That's about as clicbait a title given the content as I can imagine. I would summarize the article as:

- Subsidy schemes can often cause problems where monoculture farmable tree crops can reduce biodiversity can cause problems. But I think it's worth noting that replacing trees with another is not what I would call, or what most people likely think, when referring to new forests, and even if we ignore that point, the problem is not the new forests in general but the incentives used to cause it to happen.

- Carbon sequestration may be overestimated because if the ground is already rich in carbon, some of that may be reduced so the overall additional effect of sequestration is less than one might assume.

Neither of those are really in support of "new forests can do more hard than good" in my opinion. They may be worth discussing, but this isn't a good start for a useful conversation on the BBC's part.

These seem to be addressing different things.

The post is about LOCAL climate, and trying to cool down Las Vegas itself.

The BBC article is about the affect on GLOBAL climate change.

Let's not over-complicate the issue. It's 98F today where I live, and I'm sitting comfortably in my room, without any AC, because I have a big tree outside blocking the sunlight. Shade works wonders.

The BBC makes good points there, but Las Vegas is just planting trees in urban areas to cool off the place. The native ecosystems in those areas are long gone.

Sure, new trees won't solve global warming. But they can have other advantages.

Terrible article. Sorry, but there's no other way to put it.

It's complaining about:

1) Corruption in Chile led people to tear down existing forests in order to plant trees again to make money.

2) "Some study" found out that planting trees in soil which is already rich in carbon does not lead to a significant increase in carbon soil.

None of these suggest "more harm than good", it's just a sensationalistic piece ... against planting trees? What an extremely distorted agenda to push.