Yeah, I'm familiar with the concept. And not an unreasonable way to go about reducing the impact of CC.
My question was how you see this happening?
Often, we talk about policy, as though if we could just figure out how to solve the problem with some idealized policy, the problem could go away.
In our specialist economy, we tend to focus on individual actions, and allow government to pick up the larger responsibilities. This idealized policy discussion, is part of that letting go.
But it is very common to leave it there.
This ignores the perverse incentives of our legislative, regulatory, and capital investment systems. It encourages us to abandon responsibility to the very same societal structures that create and maintain these issues.
In your videos, manual labor is used to move the surface of a desert into configurations that slow surface water flow.
This is entirely different than modifying a surface that can support trees. Roots will lock soils and rocks into place. Even if all the work was done after a clear cut, that then burnt, this is a much bigger job than stacking free stone in a wasteland. Plus, many of our timberlands are far steeper than anything in the videos.
Leaving aside the work, the real perversion kicks in when someone has to pay for all that work. Timberland belongs to the Feds. And some belongs to the state, county, even cities have timberland. Also, timberland is owned privately, both at the individual and corporate level.
I predict that if one were to track the $$$ in this sector, it will move around a lot. It will be the engine that drives an enormous load of paper, and it will leak out at every node, but very little will make it to a person with a pickaxe who can see a tree.
Only because that is how the system works currently, and I don't see any changes coming.
A policy won't fix this. Not that a fix isn't possible, but that talking about policy is how we resign ourselves to consigning problems too big to solve ourselves, to larger organizations that will also, not solve them. At best, these organizations will maintain them.
I understand this is outside the scope of your post, and I am not trying to call you out here. I don't have the answer to this conundrum, but it is what I am thinking about, lately. It seems relevant, so I am asking everyone:
Given where we are (lots of timber, some currently burning, in the hands of many, varied interests) and where we would like to be (timberland that burns less and is better adapted to a wider variety of climatic conditions) and the regulations we currently have; is there a better way to get from where we are, to where we want to be, than we are currently using?
Because this path doesn't seem to lead from here to there.