Is It Trees Versus Food?

Oxfam have produced a report Tightening the net: Net zero climate targets implications for land and food equity (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/03/reforestation-hopes-threaten-global-food-security-oxfam-warns). The Oxfam report points out that if tree planting was used as the sole means of offsetting carbon emissions, an area the size of 5 Indias (1.6 bn hectares) would be needed. Pretty obviously, this isn't going to happen. Oxfam's concern is that tree planting might encroach on the land needed to produce food for the growing world population of humans. At the very least, they say, it would increase food prices. Rather obviously, different organisations will have different areas of concern, in evaluating environmental moves. Oxfam's is feeding the world. It's not, however, a simple calculation. Failing to get to carbon zero by 2050 (which may well be too slow and insufficient anyhow), will reduce the amount of viable agricultural land (by combinations of sealevel rises, altered climatic conditions etc). The world populations of humans would also be seriously endangered by more than hunger and the rising price of food. I agree that the idea of tree-planting our way out of the climate crisis is overly simplistic (especially if people want to carry on emitting 'greenhouse gases' at the current rate). I don't, however, see tree planting as currently a major threat. The destruction of the Amazon rainforest suggests that obsessions with food production (and their associated profits) is currently the more powerful threat.