The difference between planting trees and depolluting the environment

In the run-up to the Italian elections, some vote-hunting politicians have prospected planting trees to demonstrate their concern for environmental issues. Perhaps they rode Salgado's project that led to the reconstruction of his forest in Brazil, but in any case, their promise remains absurd and false since combating deforestation and climate change with palliative cures such as planting millions of trees are yet another attempt to exploit the situation for purposes that have nothing to do with the environment. It is true that plants are the foundation of life, but how many years would it take for hypothetical trees to grow? In the meantime, how many people will be left on the planet? Under what living conditions?

Given that sometimes evil can become good, the dreaded political proposal has become useful for reflection: what is the difference between planting trees and de-polluting the environment? This is a purely practical matter. In fact, environmental degradation now at a very high level and the necessary reconstruction of the balance can only be answered in a short time through concrete cleanup action. Yes, what is lacking is first and foremost time.

Looking at what has happened in the past year in terms of extreme weather events (in Italy only 132 from January to July), we don't have to put everything off until the usual 2030 or 2050! No, because Mother Nature is not following the Green Deal at all. Then to be realistic, let's elevate by power, just in the mathematical sense, the acceleration of climate change and related extreme events: an unstoppable dynamic while scholars assess priorities, impacts, adaptation and vulnerability; an unstoppable dynamic while the planet's leaders play or sleep instead of de-polluting.

Beware though, de-polluting is not the same as non-polluting or polluting less, and since these words under various guises (anti-polluting, biodegradable, zero impact, environmentally sustainable, etc.) nowadays appear as eye glitter on the advertisements of many products, we want to emphasize and make people understand the difference.
Many people are convinced that if you don't pollute, it means you de-pollute. That is incorrect. To de-pollute means to eliminate pollution. Very different from using products that do not contribute pollution.
For instance, disrupting or encapsulating (hiding momentarily) the molecules of pollutants is not the same as de-polluting by removing chemical residues as well. Only in nature do molecules have a closed loop, that is, they are transformed as a result of continuous reactions without leaving waste. This is possible because enormous amounts of energy are available in nature. Huge amounts of energy would therefore be needed to de-pollute, which would incur unaffordable costs making the market impossible.

Usually this is greenwashing, i.e., operations where green is an unattainable goal. The modern market economy does not disengage from the exploitation of natural resources and does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero, society is neither just nor prosperous. However, it is trendy and the conscience is free, simply by dumping the enormous burden on the younger generation. What burden? That of damage to the planet and thus to the human species.

Returning to the trees, this past year's record-breaking summer temperatures, strong sunlight and prolonged drought have led to high mortality in city parks and forests where they appear in early August as if it were autumn. The media announced that Milan (Italy) will become like Austin (Texas) in the coming years, so, no trees in the city. Just rattlesnakes? Could it be that rising seas would make it disappear instead and Italy could become an archipelago....

Already there is migration due to climate change, for example, rural communities in Cambodia where the consequences of the environmental crisis (floods, drought, deforestation, urban waste and pollution, use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides) highlight the link between food security, migration and climate adaptation.

The appeal to resilience makes little sense; we are now like trees that can no longer appeal to their roots to remain steadfast.