Check out Drawdown [0] for other interventions with quantified costs/benefits.
Economists widely agree that carbon pricing is the most effective way to fix climate change [1], and fee-and-dividend implementations are the most viable politically (there's a bill before Congress now [2]).
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/business/economic-science...
[2] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbo...
That is true, and does not conflict with the findings of the article.
I think the difference here is that we can start planting trees right now. Carbon taxation is something people still pretend doesn't have to be done.
It's also worth noting, that given the accelerating pace of the climate crisis, the time to start planting those forests is NOW. Not in a year, not in two years, NOW.
Trees readily plant themselves in areas they are well adapted to. Areas that don’t quickly turn into forests are generally poorly suited to growing trees.
Further, not all trees are equivalent with marginal areas generally resulting in small and often very slowly growing trees.
I am very skeptical if that's true – see formerly forested areas like Iceland, Brazil, etc. It's not easy for a single sapling to grow into a tree, even if the conditions are right. That's why companies like Afforestt exist [0].
Edit, back to your point. Forest fires and other natural events regularly kill off large chunks of trees. They need to be able to grow in those areas in order to survive.
We're at a point where passively going with "let nature take its course" is not a prudent action. We need to nudge things where and when we can. There's multiple documented instances of forests being replanted, so this is not idle speculation.
It'll take a while to get the rest forested if I wait, though squirrels and birds moving seeds could help. Part of it is that trees can make the area better for other trees; the conifers stop grass from growing under them, which is good since the grass can be as tall as I am and block out light.
For some value of "quick", you are correct. Fertile land will indeed eventually develop into some kind of forest absent factors that inhibit such development (such as grazing cattle). I do not agree with you about this process being quick, as it can easily take more than one human lifetime for this to happen.
On top of that grasslands can store significant carbon in root systems which is then slowly released as the grasses are killed of by tree growth.
How to minimize the Tragedy of the commons effect? Where countries don't want to impact their economic growth because other countries won't impose such taxes, therefore some production will move there.
This was the point of the Paris Agreement.
[0] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/TPC_201...
If you use the money for a specific purpose, then you either need low carbon taxes to avoid radically altering the government’s role in the economy, or you are making a large bet that the government will spend the money well.
Having a large, long run carbon tax will do much to encourage the market to develop alternatives.
Then once it's in and working start researching better and more effective ways to use it. I don't think we have the luxury to hang around any more.
You just have to charge enough to get emissions down to the desired level.
Those economists are basing that claim on two highly questionable premises:
(1) That we know with high confidence that reducing CO2 levels will "fix" climate change. We don't know that. Climate models based on that assumption do not make accurate predictions.
(2) That we know with high confidence the economic consequences of particular interventions such as carbon pricing. We don't know that either. Economists' predictive ability is even worse than that of the climate models.