The main problem with attempts at reversing the damage is that forests aren't fungible.

An old growth forest has a rich, balanced ecosystem. Newly planted forests tend to be susceptible to catastrophic damage by various critters, as the species mix is much less complex, and their fauna and flora is relatively impoverished.

▲

HappyPanacea 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So you just need to be stubborn until they stick or cleverer in how you go about it?

	▲	inglor_cz 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Biology is complicated, ecology even more so... An old forest is a result of multiple waves successions after disasters (fire, windstorms etc.), which are really hard to emulate. Some desirable seedlings are hard to grow artificially, others just won't prosper in situ unless/until very specific conditions are met... After a long enough time, the forest will eventually revert to a fully natural state, but that time is way longer than human lifetime. It is a living organism of sorts and living organisms are much easier to kill than to re-create.

▲

IncreasePosts 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

In the grand scheme of things having an old growth forest is probably better than having a new growth forest, but if a goal is to increase carbon absorption, new growth forests beat the pants off old growth forests.