Indeed. A few years ago I ran across a comparison of old photographs of rural villages (early 20th century) in central Europe vs their present day appearance, taken from similar points of view.

Two things were immediately apparent from the old photographs - less forest - tons of fruit trees

Fitting is also this anecdote I heard when visiting a historical mill. They had a huge linden tree in their yard, and they told us that in the olden days this was a symbol of prosperity, because the original owner showed off that they could afford to plant a useless, non-fruit-bearing - a status symbol.

Coming full circle - the best thing would be if we could plant tons of trees that also produce food - something like the baobabs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adansonia_digitata . E.g. pigs were fed oak's acorns in fall.

Climate getting milder has also meant the tree line, and thus forest line, has moved up quite a lot[1].

[1]: https://www.forskning.no/norges-forskningsrad-partner-miljoo...

Just open google maps and take a stroll across europe...

It’s the same in America, there’s actually more trees now than at the time of European settlement. A combo of the large buffalo herds that used to roam and native land management that often involved burning entire forests.

In comparison, Denmark is currently at only 15% forest.

This is up from about 2% in the early 1800s, back when ships were built from wood, and firewood was used for heating. Funnily, the slow and steady build-up during those 200 years was partially motivated by the fact that when the British destroyed the fleet in 1807, there was simply not enough wood to build a new one.

We have to be careful here. While that's good news locally, the news is less promising globally. Deforestation is still rampant in the global south - specifically to make agricultural products for the global north. So Europe and America are still net-deforesters if you take into account their imported products.