Why ‘Desert-Greening’ won’t Work.

Companies such as ‘Undesert’ are attempting to re-green desertified regions of the world by planting trees.

This will not help.

These areas have never been forest. They were grasslands.

They must go back to being grasslands before they can be forests. This is how Ecological succession works.

In the case of ‘Undesert’, it seems they have realised this. Their solution? Desalinate seawater to water their trees.

On paper, innovations like these look great. In this example, you could even argue that with rising sea levels, using sea water to water trees that are saving deserts is a great idea! Two birds, one stone?!

Unfortunately, concepts like these never address the root of the problem, and so never solve it.

Desertified land must be returned to diverse grasslands, which build soil. Soil holds water, stores carbon, and can grow food.

Land-Use. The Cure, not the Problem

One of the most commonly quoted stats regarding global food production is how much land it uses. The number is around the 45% mark. 45% of the world’s habitable land is used for farming. This number, in reality, could be even more I suspect, without knowing how ‘habitable’ land is defined.

Vast areas of mountain ranges and wilderness globally are used to home livestock but are by no means habitable by humans. It goes without saying that figures for land use are used in a negative tone, understandably. Farming is causing huge damage to the environment, we’re using more and more land for farming, we’re causing more and more damage.

Use less land and we cause less damage, right? Wrong.

If land use is the problem, the implied solution is land dis-use. Not using it. Maybe we would re-wild it, using conservation techniques or making more wild ‘reserves’. Let’s presume we’re making enough food for everyone and just focus on the environmental implications:

In dry, brittle environments (low, irregular precipitation areas) the soil would continue to degrade. We do not have the vast migrating herds of wild ruminants that we once had that were crucial for cycling nutrients. Without them, the plant matter oxidises, and no soil is built. Therefore, ANIMALS are necessary. Specifically, well managed ruminant herds.

In non-brittle environments (higher, regular rainfall) the soil would indeed improve in the absence of any disturbance, be it animal or mechanical. Biodiversity also would improve vastly. Fantastic. But in these areas of good, frequent rainfall, we should strive to maximise the regeneration. Again, presuming we’re getting some food from somewhere, we still would benefit from animals. And once again, well managed ruminants. They are rocket fuel in the engine of ecology. Biodiversity, in these climates, is far better off with animals like cows, sheep and deer in the system. With the goal of building soil, ruminants are the star player. Inherently, they cycle nutrients faster and more efficiently than their absence would allow.

The way we are using land is the problem. In fact, I would like to see more land under human management, provided it’s done correctly. We have medalled with ecosystems for a long time now. We broke nature’s cycles, why do we expect her to self - repair?