which means they're really effective carbon-storage devices.

So effective that simply by increasing the amount of forested area on Earth, we may be

able to store about a quarter of the carbon – carbon dioxide, to be precise – needed

to head off the worst aspects of climate change.

That's why we Earthlings are planting about 2 billion of these carbon-storing machines

every year!

Except there's a problem: if we aren't careful about how we plant trees, we run the

risk of actually releasing carbon, instead of storing it away.

Hi, I'm Kate and this is MinuteEarth.

OK, so issue #1: where should we put all these carbon-storing machines?

This big open space seems perfect…but there's actually already an ecosystem here storing

tons of carbon.

Literally, tons; an acre of native grassland can store as much as 80 tons of carbon – around

2/3 of the carbon an acre of forest can store.

Planting trees here – especially non-native ones – will kill the grasses, disrupt the

ecosystem, and un-store basically all its stored-up carbon.

The same thing happens when we plant trees in other places, like moors and peat bogs,

that may seem empty but are actually established ecosystems storing lots of carbon.

When we disrupt those areas to plant new trees, a lot of that carbon gets released.

And sure, the trees we plant (if they actually grow) will eventually suck that released CO2

(and maybe a bit more) back out of the air, but that will take decades – time that we

don't really have.

It's way better to leave existing ecosystems like grasslands and peat bogs intact, and

focus our efforts in places where forests used to exist, before we cut them for timber

or farmland.

And that IS where lots of planting projects happen.

But there, we make a different mistake when it comes to removing carbon…we plant trees

instead of forests.

Over half of all international planting projects involve filling deforested areas with row

after row of one or two types of fast-growing, non-native trees.

These projects – which are basically tree farms – do pull carbon from the air, but

since the trees are usually grown to be harvested, the carbon they store may not be stored for

long.

Plus, since these plantings are far less diverse than natural forests, not only do they usually

store less carbon in the first place, but they're also much more prone to disease

and drought, which can severely limit their carbon-storing abilities.

If we really want to store as much carbon as we can – and keep it stored – we need

to plant forests, not just trees.

Of course, protecting our planet from environmental damage isn't only about storing carbon;

it's also about conserving native plants and animals, keeping the water clean, and

ensuring everyone has the food and medicine they need.

But it turns out that planting trees in a way that maximizes how well ecosystems function

– rather than maximizing the sheer number of trees – accomplishes all these goals.

In other words, when it comes to planting for our planet, we need to make sure we see

the forests for the trees.

Special thanks to the Society for Ecological Restoration and its global partners for their

support during this production; and to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which

is part of the United Nations Environment Programme.

Thanks to Kingsley Dixon and the team at Curtin University and the Centres for Mining Restoration

and Healing Country for supporting and sponsoring this video.