For a few years, I have noticed the tree takes more and more space in our relationship with living things in all areas. This sounds clear when looking at ongoing developments in the construction and energy sectors, the relatively recent boom in tree climbing, and the successful release of books such as The Hidden Life of Trees by Peter Wohlleben or The Overstory by Richard Powers, or even the power we attribute to trees against climate change – whether it is the habitability of our increasingly less livable cities or the sequestration of C02 from the atmosphere.

About to become a subject, the object tree is obviously invested with a symbolic value in the same way as the wolf. Like this species for the animal kingdom, it is the most visible representative of the plant kingdom in the eyes of man. Not only as regards to its size and the space it occupies – as opposed to animalcules and other invisible or underground microorganisms – but also by its rank comparable to the top of the scale of evolution and ecosystems, in which the man probably recognizes himself. In addition, the mankind is facing the new reality of a community of destiny with the society of trees with which it feels all the closer and more united as he is now confronted with climate change, with regard to which society trees play a leading role.

Worshiped in these times of ecological transition, the tree is being rehabilitated as a construction material at a time when the pressure of the building sector on natural resources is becoming obvious to man. In the field of energy production, tree is considered as an alternative to fossil fuels, as shown by the fact that more and more economic players invest in biomass boilers or pellet stoves without even asking themselves the question of the carbon footprint of raw material supply chains. This sudden boom is intended to compensate the shortage of fossil fuels while slowing down global warming.

However, the continuous operation of trees to produce energy calls into question the interest of reforestation as a means of storing atmospheric C02, as far as their combustion results in releasing again the CO2 that they had captured over their growth. In other word, the tree is therefore certainly a source of renewable energy but certainly not sustainable.

For another reason, I don’t believe in the effectiveness of reforestation that specialists highlight as the main lever against global warming. I do not understand how a single generation of trees – even if it covers the entire land surface – would be able to capture the volume of CO2 released by the majority of fossil energy reserves. Because this quantity results from the storage of a huge amount of CO2 contained in the primitive atmosphere, by all the plants which have proliferated over millions of years on the planet. This process ultimately enabled the emergence of life by replacing the original CO2 with the oxygen that we breathe today (see article of January 17, 2021). Knowing that nothing is lost but everything is transformed, there is an obvious problem of misproportion between the disease and the remedy concerning CO2. And this even by cutting down the quantity released into the atmosphere by fossil fuels, to the remaining 10% which has not been absorbed by the oceans. In order to get an idea of the acreage of forest that would be necessary to capture this remainder and thus be able to validate the previous hypothesis, I would be curious to know what is the counterpart of a given volume of fossil energy, expressed in hectare of forest needded for its genesis. Even if the answer would confirm the option of reforestation as a workable solution, the question of access to diffuse CO2 in the atmosphere would in any case arise for a tiny stratum of vegetation fixed on part of the surface of the land surface.

In spite of my doubts expressed above, humanity intends to go on the path of reforestation on the planet where possible. I personally fear that this boom will lead to an economic bubble, as far as in the short term, supply will most likely be exceeded by demand. From this point of view, the forest has for sure a bright future as a financial product, in the same way as agricultural land. At least in the short term because my thoughts lead me to believe that in mid term, future of the forest is seriously threatened by climate change (see article of December 26, 2019). While waiting for mankind to become aware of it, the law of the market will push for the expansion of gardened forests because the long time necessary for the growth of a natural forest – several centuries compared to fifty years or so for a cultivated forest – is by far too long compared to the timeline of our market economy and above all, while facing the emergency of climate change requiring us to take action as soon as possible.

In this regard, the level of exposure of a cultivated forest to climate disturbance is a major challenge to man, as it is characterized on one hand by rapid growth resulting in a poor quality of wood and on other hand, superficial rooting which is responsible for a depletion of underground life. These risk factors weaken “domestic” trees which are more vulnerable to diseases as well as weather disturbances and also fires, as showed this summer by the poor ecosystem of the French Landes forest. Such risk factors sound unlikely too most people as forest – appearing unchanged over the scale of a human life because a tree settle over a long period of time and stands out for its large size – paradoxically appears as the most robust component of the plant kingdom and therefore the most steady. Because it is difficult for an unexpert person to differentiate between a natural forest and a gardened forest, especially since the last one has become the norm in our so called wild spaces, that todays world will have struggle to accept the idea that the tree is a giant with feet of clay whose existence is precarious to the point that it cannot be the solution to climate change.

In short, mankind is about to face a rise in demand for trees – with huge expectations for them – at the time when their living conditions are becoming precarious. However, we have no other choice than to meet these expectations by at quick “woodening” of the planet, even if it is a major technical challenge. Far from being against this solution which has a consensus and although it looks almost worthless to me, I am one of those who think it is more than necessary to plant trees and that stopping deforestation is mandatory, just like a slowdown in building trade. But I do not agree with the magical thinking in the name of which these actions will have a significant impact on climate change. I think that the path of reforestation first meets the wish for a vision carried by an idealized representation of the tree as a symbol and support of life of which man suddenly discovers himself a part. I think that tree rehabilitation aims first of all to comfort mankind which needs to believe in the possibility of a solution to climate change. On the other hand, the purpose is maybe to relieve man of guilt when he faces his responsibility in the deterioration of the planet, whether it is climate change or the loss of biodiversity.

---