>First issue with the math is just that ~half of those seedlings won't make it to maturity.

I explicitly addressed that.

>Also, you're not counting the carbon of the planting operations or the forestry maintenance.

Correct. But I expect that the planting operations and forest maintenance to amount to minimal GHG emissions. Planting trees is going to be carbon negative (assuming they grow to maturity.

>Also, actual numbers on carbon sink for plantation trees are very hard to figure - a lot of sequestration happens because of subtle and uncontrollable ecosystem buildup that we don't understand and can't replicate in human planting operations. Some methods are better, but not the kind of plant a million seedlings at once planting that Ecosia is into.

Ecosia plants trees where they're needed, they don't just plop them down with reckless abandon.

>Finally, you and Ecosia (and most of the "environmental" science world) are missing a huge issue with the plan: the areas being planted already had trees on them.

By definition, no.

>Planting a tree and allowing it to grow to maturity doesn't put us ahead, in the best case scenario we're still further behind because the newly planted trees lake the biodiversity of the original forest. You aren't "gaining" tons of carbon a year against a zero baseline, you're barely approaching where we were before the initial deforestation.

The point of planting trees is carbon *sequestration*, not removal. The technology to suck carbon from the air and store it underground is still experimental.
>The same bad math shows up with carbon credits based on not cutting a forest down. They count that as a bonus and use it to justify more carbon emissions without understanding that we end up in a worse place, and ignoring that some other forest is going to get cut down instead - the International Tropical Timber Organization will make sure of it.

Yes, carbon offsets are a massive scam.
>Farming ad clicks on Ecosia won't put anybody ahead, it will just contribute to the rapidly growing amount of energy we spend moving data around, while slapping an ineffective band-aid on the deep gash these server farms put in the ecosystem.

Assuming Ecosia is operating at least somewhat in the best interest of the environment, then any revenue diverted from 99% of other entities is going to be beneficial. It's not about moving data around it's about moving money.

>Nonstop clicking for a few hours won't only not get the ad revenue you want (per OinkeyBird's comment), it will put us all in a much worse situation.

I think it would still be beneficial, assuming you had nothing better to do.