In other words, start preparing for the outcome of this. We, as a species, cannot seem to be able to stop what we are doing.
But the largest (or 2nd largest[?], but it doens't matter) offender has removed themselves from the agreement. I'm only aware of small municipalities taking action to handle the inevitable (e.g. on the east coast of the US), but it's not going to help at a national or global level.
Aside from that, if it was a natural thing then should we interfere with it? If it was natural I'd be much less inclined to act.
"The radical transformation also would mean that, in a world projected to have more than 2 billion additional people by 2050, large swaths of land currently used to produce food would instead have to be converted to growing trees that store carbon and crops designated for energy use. The latter would be used as part of a currently nonexistent program to get power from trees or plants and then bury the resulting carbon dioxide emissions in the ground, leading to a net subtraction of the gas from the air — bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or BECCS."
Oaks can live up to 500 years, and Sequoia for a few thousands, but finding the place where to plant them is probably trickier than expected.
> To limit global warming to 1.5 degree C is "possible within the laws of chemistry and physics," said Jim Skea, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc...
“ Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with protecting the environment. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated.”
— Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC in 2010
