Part of the challenge is, part of the conversation, is what land gets used for that?

Historically speaking, most of it was trees. Lebanon? Trees. Scotland? Trees. Ireland? Trees. Norway? Trees. Greenland? Trees. Israel? Trees. Australia? Trees. That's the great thing about trees - they're pretty much the steady-state of the plant world. If trees will grow there, trees were what the original ecosystem was. You can see this from the shelterbelt - if trees were supposed to be there, they do well. If they weren't, they need tending.

I would further argue that any transition from "damaged" to "less damaged" beats the crap out of "damaged" to "let's argue about what undamaged means until the oceans drown us all" but I'm a pragmatist. This sort of discussion comes up whenever cool ideas like reintroducing sabertooth tigers and shit get introduced - I mean, look. I recognize that you can't say megatheriums belong in Kansas with a straight face. But neither do fucking pigeons so c'mon bring on the ground sloths.

I have enough trees on my 1/6th of an acre that I need a 12hp woodchipper to keep up with the pruning. I'm into it. I'm all on board. You're right - any impact is better than no impact. But to make a difference, with existing tech, is gonna be a fuckton of trees.

Now - let's pretend we can genetically engineer a HyperOak. It'll suck down 800lbs of CO2 a year. But it's a disturbing shade of neon green and its acorns cause rashes like poison ivy. Should we plant 'em?

I say plant 'em. Plant 'em EVERYWHERE. But I'm also aware that the Arab world hates the hell out of Israel for planting trees to restore Israel from being desert.