Interesting article, thanks for posting. I agree reforesting might not by itself be a solution, for other reasons than you've covered. But for sure we should reforest as soon as we are in a position to do so, I believe, for systemic reasons.
Science is pretty cool, most of the time, because it is correct most of the time, but it has made some pretty serious fundamental errors that we are now suffering for, it seems to me.
The main one I take issue with, is the mathematical signing of energy.
The problem is that it isn't signed.
Therefore it is very difficult sometimes in Systems Analyses of nature, to work out exactly what energy does, on Earth. This manifests in incorrect values being put on things in markets for example, because in general whatever science knows, is what most people might know.
The term "Renewables" beccomes revealed as something nonsensical, when we sign the energy, positive for energy from the sun, energy which comprises Joules added to Earth, and negative, for energy comprised of Joules produced and consumed by any means from Earth.
It sounds incredulous that such a simple omission can have now existential effects, but it is what it is, nature doesn't lie, and truth means the whole truth, not just part of it.
It suits the system of profit to have that confusion, this is what drives the business of "Renewables", it seems to me.
So science does make mistakes, even mistakes with whopper outcomes.
So we need to know when to question science.
We should question science when claims are made that we can't see how the evidence was gathered, how the actual measurements were made.
I question what science knows about trees.
Specifically, how much energy a tree absorbs, and what it does with that energy in its lifetime. Exactly how did science measure this?
Was an assumption made, that the energy transport mechanism of nutrients via the tree roots became redundant after the leaves were formed?
If not, then how was the flow of nutrients coming back out of the tree during its lifetime measured, after the leaves were formed, to establish that this energy flow was zero?
Notice for that to happen, the tree would have had to have some kind of valve mechanism that choked off the flow of nutrients, to prevent energy being lost from the tree.
Was that found? (Not from any research I can find)
Was it assumed, and if so, why?
Why think that a tree has capitalist instincts, like a human, to hang onto all of the energy it receives from the sun, shedding only what can't be avoided by its body dying?
Why assume that the purpose of the tree is not to supply energy all of it adult life, actually by its nutrients?
The design of most energy conductive channels are bidirectional in their simplest form. It starts getting complicated when valves and one-way conductivity are required. Why would nature not just keep it simple?
Does all of life really get all of its energy from the dead bodies of trees? Really? Is nature really that stupid?
The Systems Engineering analysis of the tree and its known reflectivity indicates that a tree logically absorbs far more energy in its lifetime than comprises the materials of its body, including everything shed from its body.
Locically, a lot of that energy had to go to Earth via nutrients, via its roots.
Like this, we might see a tree, and any plant, is far more valuable than we currently give it credit for, and we might see it follows also that solar energy is far more valuable than we've previously given it credit for.
Sorting that out mathematically gives us a new purpose for money, to transport Joules throughout humanity in the same way as the nutrients in a tree transport energy to all of life.
And we might notice than that the mathematical sign of the energy in an infant tree is negative, whilst the infant does the labor of sucking the energy it needed to grow up from Earth, until it forms leaves, and positive thereafter, the tree then doing no more work to obtain energy, only the issuance of nutrients from leaves receiving the joules from the sun, those flowing to Earth assisted by gravity from then on.
Humanity then as a species might look a little like an infant tree, which has spent all of its life to date doing the labor of extracting the energy from Earth, until it formed leaves in the form of solar farms, all over Earth, especially as domestic and community installations, the energy of which already rivals the energy produced by utilities, and for which the same public is now being incorrectly billed for energy it actually produced, not consumed, this confusion would be removed by the correct mathematical signing of energy.
Sorry for the seemingly rambling reply, but it is hard to summarise the key outcomes of formal Systems Engineering studies applied to nature with a view to fixing this energy problem, over the past six years.
I think we are getting close now:
