Let it burn!

Imagine a Housing Minister whose answer to the housing crisis was this: stop investing in existing housing stock, and let historic buildings decay; instead, direct finance and resources to creating new low-grade housing; construct these using unqualified architects, engineers and builders; site them on unsuitable land; raise funds for construction and set-up, but not for ongoing maintenance; and have no overarching plan to connect new developments to existing infrastructure, such as roads, water and power.

How well would such a proposal go down?

Yet this is exactly the strategy currently adopted by so many governments and corporates across the world when it comes to investing in nature.

We plant trees to sequester carbon. Yet the sequestration rate of trees is lowest in the first years of their life; and established forests, far from being in stasis, and despite deforestation emissions, sequester twice as much carbon as they emit. 

We plant trees to increase biodiversity. And yet old growth forests support some of the highest biodiversity richness on the planet.

We plant trees as an inexpensive means to address emissions. And yet planting trees is typically >10x more expensive than keeping forests standing.

We plant them because of misplaced fears of the risks of existing forests burning down. And yet we fail to see the higher risk profile of new forest creation: previously degraded areas are more prone to fire than forested land, younger trees are more vulnerable to fire damage and, even if the end target of a forest is reached, the end state is no less vulnerable to fire than a natural forest. Having to artificially recreate forests adds 30-50 years of upfront risk!

I could go on, but the argument boils down to this truism: if left alone, natural ecosystems deliver a higher rate of productivity, diversity and resilience than human-made ones.

This is not an argument against restoration – it’s a call for evidence-based investment

Such is the sensitivity of this topic, I am forced to clarify: I am not opposed to tree-based restoration. In some specific cases it is not only necessary but desirable (e.g. in the presence of invasive species that prevent native succession, or if there is a particular socio-economic reason).

But here are the three most important points to remember about the criticality of protecting exists forests – some of the most supreme ‘real estate’ on the planet. 

Firstly, a single deforestation occurrence results in immediate carbon emissions which takes decades to restore through (risky and expensive) reforestation (what I call “the time value of carbon”). 

Secondly, deforestation and degradation not only emits carbon it also removes sequestration potential; preventing forest loss negates the future need for reforestation (and all the expense and risk that goes with it). Recent research shows that shows that carbon losses from degradation and forgone removals means preserving an intact forest has a climate impact at least six times greater than previously accounted for.

Thirdly, standing forests are higher-functioning (in the provision of a range of vital ecosystem services, such as watershed maintenance), higher in biodiversity (above and below ground) and more resilient (less prone to fire, pests and diseases).

Let’s not over complicate things: there is a clear path forward

Investing in nature can be a simple process. Old is better than new. Bigger is better. Cost-effectiveness and co-benefits are typically orders of magnitude greater in the global south, such as the tropical and sub-tropical belt.

I asked ChatGPT what lies at the root of humanity’s bias to planting trees over protecting forests. “Short term thinking” and “lack of awareness” were included in the response.

Let’s not build our houses on sand. Instead, let’s invest in our extraordinary existing stock of pristine forest ‘real estate’: highly functioning, proven track record, all amenities and services already in place, low cost to maintain and lower risk. 

All in favour say “aye”?