And yet the world's forests depend on greenhouse gas emissions, and thrive when concentrations are high.
Cutting down forests, like we are in huge quantities, appears to "rival emissions from the global transportation sector." And this is courtesy of the Council on Foreign Relations (https://www.cfr.org/...e-gas-emissions). So if I understand the situation correctly, we ought to be planting copious amounts of trees in an effort to diffuse the issue if man-made climate change factors.
The issue of "climate change" is so incredibly complex and the solutions to a variety of issues so varied that it's impossible to lay a finger on any one thing and blame it for singularly causing something else. It's junk science to do so, but it's very convenient for those who wish to make a profit over this issue.
Both solutions you describe rest on the same idea. You can either cut output of GHG, or you can increase absorption through a net increase in forestation. Both are required actions in order to solve the problem.
It's fundamentally a very simple solution. So throwing up your hands and declaring it is a complex problem so we might as well do nothing is a completely unproductive response. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it is not understood by the people that actually study the issue.
Edited by LeoVictoria, 12 August 2017 - 12:30 PM.