Thread by @LeoHickman

Remember that eye-catching Science paper back in July by @bast_jief et al which attracted headlines about how tree-planting had "mind-blowing potential" for tackling climate change?

Well, @sciencemagazine has now published 4x critical responses...

theguardian.com/environment/20…

. @SimonLLewis @ProfMarkMaslin et al say in their response that the original paper’s claim that the “restoration potential of new forests globally is 205 gigatonnes of carbon” is “incorrect”.

science.sciencemag.org/content/366/64…

. @PFriedling, Myles Allen, @Peters_Glen et al say that “this estimate and its implications for climate mitigation are inconsistent with the dynamics of the global carbon cycle and its response to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions”.

science.sciencemag.org/content/366/64…

Veldman et al say paper’s claim “is approximately 5x too large”.

They add it "inflated soil organic carbon gains, failed to safeguard against warming from trees at high latitudes…and considered afforestation of savannas [etc] to be restoration.”

science.sciencemag.org/content/366/64…

Grainger et al say the paper “neglect[s] considerable research into forest-based climate change mitigation during the 1980s and 1990s”.

science.sciencemag.org/content/366/64…

Bastin et al have also published a detailed “response to comments”:

“We did not suggest that tree restoration should be considered as the unique solution to climate change. To avoid this confusion, we have corrected the abstract accordingly.”

science.sciencemag.org/content/366/64…

Finally, here's the original paper...

Then: "This highlights global tree restoration as our most effective climate change solution to date."

Now: "This highlights global tree restoration as one of the most effective carbon drawdown solutions to date."

science.sciencemag.org/content/365/64…