Restoring tree cover is now firmly established as a strategy for removing carbon from the atmosphere to help tackle climate change.
But there is an elephant in the room when it comes to estimating just how promising a climate solution it is in different locations. This is “albedo” – the fraction of the solar radiation that is reflected from the Earth’s surface.
In essence, brighter surfaces – such as a large snowy expanse or a grassland – will generally reflect a high proportion of sunlight back into space. Trees, meanwhile, tend to be darker coloured and absorb more sunlight, keeping it on Earth – usually in the form of excess heat.
Because restoring tree cover often involves replacing brighter land covers – such as grasslands – with darker ones – namely, trees – this can lead to some degree of global warming.
In some locations, this warming can partially or even completely outweigh the benefit of increased carbon uptake by the trees. Many know of this problem, but it has been difficult to quantify the impact of albedo in specific locations.
In our new study, published in Nature Communications, we map albedo change from restoring tree cover and show that carbon-only estimates of the global climate benefits of tree-planting may be 20-81% too high.
Our maps reveal that the climate benefits of tree-planting in savannahs in Africa and central Asia would be the most reduced by albedo. But we show that it is possible to find places that provide net-positive climate mitigation benefits in all biomes.
Tree cover affects albedo
It is getting harder to ignore albedo when planning projects to restore tree cover for climate mitigation.
For example, a recent study published in Science showed that albedo, among other factors, could substantially reduce the climate mitigation benefit of restoring tree cover.
However, despite its importance, albedo is often only given a brief mention as an important factor in research attempting to quantify the climate benefits of restoring tree cover. Its impact is frequently not accounted for – or only via coarse adjustments.
In some places, restoring tree cover modifies albedo enough to dwarf smaller changes in carbon, leading to an overall (net) increase in global warming. In other locations, the impact of albedo does not outweigh the carbon removal, contributing to an overall global cooling effect.
Understanding and quantifying these variations in albedo and carbon change is crucial to the success of a project that aims to restore tree cover for climate mitigation.
Yet there has been a lack of tools to provide this information. Our study sets out to change that.
Mapping albedo change
Our study provides the maps that quantify the absolute and relative changes in albedo anywhere on Earth where we might grow trees.
We first created a series of 24 maps that quantified how albedo would change if an area transitioned from one of four open land cover classes – such as grassland or croplands – to one of six different forest-cover classes, such as deciduous broadleaf or evergreen needleleaf forest. These are useful for individual projects that know their starting and end conditions.
However, to examine general global patterns, we used a data-driven approach to model the albedo change resulting from the “most likely” open-to-forest transition for each part of the world. We then combined that with a map of maximum potential carbon storage to map net climate impact in carbon dioxide equivalents.
In this map (below), red and orange shading indicates regions where restoring tree cover leads to net warming and blue indicates regions where restoring tree cover leads to net cooling.
The map shows that, in many places, increasing tree cover is likely to contribute to global warming. These include the dryland ecosystems of central Asia and the Sahel region of Africa, as well as northern reaches of North America, Europe and Asia.
However, all biomes had at least some climate-positive locations, indicating that the coarse exclusions used in the past have missed opportunities. Moreover, some locations experience little to no albedo change, such as in south-east Asia, central Africa and the Amazon.
This map makes it possible for people to determine the best places to restore tree cover to achieve climate mitigation, as well as evaluate different scenarios of where restoration of tree cover might happen.
For example, we examined three previously published global studies of large-scale increases in tree cover. We find that, after accounting for albedo, the global climate mitigation benefit of restoring tree cover may actually be 20-81% lower than expected from carbon-only estimates.
Notably, the study with the greatest deduction included large areas of tree-planting within the tundra and other locations where we predict very negative climate outcomes. We show that constraining this study’s tree-planting to only the more climate-positive areas – about a third of the total area (311m hectares instead of 889m hectares) – would lead to a 2.5-fold increase in mitigation potential.
This demonstrates the value of strategic project placement to maximise climate benefit, because it is possible to achieve more mitigation with less investment of space.
Forest restoration projects
Encouragingly, our study also finds that hundreds of thousands of on-the-ground tree-planting projects tend to be concentrated in places where the potential for carbon removal is high and albedo change is moderate.
One example is the moist tropical ecosystems in Brazil and Indonesia. Most of these on-the-ground projects can be found at Restor, a data-driven and community-based platform that aims to accelerate restoration and makes it possible for the first time to evaluate outcomes of the global restoration movement.
This suggests that ongoing or planned projects are concentrated in places that are good for achieving climate mitigation. However, the majority – around two-thirds – of these on-the-ground projects still face an albedo offset of at least 20%, indicating that most – if not all – projects should consider albedo change in their accounting.
None of this is to criticise projects that fall in places with negative climate outcomes. There are many wider reasons for restoring tree cover in a given landscape, beyond climate mitigation, including cleaner water, wildlife habitat, stabilised soils, sustainable livelihoods and cooler local temperatures.
However, for projects where the emphasis is on achieving climate mitigation, it is important to consider changes in albedo alongside changes in carbon removal, especially now that the tools are available to do so.
In general, climate accounting is not for the faint of heart. There are many factors such as albedo that can alter the total climate mitigation of natural climate solutions. However, we are in a critical time when pragmatic decisions need to be made now about which climate solutions to deploy and where.
Alongside our study, we have produced a dedicated web platform – called “naturebase” – to help policymakers, practitioners, communities and governments identify where, why and how to implement nature-based projects with the highest carbon mitigation.
This tool includes maps, data and case studies to show how different natural climate solutions – including restoration of tree cover – could benefit the climate across the world.
Policymakers and land managers are under growing pressure to make complex choices in line with global agreements. We hope that the science in our study and the tools in the naturebase platform will help enable smarter, more nature-positive decisions.
The post Guest post: Mapping where tree-planting has the greatest climate benefit appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Guest post: Mapping where tree-planting has the greatest climate benefit
Adeline Rochet is a programme manager for the Corporate Leaders Group Europe, a business coalition driving the transition to a sustainable, competitive, and resilient economy convened by the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL).
Europe’s economy depends on the natural world functioning as it should, but the effects of climate change risk undermining increasingly delicate ecosystems. Talks about the European Union’s next long-term budget miss this fact.
Climate-related losses in the EU have already reached €822 billion since 1980, with a quarter of that damage concentrated in just the past four years. Ecosystems are under increasing pressure: more than 80% of protected habitats are in poor condition, soils are degrading and water stress is rising across the continent.
The latest state of the climate report by the EU’s Earth monitoring service Copernicus confirms this worrying state of affairs: 95% of Europe experienced above-average temperatures in 2025.
Economic exposure to nature-related risk is also growing. Businesses, banks and insurers are beginning to reflect this in their risk assessments.
So, will the policymakers in charge of developing the European Union’s next big budget integrate this vision? We are in the midst of finding out.
-
COP30 roadmap to end deforestation will invite countries to draft domestic plans
After promising at COP30 to produce a voluntary global roadmap to stop forest loss by 2030, Brazil provided an update on the consultations this week -
Brazil leads “encouraging” decline in global rainforest destruction in 2025
After hitting a record high in 2024, loss of primary tropical forest dropped by over a third last year, but the world remains way off track for a 2030 goal to halt deforestation
Every seven years, the EU must negotiate a new budget that will help fund priorities over a seven-year-long period. The current one, which runs out next year, is worth more than a trillion euros.
Talks about the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2028-2034 are now getting serious and the initial outline of this new budget shows it will focus on competitiveness, resilience and prosperity.
But, as the European Parliament adopted its negotiating position for the crunch budget talks and EU member states shape their approach ahead of a Council meeting on May 26, it is clear that the positioning of nature within this framework is strategically underestimated.
Why nature impacts economic growth
Back in 2022, France’s nuclear power output was severely affected when heatwaves drove up the temperature of the rivers used to cool atomic reactors, impacting other European countries too. This was particularly poor timing given the energy price crisis triggered earlier that year by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.
Low river levels caused by drought have also heavily impacted economic activity and growth in countries like Germany, due to the negative effect on inland trade, while degraded fields in the Netherlands combined with heavy rainfall have ruined potato harvests.
These examples show that we cannot detach the health of the European economy from the good functioning of nature.
UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court
Nearly three-quarters of businesses in the eurozone rely directly on ecosystem services such as clean water, fertile soils and pollination. That dependency extends into the financial system, where around 75% of bank lending is exposed to companies dependent on these natural assets.
They entirely underpin supply chains and financial stability across the European economy. If load-bearing ecosystems collapse, businesses not only face disruption in their own operations, but they will also be exposed to failures from suppliers and customers.
This is not just a risk for individual companies, it is a threat for the whole system.
A budget that looks greener than it is
According to the latest proposals for the next MFF, a single 35% climate and environmental target will replace priorities that used to have distinct funding. As it stands, biodiversity has a 10% target, yet spending has struggled to reach even 8%, already showing how easily it is put to one side in practice.
In the new framework, biodiversity is absorbed into a broader category with no separate tracking or visibility. Dedicated instruments are folded into larger funding envelopes, and nature-based investments are placed in direct and distorted competition with industrial projects.
These are often faster to deploy and easier to measure, making them more attractive.
Headline figures reinforce some appearance of ambition, with €587–635 billion allocated to climate and environmental objectives. But since these are aggregated numbers, they do not show how much will reach ecosystem conservation or restoration.
Less visibility, weaker accountability
Biodiversity funding also remains structurally fragile, with around 80% concentrated in agriculture policy rather than supported by a diversified investment strategy.
This shift is structural: nature has been relegated from a defined priority to a mere discretionary allocation, and the governance model reinforces this dynamic.
Webinar: From Santa Marta to Bonn – where next for the fossil fuel transition?
Greater reliance on National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs) moves decision-making into national spending choices, where fiscal and domestic political pressure will likely mean long-term ecosystem investments struggle to compete with short-term economic demands.
The current MFF paints a worrying picture of structural triple risk for nature: reduced visibility, increased competition for funding and weaker accountability.
Nature is critical infrastructure
It is a point worth reiterating: investment in nature offers clear economic returns. Healthy ecosystems drive resilience by reducing exposure to climate damage and supporting local economic activity.
Public finance plays a decisive role in enabling these investments at scale, making budget design a question of risk management and capital allocation.
Nature-based solutions already perform essential economic functions. They regulate water systems, restore carbon sinks, provide a buffer against extreme weather events and support agricultural productivity.
These are characteristics of infrastructure. Energy systems, transport networks and digital capacity are treated as strategic investments because they underpin competitiveness.
Natural systems play the exact same role, so why does the current budget plan not reflect this?
The next EU budget will shape investment for the decade ahead. Its structure will determine how risks are managed and where capital flows. Nature cannot be erased in favour of competing short-term priorities.
In the upcoming negotiations, European leaders still have the option to treat nature as a structural objective and a core asset, supporting Europe’s resilience and long-term competitiveness. But they must act now, before it’s too late.
The post Nature cannot be ignored by Europe’s next big budget appeared first on Climate Home News.
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2026/05/25/nature-cannot-be-ignored-by-europes-next-big-budget/
Climate Change
In Florida, an Agricultural Town in Need of an Economic Boost Eyes Hyperscale Data Centers
Across the state’s heartland, communities such as Indiantown are weighing proposals for hyperscale data centers. The massive facilities would reshape Florida’s rural lands.
INDIANTOWN, Fla.—Carroll McAllister frets over the prospect of a hyperscale data center opening next to the grassy expanse where she grew up, in a shack her father built.
In Florida, an Agricultural Town in Need of an Economic Boost Eyes Hyperscale Data Centers
Anaerobic digester loans showed “significant delinquency rates,” the U.S. Department of Agriculture said, while environmental groups see the technology driving an expansion of large-scale animal farming operations.
The federal government’s pause on new loans for anaerobic digesters, the controversial method of converting animal manure from large-scale feeding operations into biogas, will now extend through the end of the year.
USDA Extends Pause on Loans for Controversial Digesters That Turn Manure Into Biogas
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测