Zerofootprint: Offsets - A Different Way to Hug a Tree

"Why not simply follow ancient folklore and plant a tree? Buy a Sunday Times and plant a tree?"

Depends on where you plant the new tree. If you plant it in your yard, you may have offset the removal of one tree with the planting of another, but as far as paper usage goes, it doesn't help, because your tree will likely never be harvested for paper. If you're talking oxygen/carbon dioxide, that makes more sense.

When it comes to books why not use digital media. Newspaper? I read most my news off the computer screen rather than a newspaper. I'd like to see a way to reduce junk mail, most of it goes to the recycle bin with hardly a glance. What if the paper and card stock to print this "garbage" was never used... how much is never recycled...

One more thing, would you pay more for book, paper, mag. etc. if you knew that your money was going to plant trees?

Don, I think that he was mostly talking about building in the cost of offsets into things. So, for example, you buy your sunday paper and in the cost there is a 10-20 cents (whatever) that goes to a company that does offsets, so with all that money they plant tree in the boreal forest/amazonia/whatever.

what if we use the mindset of Cradle to Cradle and stop print on paper all together. that would save plenty of trees.

Until you can re-plant the eco system that surrounded that tree, you're still going to have a more positive impact if you focus on conservation.

"would you pay more for book, paper, mag. etc. if you knew that your money was going to plant trees?"

I would, but even for people that wouldn't; it already has been mentioned that it's less expensive to offset than to use recycled paper, and right now a lot of people buy books made with recycled paper without even knowing the difference in price.

Up to a point, though, it will stop being just a personal choice and will probably be something (restoration) that will have to be built in most of our systems.

I have family that works in the paper industry, and a lot of the paper that they use is from tree farms. Just like it'd be dumb for a farmer to not replant his crops after a harvest, the paper companies replant trees. So I think its a good idea in principle and all, but when it comes to paper, as far as my experience goes, this plant a tree for the paper you use is already being done.

Duane, I had a discussion about tree farms/tree plantations not too long ago, and the research I did showed me that more than 75% of the trees cut in the world are not from tree farms, and that these monocrops are about as natural as corn fields and pretty useless as ecosystems, they destroy the soil and take decades to mature.

Not to mention all the problems that you can read about here (lack of genetic diversity make them vulnerable to pests and disease, all the same height and shallow roots make them vulnerable to strong winds and fire, etc).

"The solution? Sustainably managed forests. Less profit in the short-term is a nice trade-off for the security of knowing that the resource can be exploited profitably forever and that nature is preserved. It's as simple as knowing, by careful scientific monitoring, the growing rate of the forest you want to exploit (ie. 2.1% a year) and not cutting more than that through selective cuts. 2.1% of hundreds or thousands of acres of forest is still quite a lot. Sure it'd be possible to make more money by cutting 5% a year, but you'd end up with no forest and no business after a while. Being greedy just leads to the kind of situations that fishers are experiencing with most of the formely thriving fisheries in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans."

(David Suzuki wrote about this in his book "Good News For A change").

MGR,
I agree that sustainably managed forests are the ideal solution, but the cost of doing this is most likely prohibitive for business, unless we make it an issue. And the fact that most of the timber used is non-tree farm is also a good point. I think one of the problems might be the lack of branding with most paper products. I have no idea who made the paper for my books, and the magazines and newspapers I read. That makes it a bit harder to be environmentally selective as a consumer to get the most green product possible. So, maybe the best solution is that of one of the earlier posts and reduce consumption. But for me, reading on a computer screen just isn't the same as having the book in my hands.

Actually, sustainably managed forests might cost a bit more in the short-term, but they definitely make more financial sense in the mid and long-term since, well, they are sustainable (and they are actually forests, unlike tree plantations -- a forest is not just a bunch of trees lined up, there's a lot more to that ecosystem that keeps it working well over centuries).

The resource industry has to realize that unsustainable practices mean that their cash-flow is also unsustainable (ie. fisheries, fossil fuel industry, etc).

How long does it take to grow a forest? how long has FSC been around? do some math. please.

FSC is a feel good way of doing business same old same old. you wanna get things right? 1)insist that stumpage fees are riased (that way recycled paper wont seem like such a useless solution).
2) Get manufacturers you patronize to switch to tree free paper (Warner Brothers now makes every CD liner with tree free paper; you think they'd do that if it cost them 2X more?)

and is that nuimber even correct? according to California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) they found many recycled paper stocks that were cheaper than virgin paper

hey i hope it works-- and lkal the more power to ya! but really offsetting *may* have positive effects, we will really have to wait and see. in the meantime if you could manage "10 or 20 cents, whatever" from every NYTimes and from many books and magazines, thats good business for you. the service charges alone can ensure that you will have many more trips to exotic locales... personally, i think it's a shell game. and if all you can do is FSC (as opposed to say, analog forestry or something really substantial) then well, like i said best of luck, but youre stillkilling trees and now youre an apoligist and justifier for people to continue killing (non FSC) virgin trees. what are we supposed to be so excited about here??

This creative thinking is long overdue in the mainstream. Thanks.
And, would anyone know about a study I heard of recently on NPR that claimed that trees while of course giving off oxygen also give off methane, one of the "worst" greenhouse gases. Should that be true it would warrant a different approach. Perhaps it is not all types of tree and that information would be good too.

"Recently, I visited one of the most primitive cultures I have seen and I came back humbled."

Let's put this comment into perspective: what actually makes a culture primitive?

Because in my estimation, this is an advanced culture compared to developed countries, which don't require citizens to put back more than they take.

I appreciate the rest of the article, but try to be a little less ethnocentric next time, 'kay? That kind of phrasing has historically been used to justify taking over these "primitive cultures."