OpenFile series on Barrington and downtown

[someone123]

There's a fairly detailed series of articles on downtown Halifax here: http://www.openfile.ca/halifax/story/future-downtown-re-ripening-barrington-street

One of the interesting parts is a map of the downtown that shows who owns which properties.

The articles are fairly balanced but I get the sense the authors couldn't quite resist playing into the "beleaguered downtown has seen better days, but hope is on the horizon" narrative.

I also find that the old 1950's-era definition of "downtown" is used a lot. You can't paint an accurate picture of "downtown" retail in Halifax without talking about Spring Garden Road. The lines are also pretty blurred around the other edges of the old downtown because of new developments like the NSP HQ. I think it's more accurate today to consider the area around Barrington the "old town" rather than "downtown".

[Keith P.]

There's a fairly detailed series of articles on downtown Halifax here: http://www.openfile.ca/halifax/story/future-downtown-re-ripening-barrington-street

One of the interesting parts is a map of the downtown that shows who owns which properties.

The articles are fairly balanced but I get the sense the authors couldn't quite resist playing into the "beleaguered downtown has seen better days, but hope is on the horizon" narrative.

I also find that the old 1950's-era definition of "downtown" is used a lot. You can't paint an accurate picture of "downtown" retail in Halifax without talking about Spring Garden Road. The lines are also pretty blurred around the other edges of the old downtown because of new developments like the NSP HQ. I think it's more accurate today to consider the area around Barrington the "old town" rather than "downtown".

They're interesting but I guess most aren't written by people who have any background on development or real estate. The one your link goes to first is by Chris Benjamin, who is the Coast's enviro-nut and who gets roundly criticized for his articles in online comments for that publication, which gives you a sense of how extreme he can be. Probably not the best choice for such an article.

[RyeJay]

They're interesting but I guess most aren't written by people who have any background on development or real estate. The one your link goes to first is by Chris Benjamin, who is the Coast's enviro-nut and who gets roundly criticized for his articles in online comments for that publication, which gives you a sense of how extreme he can be. Probably not the best choice for such an article.

Online criticisms... Oh my.

And what is an "enviro-nut"? Someone who sees the reality of our growing environmental debt?

I haven't even read any of Chris Benjamin's material, but I'm definitely going to check him out if you have a problem with him.

And you're quite right: it is only your guess that 'most' of these article writers don't have backgrounds in development or real estate, like you do.

[Keith P.]

And good day to you as well.

If you wish to hitch your wagon to the reputation of Mr. Benjamin, be my guest.

[RyeJay]

I'll certainly read his material, as I'd read anyone else's. I don't want my learning curve retarded by superfluous reputations.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Online criticisms... Oh my.

And what is an "enviro-nut"? Someone who sees the reality of our growing environmental debt?

I haven't even read any of Chris Benjamin's material, but I'm definitely going to check him out if you have a problem with him.

And you're quite right: it is only your guess that 'most' of these article writers don't have backgrounds in development or real estate, like you do.

I don't get this environmentalist stuff for Halifax... the city is actually more "green" than ever. Does everybody forget what the harbour used to be like???

Extrapolating extreme environmental concerns in other places in the world to NS/Halifax is stupid.

[Copes]

Extrapolating extreme environmental concerns in other places in the world to NS/Halifax is stupid.

:tup:

[RyeJay]

I don't get this environmentalist stuff for Halifax... the city is actually more "green" than ever. Does everybody forget what the harbour used to be like???

Extrapolating extreme environmental concerns in other places in the world to NS/Halifax is stupid.

This..."stuff"?...

Oh...okay, I see. This must seem frivolous to you. I might be wasting my time responding, since in all the years environmental issues at the local, national, and international level have been publicised, you haven't gathered the severity of the world's environmental debt and the difficult determination in how to allocate responsibility for cleaning up something that is no longer capable of being cleaned up.

This 'stuff' that environmentalist are trying to get at is for every city from every country to leave as little a carbon footprint as possible. Halifax is green by comparison to many cities in North America, yet dirty when compared to cities internationally.

I'm glad there are Haligonians who are educated enough in climatology and aren't settling just because we've simply cleaned the harbour up. People are still driving too much. Buildings still aren't green enough. Our power grid is still inefficient and wasteful.

Since the warming we've experienced in the last few decades has, historically, always taken tens of thousands of years to occur naturally during interglacial periods, to not want strict action taken to curb our carbon emissions and urban sprawl means you're either profiting from the status quo -- or you don't read.

[kwajo]

I can't believe the push in that article to use the convention centre site as a park based partially on the false premise that the area has no parks or green spaces, which is an absurd notion to begin with - let alone after the argument that we need to curb sprawl.

[someone123]

I can't believe the push in that article to use the convention centre site as a park based partially on the false premise that the area has no parks or green spaces, which is an absurd notion to begin with - let alone after the argument that we need to curb sprawl.

This is just an example of somebody either not thinking or being completely ignorant of the area.

[worldlyhaligonian]

This..."stuff"?...

This 'stuff' that environmentalist are trying to get at is for every city from every country to leave as little a carbon footprint as possible. Halifax is green by comparison to many cities in North America, yet dirty when compared to cities internationally.

I'm glad there are Haligonians who are educated enough in climatology and aren't settling just because we've simply cleaned the harbour up. People are still driving too much. Buildings still aren't green enough. Our power grid is still inefficient and wasteful.

Since the warming we've experienced in the last few decades has, historically, always taken tens of thousands of years to occur naturally during interglacial periods, to not want strict action taken to curb our carbon emissions and urban sprawl means you're either profiting from the status quo -- or you don't read.

You're off your rocker... most cities don't even have a compost program, let alone most of the waste diversion Halifax has.

Furthermore, the dirtiest part of Halfax's history is over.

Take Halifax's population, industrial output and compare that to other places in the world. I can almost guarantee that its small for Canada and much cleaner than other places (see tar sands or even more NS, the Sydney tar ponds). In addition, all of the worst offenders are emerging markets and the US.

Don't buy into all this nonsense like we are the problem. The structural changes to move away from a petroleum based economy are in motion.

We may in fact be lucky that many developing nations are creating green industries and hadn't industrialized when dirty tech was the only option.

What I hear out of Haligonians is this doomsday bullshit and its fucking annoying.

I grew up sailing Halifax harbour... trust me when I tell you its like night and day and its probably continuing to get better.

[someone123]

I think it's good to minimize negative impact on the environment, but it's important to take a balanced rather than an extremist approach.

Many people focus only on "stopping" development or encouraging the creation of greenspace but they miss out on the larger picture. Transit development for example is one of the highest impact environmental improvements that can be made. In a city like Calgary the light rail runs off of renewable energy, does not produce emissions, and encourages transit-oriented development that uses less land. Halifax would be much better off if some of the energy put into fighting development was instead redirected into constructive projects.

[beyeas]

I think it's good to minimize negative impact on the environment, but it's important to take a balanced rather than an extremist approach.

Many people focus only on "stopping" development or encouraging the creation of greenspace but they miss out on the larger picture. Transit development for example is one of the highest impact environmental improvements that can be made. In a city like Calgary the light rail runs off of renewable energy, does not produce emissions, and encourages transit-oriented development that uses less land. Halifax would be much better off if some of the energy put into fighting development was instead redirected into constructive projects.

:yes:

Yes to me that is the fundamental change in strategy that needs to happen.
Tall vs short, left vs right, enviro vs oil etc has all become tired and outdated arguments that need to be replaced with ones about simply what is sensible (e.g. Transit oriented density).

[Copes]

Someone and Worldly hit the nail on the head in my opinion. Another interesting fact I read the other day: Halifax has the highest tree count per capita in Canada. That's pretty green.

There are times I have to just face-palm at my generation. We learn about a cause that is "just" by all accounts (environmentalism, Occupy Wall Street, that stupid Kony 2012 thing), and then blindly hop on board without considering context. I specify my generation (I'm 23 as of yesterday) because I find we are the largest perpetrators of this phenomenon. Why preach for more green spaces in Halifax (as this article is apparently doing... a park in the Convention Centre lot, wtf?) when Halifax is already one of the greenest cities around and its largest environmental issue is arguably urban sprawl? Why protest the "super-rich" in St. John's, as Occupy was doing last year, when Newfoundland and Labrador has less than 2000 people making over $250,000 a year (a very, very small number of "super rich", and $250,000 isn't even super-rich in my opinion).

When I see people preaching in the name of the environment, its largely in an anti-development context, and it drives me nuts. The effect humans have on our planet is an issue, don't get me wrong, but god damn there are an absurd number of extreme people out there who think environment is the only issue that needs to be addressed, and developers are evil for making decisions based on profit. It blows my mind.

[RyeJay]

You're off your rocker... most cities don't even have a compost program, let alone most of the waste diversion Halifax has.

Furthermore, the dirtiest part of Halfax's history is over.

Take Halifax's population, industrial output and compare that to other places in the world. I can almost guarantee that its small for Canada and much cleaner than other places (see tar sands or even more NS, the Sydney tar ponds). In addition, all of the worst offenders are emerging markets and the US.

Don't buy into all this nonsense like we are the problem. The structural changes to move away from a petroleum based economy are in motion.

We may in fact be lucky that many developing nations are creating green industries and hadn't industrialized when dirty tech was the only option.

What I hear out of Haligonians is this doomsday bullshit and its fucking annoying.

I grew up sailing Halifax harbour... trust me when I tell you its like night and day and its probably continuing to get better.

Doomsday bullshit won’t happen to you or me. We will experience mounting inconveniences: higher food prices because of failing crops; more national debt (higher taxes) allocated to disaster relief because of the increased number and strength of natural disasters; a weakened global economy because of the large number of countries that exist TODAY that are all experiencing record breaking droughts, record breaking floods, and record breaking heat waves TODAY.

Most thinking people, even if they happen to only be casual views of weather forecasts, must at the very least feel suspect toward the increasing number of record breaking weather events happening closer and closer together.

Mounting inconveniences today will, at some point, be somewhat of a doomsday for someone down the line. I realise that older generations tend to be climate change deniers in order to protect themselves from feeling guilty, having contributed to this problem their whole life. I certainly feel guilty.

We haven’t the technology to significantly remove the CO2 from our atmosphere, which on its own will remain in our atmosphere for tens of thousands of years. Considering CO2 has never been higher – even compared to all previous warming events on Earth – this will be a long-term problem for whoever is eventually forced into dealing with this. At some point enough people will die frequently enough to push politics into working toward a solution.

The biggest concern is that rapid climate change brings severe stress on natural ecosystems, which normally contend with climate change at a pace that is greatly slower than the warming we’ve seen in the last few decades. Climate change is actually a fuel for the process of evolution – but it must occur slowly enough so that the variability of an organism’s offspring can survive in the changing metrics of the environment.

We haven’t any species of trees that can survive in prolonged drought, and then prolonged flooding from torrential rains, and then severe tornados and hurricanes, and while being eaten by pine beetles and other southern insects – all while we continue deforesting. As the Earth’s filtration system dies there is less of a carbon sink in which CO2 is stored and this further emphasises global warming.

By your own admission, most cities apparently don’t even have a compost program. Though I disagree with that claim, and am actually curious enough for some googling, I will at least use your own admission in revealing to you why Halifax’s success shouldn’t be calculated on a mere comparison of other cities – because most cities are behind in developing toward carbon-neutral.

The idea of a greenbelt isn’t being sought after because Halifax lags behind other cities; it’s being fought for because it’s necessary in order to slow down climate change. Every city is responsible.

[RyeJay]

I think it's good to minimize negative impact on the environment, but it's important to take a balanced rather than an extremist approach.

Many people focus only on "stopping" development or encouraging the creation of greenspace but they miss out on the larger picture. Transit development for example is one of the highest impact environmental improvements that can be made. In a city like Calgary the light rail runs off of renewable energy, does not produce emissions, and encourages transit-oriented development that uses less land. Halifax would be much better off if some of the energy put into fighting development was instead redirected into constructive projects.

Even if it were a lot of people, claiming to be environmentalists, only focusing on 'stopping' development, it wouldn't distract me from the proven science behind rapid climate change. You actually sound like an environmentalist, with your desire for public transit.

Halifax's status quo is an extremist approach.

[RyeJay]

:yes:

Yes to me that is the fundamental change in strategy that needs to happen.
Tall vs short, left vs right, enviro vs oil etc has all become tired and outdated arguments that need to be replaced with ones about simply what is sensible (e.g. Transit oriented density).

What is sensible will be revealed in our ability to weather the weather.

If the natural disasters start putting up too many road blocks for our economy and we are then placed in a situation of impossible growth, I think we will long for the days when we had time to ponder on what we believe should be sensible -- instead of actually being sensible in the first place by thinking rationally and accepting the science behind our problem.

The world isn't flat.

[RyeJay]

Someone and Worldly hit the nail on the head in my opinion. Another interesting fact I read the other day: Halifax has the highest tree count per capita in Canada. That's pretty green.

Yes, good for Halifax. This is like being part of a classroom in which everyone has failed a test -- yet the kid with the highest mark believing he's smart.

Within the coming decade when long stretches of 30-40*C spring, summer, and fall weather is the new normal -- it's not difficult to image our tree count dropping, just as many of America's, India's, China's, Australia's, Africa's, Russia's, and Europe's forests are currently burning because of the prolonged high temperatures.

Hopefully at this point people won't still be comparing Halifax to the tree count of other cities because it is useless information in dealing with climate change.

[Copes]

Yes, good for Halifax. This is like being part of a classroom in which everyone has failed a test -- yet the kid with the highest mark believing he's smart.

Within the coming decade when long stretches of 30-40*C spring, summer, and fall weather is the new normal -- it's not difficult to image our tree count dropping, just as many of America's, India's, China's, Australia's, Africa's, Russia's, and Europe's forests are currently burning because of the prolonged high temperatures.

Hopefully at this point people won't still be comparing Halifax to the tree count of other cities because it is useless information in dealing with climate change.

My point was that many "environmentalists" (not calling you out, just generalizing) don't actually think about their surroundings and specific situation, and instead spout off mindless drivel that may work somewhere but not necessarily in their specific situation, which does nothing but slows progress.

Tell me, what sounds better in the context of Halifax? Building a short-term park (or even long-term) on the Convention Centre site as the author of the article suggests, which makes Halifax "greener", despite already being quite green and having Citadel Hill / the public gardens within blocks of the site

or

building the convention centre, which will help to stimulate the economy, provide long-term economic stimulation through investment/taxes/enticing business, and using this new money/investment to improve the transit system in a city that is dealing with continuously increasing sprawl and traffic.

The argument could be made, I suppose, to forego the convention centre and invest the municipality's convention centre-money into the transit system directly, however I would argue that the 2nd option I proposed is a much happier medium.

I'm all for the environment. I recognize the problems with climate change. But I want to address the issue in a reasonable, compromising manner instead of simply spouting off "trees trees trees, doomsday is coming" as I see so many uninformed "environmentalists" doing oh so often around my campus and elsewhere.

Anyway, this seems to be getting off-topic, and I'm not looking to (nor am I informed enough) to get into an in-depth environmental debate. I just wanted to clarify my point and voice what I consider to be the largest flaw with the environmental movement.

[RyeJay]

Tell me, what sounds better in the context of Halifax? Building a short-term park (or even long-term) on the Convention Centre site as the author of the article suggests, which makes Halifax "greener", despite already being quite green and having Citadel Hill / the public gardens within blocks of the site

or

building the convention centre, which will help to stimulate the economy, provide long-term economic stimulation through investment/taxes/enticing business, and using this new money/investment to improve the transit system in a city that is dealing with continuously increasing sprawl and traffic.

The argument could be made, I suppose, to forego the convention centre and invest the municipality's convention centre-money into the transit system directly, however I would argue that the 2nd option I proposed is a much happier medium.

I'm all for the environment. I recognize the problems with climate change. But I want to address the issue in a reasonable, compromising manner instead of simply spouting off "trees trees trees, doomsday is coming" as I see so many uninformed "environmentalists" doing oh so often around my campus and elsewhere.

Anyway, this seems to be getting off-topic, and I'm not looking to (nor am I informed enough) to get into an in-depth environmental debate. I just wanted to clarify my point and voice what I consider to be the largest flaw with the environmental movement.

I was only interested in the greenbelt.

Just as some environmentalists may be uninformed as to the economic dealings in how to most quickly transition into a green economy, and are simply demanding everything green happen now, NOW-NOW-NOW...I think it's fair to say that many who are just somewhat concerned about the environment are also somewhat uninformed as to how far along this instance of climate warming as gone and how much longer the climate will continue to warm even AFTER we've miraculously transitioned into a green economy and have stopped releasing emissions.

This apathy amongst the uninformed general public, who are often busy scratching their heads about why the weather has been so weird over the past several years, is why leaders such as Harper can scrap Kyoto, set his own targets for emissions reductions, and not even come close to successfully meeting those fucking targets.

I support the Nova Centre, and look forward to the continued growth of downtown Halifax/Dartmouth, as well as the eventual slowdown of HRM's sprawl.

[Keith P.]

My point was that many "environmentalists" (not calling you out, just generalizing) don't actually think about their surroundings and specific situation, and instead spout off mindless drivel that may work somewhere but not necessarily in their specific situation, which does nothing but slows progress.


No, you got it right. :cheers:

[Keith P.]

Most thinking people, even if they happen to only be casual views of weather forecasts, must at the very least feel suspect toward the increasing number of record breaking weather events happening closer and closer together.

I don't suppose it has occurred to you and your ilk, because you are too busy dreaming up doomsday scenarios, that perhaps the very nature of today's world - a place where things like Twitter, with its incredible power to amplify even the most insignificant event, plus the advent of TV weather as "infotainment", which requires hype over facts and sensationalism over realism, has the least bit to do with this? Naaah, couldn't be. :koko:

[someone123]

I don't suppose it has occurred to you and your ilk, because you are too busy dreaming up doomsday scenarios, that perhaps the very nature of today's world - a place where things like Twitter, with its incredible power to amplify even the most insignificant event, plus the advent of TV weather as "infotainment", which requires hype over facts and sensationalism over realism, has the least bit to do with this?

Consider "driest summer in 50 years". Actually that can be driest/wettest/warmest/coldest spring/summer/fall/winter in several different regions. Those work out to dozens of events happening during a 50 year time frame, so we'd them on average to happen pretty frequently, even though individually they might be rare. Not so impressive when you take a careful look, but it makes for a stream of dramatic news stories (particularly once you start reporting monthly or daily events). There are so many records to be broken that under normal conditions one should expect them to be broken constantly.

[RyeJay]

I don't suppose it has occurred to you and your ilk, because you are too busy dreaming up doomsday scenarios, that perhaps the very nature of today's world - a place where things like Twitter, with its incredible power to amplify even the most insignificant event, plus the advent of TV weather as "infotainment", which requires hype over facts and sensationalism over realism, has the least bit to do with this? Naaah, couldn't be. :koko:

I don't use twitter. I learn about the "nature of today's world" via scientific literature.

Take your denialism to your grave :)

[RyeJay]

Consider "driest summer in 50 years". Actually that can be driest/wettest/warmest/coldest spring/summer/fall/winter in several different regions. Those work out to dozens of events happening during a 50 year time frame, so we'd them on average to happen pretty frequently, even though individually they might be rare. Not so impressive when you take a careful look, but it makes for a stream of dramatic news stories (particularly once you start reporting monthly or daily events). There are so many records to be broken that under normal conditions one should expect them to be broken constantly.

Under what circumstance would one expect records to be constantly broken?! This has never been the case before. There was a time when weather was much more average.

And currently, for all the regions on this planet experiencing record breaking weather events -- the vast majority are warming events.

[someone123]

Under what circumstance would one expect records to be constantly broken?! This has never been the case before. There was a time when weather was much more average.

I tried to explain in my last post. Let's say you look at the record temperature on January 1. On any given year, the chance of that record being broken is very low. However, the chances of the record being broken any day of the year during a given year is very high because there are 365 (366 this year) possible days to choose from. Our records only go back to the 19th century so in fact we would expect to break multiple daily extreme temperature records per year on average, if the average temperature were about the same.

[RyeJay]

I tried to explain in my last post. Let's say you look at the record temperature on January 1. On any given year, the chance of that record being broken is very low. However, the chances of the record being broken any day of the year during a given year is very high because there are 365 (366 this year) possible days to choose from. Our records only go back to the 19th century so in fact we would expect to break multiple daily extreme temperature records per year on average, if the average temperature were about the same.

Yes, you did. Good try.

The chances of the record of January 1 being broken again on January 1 of the following year is extremely slight, and yet this is becoming more frequent.

The closer together, in the context of 'years', these records are broken must be considered in concert with the number of records broken per year. Our understanding of temperature goes back several hundreds of million of years, and we know that the pace of either trend (whether it be warming or cooling)has always been very gradual. I'll repeat that either trend takes tens of thousands of years, naturally.

If there is a day when a record is broken and that record was set hundreds of years ago....then no biggie -- even if many days that year broke records. If, however, a new record beats a record set 50 years ago -- and then two years later an even higher record is set -- and this is occurring for many other records for many other days during the same year -- and consecutive years show increasing numbers of days with broken records -- then to a climatologist this is quite alarming.

Global Warming has never been a bad thing for Earth before -- but now it's happening much too quickly; although to us, with our relatively short lifetimes, we don't easily see this as 'quick' because we lack the perspective hundreds of millions of years gives.

During previous periods of warming, the gradual pace gave trees the necessary time to migrate (through seed) all the way to Canada's Arctic. Since we've experience thousands of years of warming in a matter of decades our forests are now existing in climates in which they haven't evolved.

Animals and insects, being more mobile, are migrating more quickly than plants. While large animals will be stressed the most, due to our sprawled cities being in the way of their migrations, insects are having no problems migrating. In fact, many southern insects are feasting on our northern trees, in droves. This is a feedback loop that will speed-up global warming.

This is not a Doomsday; this is just a seemingly slow escalation towards one many decades down the road. Unfortunately, even this slow escalation requires immediate action because what does remain of our forests are now under a growing threat OTHER than our continued deforestation behaviours.

Human civilisation may one day decide to stop deforesting -- but we have no immediate control over the climate, which is now deforesting on its own. Any action we take NOW to slow global warming will show results in an extremely time-delayed manner, and these results must now work against these feedbacks.

[Dr SweetLove]

Ryejay

Listen too me my friend, your politics are extream and unbalanced. I have great concern for your state of mind in regards too you arrogant denial of reason. Please understand that trees can be replanted and air will clean itself over time. What is more important is to make Halifax an oasis of great urban design. Please think of Dubia, not many damd trees there...also considering you are a card carrying socialist, you must idolize Asia while having great Disdane and hate for anything from the west. Consider this. The great china that your type heralds for its economic might...despite the fact you are an anti capaltist...and a hypocrite...is the largest polluter in the world. Also the greatest threat to the planet is the 7 billion people the will turn into 14 in 30 years or there abouts. So the greatest threat to this world and it's reasorces is the high birth rate in places like Africa and India ....and yet you remain silent on such issues....for shame

[RyeJay]

Ryejay

Listen too me my friend, your politics are extream and unbalanced. I have great concern for your state of mind in regards too you arrogant denial of reason. Please understand that trees can be replanted and air will clean itself over time. What is more important is to make Halifax an oasis of great urban design. Please think of Dubia, not many damd trees there...also considering you are a card carrying socialist, you must idolize Asia while having great Disdane and hate for anything from the west. Consider this. The great china that your type heralds for its economic might...despite the fact you are an anti capaltist...and a hypocrite...is the largest polluter in the world. Also the greatest threat to the planet is the 7 billion people the will turn into 14 in 30 years or there abouts. So the greatest threat to this world and it's reasorces is the high birth rate in places like Africa and India ....and yet you remain silent on such issues....for shame

Just because I disagree does not mean I'm arrogant. I have been explaining my position quite thoroughly. I'm saddened when criticisms in reply aren't of the same effort.

In fact, I've been mostly agreeing with what people have been debating.

I'm a social-capitalist, actually. Capitalism is obviously the best economic driver; however socialism is the best stabliser in ensuring a decently sized middle-class to continue feeding a country's system of capitalism. This is why I'm thankful that Canada's healthcare system is socialised; although, I would be very open to the idea of privatising small portions, as France does (which a factor in France's #1 rated healthcare).

I am fond of democratic Asia (Japan has been an amazing innovator of technology), but think China is criminal.

I love my human rights; therefore, I am not against everything "from the west." You're being awfully generic in your prejudice of me. I would much rather you take the effort to criticise specific things I've said -- instead of painting me with your big stupid paint brush of generalisations.

Shaming me for being silent on rapid population growth is ridiculous because it assumes I refuse to talk about it. I don't refuse to, but population growth is slightly off topic from the points at which I was getting. Hopefully you aren't advocating for population control -- because then some people may start shaming you for supporting Chinese ideas. Tisk, tisk.

Trees can be replanted and the air can be cleaned? .ummm.............How long does it take for a single tree to reach maturity? How about an entire forest? How about hundreds of forests: just like the filtration system of trees that existed before the European colonisation of the Americas?

The warming will not stop to wait for all these newly planted forests to grow to maturity and once again become effective carbon sinks.