A global reforestation project is how we fix climate change

I didn't intend argue we should wait until we run empty on Fossil Fuels. I just can't see any way in which we'll still be consuming them in 1,500 years - either we'll have moved off them, we'll have run out, or the world will have become not compatible with life (non-exclusive "or" in this case).

This is how Sierra Pacific Industries does it in California. All the clear cuts are reforested while the clear cuts are used to make timber for houses, etc. Most forests in America are managed. However the way it is done is pretty manual maybe drones and robots would make it more efficient.

(Wife is a forester)

>The people voting against environmental reforms are doing it because they don't want to reduce their quality of life.

No. They're doing it because of tribalism and ignorance. They perceive that by allowing progress on energy sustainability issues, they allow the enemy tribe a victory. And many of them don't care at all about sustainability because they believe the second coming is just around the corner.

The ones who think it would reduce their quality of life are just being ignorant. They don't understand the possibilities.

>And since nothing comes close to the cost to energy density ratio of fossil fuels...

Well, it's not that simple. You can't just look at the energy density without looking at the context. Even dry wood comes close (within an order of magnitude) to fossil fuels. And ethanol is even better. But there are issues with both of these. That's the thing. You need to also account for the issues. And fossil fuels themselves also have issues, namely, the topic at hand, climate change. If you want the highest energy density, you would go with an H-bomb or a high energy laser. But you need to harness the energy in a context so being realistic about it, fossil fuels need to go. Just as we can't power our civilization sustainably with fusion bombs, we also can't do so with fossil fuels.

The energy density of fossil fuel is around 40 Megajoules/liter, which is impressive (though not compared to an h-bomb at over 7,500,000 MJ/L), but when you put it in a car, the energy density of the whole system drops to 0.2 on the same scale. Not so great at all.

Where things get interesting is if you take batteries, which are an order of magnitude worse energy density on their own compared to fossil fuels on their own, and you make them into an integral structural component of the automobile system, as Tesla has done. So now if you look at the entire system, batteries become much more competitive in context. Your tank of gasoline is not serving any structural or stability enhancing role in your ICE car. But a battery is, thus bringing benefits which on an ICE car have to incur extra weight.

>there is no solution other than reducing energy usage and reducing quality of life

Not true. We squander so much freely available solar energy by allowing it to heat tar-covered rooftops which could instead be collecting it as solar power. There is plenty of energy for our use. There is no need to reduce quality of life. People are already living this. The future is already here; it's just not evenly distributed.

At least the article title is quite a bit misleading in my eyes. There is no single silver bullet solution to "fixing" climate change. However, reforestation can play a large role in combating climate change. The first and most important step should be to cut down burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible. The lowest hanging fruit there is stop using coal. It is the worst offender and the most easy to get rid of. Just burning gas instead cuts CO2 emissions by more than 30%. Not counting in that number is, that a lot of gas is burnt on oil producing sites instead of used and that gas plants can have much higher efficiencies, like using the heat also for heating houses. Gas plants can reach up to 90% efficiency this way, basically halving the CO2 emissions vs. coal. Also, flexible gas plants play nicer with renewables as solar and wind. And of course stop using oil e.g. for cars.

Having done that would cut down the CO2 emissions drastically, and then the reforestation becomes a more realistic target and would indeed a very practical means to get to net zero emissions. And even if it were only a small part, setting up desalination to green large parts of the desert would be a big net win. But before we use solar cells to produce water for growing trees, we should use the electricity produced to not burn fossil fuels in the first place.

For others who can't quite picture 3 billion acres, that's around 12 million square kilometers (USA - 9.8 million km², Russia - 17.1 million km²)