The purpose of ads is (1) to make you buy something you didn't need before the ad made you aware of it, or (2) to make you choose the advertised brand amongst competing brands when you buy a product comparable to the advertised one.
Runaway consumption is what has gotten us into this ecological mess in the first place.
Watching ads to replant trees just sounds very strange.
In part. If instead of almost 8 billion humans there were 4 billions we wouldn't be in this mess either.
I'm not sure your logic follows. The US outputs roughly 13% of global CO2 emissions despite having 4% of the world population.
If the ratio of population to CO2 output was scaled in this case, 7.5 billion US citizens would output 118,000 Mt of CO2 per year. Halving that (to less than 4 billion humans) would be 59,000 Mt of CO2 per year, and the current global output is 37,000 Mt per year.
The issue is overpopulation. You need a specific amount of resources to sustain that number. you cant half it without halfing the population
The forestry industry views forests as large scale gardening, and they spend big bucks to plant trees after they log an area. In many cases I think our good will is being hijacked to pay for something that they ought to cover.
I'd be much more interested in a program to plant a diversity of native trees in areas that are protected.
Failing that, I guess it's not the end of the world that we re-plant some logging company's patch, it just doesn't give me the same warm-fuzzies.