Multiple outlets have covered a first-of-its-kind study by Eric Lambin, Robert Heilmayr and Cristian Echeverría reveals that subsidies for the planting of commercially valuable tree plantations in Chile resulted in the loss of biologically valuable natural forests and little, if any, additional carbon sequestration.
Published Study
Impacts of Chilean Forest Subsidies on Forest Cover, Carbon and Biodiversity
Press Release
Poorly Designed Tree-Planting Campaigns Could Do More Harm Than Good
Media Coverage
July 9, 2020 | Drought-hit Forests May Worsen Climate Change | Eco-Business
June 30, 2020 | Tree-planting Campaigns Can Reduce , Not Improve Biodiversity, Says New Study | THISDAY
June 25, 2020 | Why Planting Trees Won't Save Us | Rolling Stone
June 24, 2020 | Planting Trees Isn't Always the Best Answer to a Warmer World, Studies Agree | ZME Science
June 23, 2020 | Divest, Or Face Eternal Damnation | Grist
June 23, 2020 | Planting Trees Could be Counterproductive, New Study Shows | The Brussel Times
June 23, 2020 | Planting More Trees Not a Solution to Climate Change, May Harm Environment | News 18
June 22, 2020 | Climate Change: Planting New Forests 'Can Do More Harm Than Good' | BBC
June 22, 2020 | Forestry Giant Discovers Downside of Planting Millions of Trees | Bloomberg
June 22, 2020 | One Trillion Trees Is Not Enough | Forbes
Christine H. Black
Associate Director, Communications
650.725.8240
ChristineBlack@stanford.edu
Devon Ryan
Communications Manager
650.497.0444
devonr@stanford.edu
Rob Jordan
Editor / Senior Writer
650.721.1881
rjordan@stanford.edu