Many thanks for comments an new directions to stimulate the debate. However, most trees species provide food, nutrients and a myriad of other environmental services for both human, wild animals, fish,  and other living things. Urban heat is more in cities void of trees and this has been proven with a lot of empirical studies.

If one deny humans cause climate change then one apparently most also deny that it can be mitigated.

Forests can be as productive as fields and living in cities with many trees is the only free way to counter urban heat.

Many thanks Henrik! My late old mother and father knew about this before their death at the age of 80+ years. They used to  keep trees on their farmlands for fruits, nuts and shelter as well as in their hut in village market places, in the backyard and in the yard for afternoon resting. Nothing could be more fascinating than seing those trees as resting places for both human and domestic animals during sunny hot days.

I have carried out many studies about building synergies between mitigation and adaptation in the forest sector in cameroon and DRC. One of the  key results was that policy integration  and coherence between climate policies and ongoing development strategies are key to successfull climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. Our development context mainly rely on the contribution from the private sector.  The private sector in developping countries is diven by short term interests while sustainable development requires time and patience. The discourses on corporate social responsibility remain marginal within the private sector, and thus reduces the capacity of private sector to fully engage. One can note that there is a path dependency to previous development modal and Political will  is a core element in driving tranformational change based on the contribution from private sector.

Obviously there are some climate change deniers around. Read the Wikipedia file on this odd way of earning a living from oil and coal lobbyist funding.

If one recognise that the climate is changing rapidly due to human GHG-emissions one most also accept that humans can influence the speed and magnitude of this change and even select to end it.

Someone who denies this - contrary to the scientific established fact - can spend days commenting negatively on all discussions about climate change mitigation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Many thanks to Felicien and Henrik for chipping in some useful tips. I will be glad to hear from more professionals on this pressing issue. It is important to nail the issues on climate change and the private sector engagements.

Dear Kenneth,

This is another interesting school of thought. Let us see how the others will react to your tips.

Climate change denialist are characterised by making statements contrary to scientific knowledge such as: "The climate is not rapidly changing."

Kenneth's concern with the cost is outdated. Photovoltaic and windmill park energy generation currently balance the marked cost for new installations in many countries. A fine example is China which erect more windmills and photovoltaic parks than Europe and the Americas even they have no obligations to do so in the Paris Accord.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-13/germany-gets-bids-for-first-subsidy-free-offshore-wind-farms

Dear Kenneth,

I'd recommend to approach them being as concrete as possible and providing details. For example, giving them approximate numbers of economic costs associated with 'doing nothing', as well as providing them with estimation of potential profits of climate action. As much concrete as possible. This is what I usually do when I carry out participatory process.

I have to say that, in my experience, they usually participate in this kind of engagement processes since they usually are pretty interested in issues that might affect their business/privite activities, etc.

Good luck 

Dear Yeray,

Many thanks for the practical approach insights

Julius

CO2 credits already considered in New Zealand in farm-forest investment decisions. Also, the long rotation period indigenous forests can get larger role than they have today. 

I think @Kenneth M Towe should recognize that renewables and CO2 trade are not only for mitigating climate change but it is a natural economic process since renewables are cheaper (do not have to pay for mining, processing, transportation). The decentralized energy system is safer (undestroyable). Renewables and CO2 trade provide jobs for farmers and renewable industry players, and most importantly it is a change toward a self-sustaining system instead of exploitation of nature (same process from hunting and gathering to agriculture). Because of the reasons above, I think climate change mitigation is not the most important advantage of the sustainable economy and society.

I think that this is not an issue of either/or. Both forest management ( you use logging that is only the harvesting part) and  carbon sequestration are perfectly compatible and reinforcing. If you convince forest owner not to touch the forest, you are  preaching for carbon neutrality, and you are forgetting  te¡wo dimensions of sustainability: the social and the economic. Not cutting wood means that  the same  volume that grow  will die and decompose. Then sequestration = emissions. If you manage the forest  you will take wood out of the forest  that when possible will remain sequestered in  durable goods as houses, furniture, etc. On the other side you will let the forest grow again  because in the gaps light encourage regeneration   and growth. Then forest management is mitigation positive, while preservation is  carbon neutral- I will  better encourage good forest management  that will have a higher impact in sustainable development including  carbon sequestration. Thus I will try to convince more  countries and forest owners to have a positive attitude towards wood production. Take aldo into account that wood is a substitute  of  steel, concrete, cement, aluminium and plastic in  construction and  it demands fractions of energy and fossil fuels in the production of wood products in comparison with the other mentioned.

Thanks for putting this question.