Forrest Fleischman

Associate professor of environmental & natural resource policy at the University of Minnesota. Also @[email protected] on Mastodon, @forrestf.bsky.social

[Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1]

These days everyone seems to thinks that "planting trees" is an important solution to the climate crisis. They're mostly wrong, and in this paper we explain why. Instead of planting trees, we need to talk about people managing landscapes. 1/x https://t.co/sZ8FdT2ZOA

[Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1]

Then you should come work with us!

[Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1]

We are advertising a new postdoc in Socioecological Outcomes and Monitoring of Restoration in Dryland Ecosystems based at Penn State & supervised by the amazing @IdaDjenontin https://t.co/bY11n1CY8I

[Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1]

Do you have interdisciplinary training, with experience in the integration of social and ecological theories, methods, and data, and strong interest in advancing these skills for data integration?

[Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1]

I'll also add that we could have done a much better job with this analysis - and helped India develop more effective programs - if only high quality data on program expenditures were publicly available.

[Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1]

We found that highly targeted agroforestry programs are associated with increased tree cover outside of forests, but India's flagship afforestation programs are associated with flat or declining tree cover outside of forests. https://t.co/fsg9boMQq4

[Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1]

AND that more targeted approaches can be substantially more effective.

[Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1]

@ben_golub This is common in Mexico. I haven't been able to understand why it isn't common elsewhere.

[Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1]

I'm very proud of this paper with @_PushpendraRana which shows why improved methods won't fix carbon offsets.

[Pushpendra Rana @_PushpendraRana]

1/ 🧵 Carbon offsets don’t fail because data or methods are weak.
They fail because project-level causal effects are not identifiable in complex forest systems—yet credits demand that precision.

Evidence from Brazil & India (50-day free access):
🔗 https://t.co/tO7ZEkSsQ9 👇

[Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1]

@DrVivekVaishnav sure, its also just a pre-print. The results are pretty consistent with lots of other research we've seen on this topic.

[Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1]

This pre-print suggests that forest conservation is good for biodiversity, but large-scale afforestation is *bad* for biodiversity, and also will have little impact on short-medium term climate, underscoring the need for rapid emissions reductions. https://t.co/mGFFPYKrfr

[Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1]

Social movements and non violent direct action play a key role in protecting biodiversity globally, yet consistently face violent threats and receive limited support from conservation funders and big NGOs. https://t.co/VXRvEUgRW6

[Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1]

@1gaurav In any case, it seems to me that a method that initial tests shows is no better than others, but is thousands of times more expensive, may not need to be exposed to be further testing to be discarded.

[Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1]

Systematic review of evidence on Miyawaki forest restoration: Its at least 10,000 times more expensive than other techniques, yet has no well documented benefits https://t.co/ounK56lMXl

[Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1]

@1gaurav One of the main points of the paper is that the data and kinds of studies used are incredibly weak. Most "tests" of the Miyawaki method lack controls and ignore the very substantial inputs (and input costs).