I was reading the News24 article, which debunks this according to "facts". It is quite hard to prove, but it was interesting that the reporter ignored some key facts, such as Johannesburg is located in the grasslands biome, so trees are not typically naturally occurring in the Johannesburg area, but the natural vegetation is grass. So all the trees had to be planted from the time JHB was established during the Witwatersrand gold rush and during its expansion. This is evidenced by some of the names of the early farms, Orange Grove, Orchards, Norwood, etc., because of the need for trees for food, fuel, shelter, and to create wind/sight barriers from the mining areas for the wealthy. The early photos of JHB also show the absence of trees, and this isn't because they were cut down during the gold rush. So the other cities mentioned in the MIT study are all located in areas where trees occur naturally and in cities close to naturally occurring water sources. Johannesburg claims to fame of being one of the largest, if not the largest, city established without a naturally occurring water source. So yeah, some facts that were overlooked are that there were almost no trees naturally in Johannesburg, and the trees would've required maintenance and watering to grow. So whilst there are undoubtedly other cities which are greener, Johannesburg's urban forest did start from nothing.   submitted by   /u/W1lfsbane [link]   [comments]