Plant a Tree, Indulge Yourself?
Do carbon offsets, in the form of tree planting, really work? They are at best a temporary, stopgap measure to reducing greenhouse gases and at worst, they do little but give the purchaser license to continue to live a high-emission lifestyle because they feel they're at least "doing something" about the problem of climate change.
Trees, as we've discussed here before, are not all created equal. Tropical trees are better than trees in higher latitudes at capturing carbon while trees at higher latitudes are either carbon neutral or, in some cases, actually contribute to global warming, according to researchers. Different species of trees are more effective at carbon capture than others.
Even in tropical areas, tree-planting isn't a long-term solution to global warming. Trees capture carbon as they grow, but once a forest is mature, most of it's carbon-sequestering potential is gone.
Even if I were an advocate for action on AGW (I don't advocate any position), I think I would have a hard time supporting carbon offsets. The potential for corruption is enormous and their benefits are difficult to quantify.
Comments (9)
"The potential for corruption is enormous and their benefits are difficult to quantify."
Follow The Money. Gee, I wonder why the United "Oil For Food Scam" Nations supports AGW and claims the right to administer all climate change programs globally.
Now I support tree plantings, especially in developing nations, since there are many species of trees that when grown produce some of the most useful and/or beautiful wood in the world. This represents a sustainable industry for that country which would bring in cash to help modernize and a good use for certain types of marginal land.
Posted by Kamatu | June 3, 2007 6:00 PM
Hi Laura,
Your right about follow the money. I knew "carbon offsets" and "carbon trading" where a scam when all of the securities firms were pushing it. They make money regardless if there is a problem or not. As for plating trees the more the better. They are natural filters and help retain water vapor for the local environment. I'm not a tree hugger but I do enjoy a clean environment.
Posted by Jim Arndt | June 4, 2007 1:07 PM
Hi Laura,
I don't see how you could go wrong in planting a tree. Even if the tree is carbon nuetral or worse in the higher lattitudes, it will still block & absorb sunlight, thus cooling the ground. Have you seen the way snow hangs out under the white pines in the spring up north?
I am in the process of planting about 40 white pines on my property in PA. Besides gaining privacy these trees will cool the property & help the brown trout in my stream, who would be threatened by any global warming.
Posted by STEVEN GOODHUE | June 5, 2007 8:39 AM
Trees provide many benefits to the environment, like removal of pollutants and improving the aesthetic appeal.
CO2 obsession has become the official excuse to avoid thinking about any real issues which mankind faces. It is impossible to have a rational discussion with people who are convinced that the world is coming to an end unless government forces some draconian legislation on us.
"I'm from the government - I'm here to help you"
Posted by Patrick Henry | June 5, 2007 8:58 AM
Steve - I certainly wouldn't discourage anyone from planting trees, we're going to be planting some on our own property. One thing I think was overlooked in the studies I've written about before (on whether mid to upper latitude trees slow global warming) is the effect of shade on buildings.
Posted by Laura Hannon | June 5, 2007 9:51 AM
Agreed, I think we should all plant more trees. Just put in a sturdy live oak that will be 50 ft tall in 30 years and give us a lot of shade. Of course I will be 94 then. And--will give us a lot of leaves we can burn each autumn when the CO2 emissions are down. Of course, the scrawny tree it is now is not doing anything that will offset the emissions from the RV we just bought, but hey, its a long term investment in the future. On the average, averages tend to average out. Then, when the climate flips to its cooling cycle in 6 to 10 years, we can always cut down the tree and burn it as firewood.
It feels good to be green.
Posted by herschel | June 6, 2007 8:39 PM
Carbon offsets are simply a way for rich folks (Gore, Edwards, et al) to continue living high on the hog, while preaching conservation and "carbon-nuetrality" to the masses.
Posted by PATRICK LARKIN | June 7, 2007 1:27 PM
We'll be anxiously awaiting the 'cooling cycle' that deniers like you predict will appear soon, Herschel. If it doesn't happen, I can't wait to see what excuse you'll give at that time.
Posted by Mark | June 7, 2007 1:35 PM
Mark- my excuse will probably be the antithesis of yours when it does cool. Or will you still be blaming global warming for global cooling so that you will be what you call the "denier" then. I think I just answered my own question. Oh by the way, a denier is a unit of weight indicating the fineness of fiber filaments and yarns. I am simply a skeptic of the "A" part of the AGW postulation. It is still a long way from theory.
There are two sides to any person's argument, His and the wrong one.
Posted by herschel | June 7, 2007 5:58 PM