There is an ancient proverb – some claim it hails from China, others Africa – that says, "The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago – the next best time is now." Whatever the proverb's origins, it's a universal truth that planting a tree, on so many levels, is a beneficial thing to do. Trees are good, full stop.

In fact, trees are so wonderful that an independent study, commissioned by the Forestry Commission, is calling for 23,000 hectares of trees a year — equivalent to about 30,000 football pitches – to be planted across the country over the next 40 years. This, it says, would help the UK "lock up" 10% of the nation's predicted greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

But do we need to plant all these trees in forest-sized tracts for maximum effect? Could we get the same benefit if every British homeowner planted a tree in their backyard instead? And what species of trees are up to the job? The study's authors state that trees take 50-100 years before they "prove their worth" and whatever tree species we plant now must be suited to the climactic realities they might face in coming decades.

Professor Sir David Read, the emeritus professor of plant sciences at Sheffield University, who led the study's panel of experts, says that we must start the hunt for species that could cope with a warmer, Mediterranean-type climate that might become typical in some parts of the country. "White and red oaks from America, for example. Or oaks from French genetic stock. Willow and poplar will be good species, too."

But not all species are suited to a cramped backyard, where roots could damage foundations, or fast-growing trees could quickly cast shadows over neighbours. The Woodland Trust, which will be trying on December 5 to set a new world record for the most number of trees planted in an hour, says that hazel, hawthorn and silver birch are the most suitable for small spaces.

Beyond the backyard, Read says that "the larger the scale of planting the better" in terms of maximising any reduction of emissions. He acknowledges that the public will prefer "extensions to natural woodlands" rather than "terrifying blocks of conifers", even though the study found that a coniferous forest in Scotland can remove, on average, 24 tonnes of CO² per hectare per year, whereas an oak forest in southern England removes 15 tonnes of CO².

Read stresses, though, that we should all get involved: "I would never discourage anyone from planting a tree in their backyard. Any action is better than none."