few Ethiopias worth if we pulled our fingers out!

It gets worse, though: If any one country tries to cut the Gordian Knot and makes an outsize commitment they risk the "sucker payoff" of taking on the problem for themselves. Here's what happens: the Prez or PM gets a Nobel Prize and liberals love 'em, but the people don't see any great economic benefit and risk all sorts of socio-economic harm - for instance, the reason the Brazilians cut down their forests is that it is a huge part of the economy, and if they stopped doing it, they'd have mass unemployment and riots in the streets. Not much point when all you get in return is a pat on the head from the Nobel Committee, really.

There are some problems we simply lack the capacity to solve, not because we lack the technology or the money, but because actually doing the necessary work requires a functioning global society, and we don't really have one of those anymore.