Drifting across the BBC website, looking for references to "independent" think tanks, I read the curious title: European forests bear 'carbon saturation point'. This title implied that European forests would no longer be able to absorb carbon. A curiosity which, at first glance, refuted the known processes by which plants feed themselves. A closer examination of the article revealed that this was a cursory summary of a science article released in Nature Climate Change. The authors warned that the European carbon sink may prove less absorbent than anticipated due to changes in human land-use increasing deforestation, an increase in wildfires and a change in tree demography with older stands predominating with a reduced ability to soak up carbon.
This may or may not be true, but some of the projections appear highly speculative. This is another article extrapolating what could be, and we all know how those tend to be disproved as the years pass. There was little or no criticism of the article included. And Mark Kinver concluded with a reference to teh proposed solution: a pan-European legally binding treaty on forest management which would force property owners to deal with forests as the state saw fit in the name of climate change.
This does tick the boxes: climate change problem, BBC article, proposed European solution forcing everyone to obey some fiat law from on high without any real scientific evidence. Just one article: hardly a consensus - which is the cited requirement for policy, except when it doesn't suit the requirements.