most popular:
VW's 282 MPG Car



most popular:
Vertical Gardening


th comments
maxgladwell said: "Yeah, good post. http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/06/green-search-more-than-just-a-query-part-i/..." [read]

Anthony said: "Cool. Now this is an intelligent move for any company that can afford the initial investment. I assume the 12MW is the peak power output the system..." [read]

Anthony said: "Just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean they are right. It means they are more likely to be right about particular questions in their fiel..." [read]

Exothermic Reaction said: "Before the NRC and DOE were infiltrated by anti-nuke environmental activists, they put out a book on how Thorium could be used as the perfect nucle..." [read]

Troy said: "does anyone know of a product that will shut off the water flow to the showere head after a pre-set time?..." [read]

Zerofootprint Guides: Offsetting, Part 4 - Why Offset With Trees When Fossil Fuels Are To Blame?

by Ron Dembo, Zerofootprint on 07.19.07
Travel & Nature

blog4_treehugger.jpg

If climate change is primarily the result of burning fossil fuels isn't offsetting with trees simply a distraction? Shouldn't we focus on renewable energy projects that can replace the use of fossil fuel?

It's true that burning fossil fuels accounts for the largest proportion of carbon emissions. Nevertheless, the loss of trees plays a significant role. The conversion of forests has contributed around 30% of the total carbon build up in the atmosphere since 1850. And it continues – deforestation still accounts for over 20% of emissions a year.

Not only is the destruction of forests releasing huge volumes of carbon into the atmosphere, but we are losing vast quantities of one of the few mechanisms we know that can take carbon out of the atmosphere – trees.

The Earth has already lost 50% of its natural forest cover. An additional 30% has been converted to managed woodland. Each day, an area of forest twice the size of Paris disappears. Tropical rainforests are logged for their hardwoods, or to clear land for soy, palm oil and other crops. In Africa, people fell trees in search of fuel, while in West we clear land for development. As the old saying goes: a suburb is a place where they cut down the trees and then name streets after them. Even established cities find it difficult to maintain their trees. In the 20 years up to 2003, Vancouver lost half its trees (it is now trying to reverse that trend), while Harrow is typical of London areas in losing 26% of its street trees in the past five years.

We desperately need to not only stop deforestation and tree loss, but to reverse it. And this is not only because of carbon accounting and climate change. Trees play a vital role in the health of the Earth and all its creatures, not least us humans.

Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai won the Nobel Peace price in 2004 for organising African women to plant 30 million trees. Her aim was to restore local ecosystems, while providing a multiplicity of other benefits for local people. By planting trees, said Maathai, “the women would get firewood, they would get fencing material, they would get fodder and roughage to put in the sheds of their animals, they would get fruits, they would get [compost], and the trees would hoard and protect their soil.” Not only that, but the trees would help reduce the threat of conflicts over natural resources – conflicts that we now see in places such as Darfur - and create an optimism for the future.

“When we plant trees we plant the seeds of peace and the seeds of hope,” says Maathai. She has since launched a campaign to plant a billion trees across the planet, and is looking to offset schemes to help with funding.

Maathai was first alerted to the importance of trees by noticing the damage to rivers in her native Kenya when forests were cleared. This symbiotic relationship between trees and water sources is found everywhere.

Ecologists studying fish stocks in the Pacific Northwest found that the shade provided by trees on riverbanks helps regulate the temperature of spawning grounds, while fallen vegetation creates shelter for incubating embryos and young fish. In turn, the adult salmon helps feed the forests. Bears fishing in coastal streams and rivers drag the salmon up to 100 meters into the trees, where they often eat only part of the fish, leaving the carcass for other animals, insects and birds to feed on. Together, these creatures distribute this rich source of nitrogen throughout the forest. This process is so well established that it is possible to detect signatures of bumper salmon years in the growth rings of redwoods, hemlock and spruce.

The role of trees is essential to the health of the planet's ecosystems, while their benefits so multifarious that we really cannot have enough of them. Everyone knows of the gifts of the trees in their neighbourhoods, whether it is the beauty and shade they offer, the protection from wind or flood, their flowers and fruit, their habitat for wildlife, their wood, their sap, or the playgrounds they provide for children.

Cities are beginning to realise that their trees have a quantifiable value. New York's parks department, for example, has concluded that its street trees provided an annual benefit of about $122m, or $5.60 in benefits for every dollar spent, through their ability to combat pollution, reduce noise, prevent flash floods, add value real estate, and so on.

With one fifth of global emissions down to deforestation, we need to do everything we can to protect existing forests, while given the benefits of trees over and above their carbon sequestration, we need to plant as many as possible. Offsetting is a means to this end. There is no downside with trees.

The problem with offsetting with trees is not the trees themselves but how they are managed. With proper risk management, trees can be a great means of legitimately offsetting.

Comments (8)

Interesting post. We have to make certain, however, that all these tree-planting programs take local factors into account. You don't want to plant trees that are inappropriate for the area, because they might suck up too much water, they might die off in a few years, they might crowd out more deserving or valuable species.

Although planting a tree is a great symbolic act, sometimes you might instead need to plant a cactus, or a local shrub. And since those don't catch the headlines like tree-planting, people in it for the short-term attention would be less willing to do what's best.

Maybe instead of planting trees, just set aside acreage to naturally re-establish itself as it knows best.

jump to top rob says:

Masanobu Fukuoka said, in a 1986 interview with Mother Earth magazine, that he thought the only way for us to reverse course would be to load up all our weapons with payloads of seeds, and fire them all over the globe - to plant a mix of everything everywhere and let nature work out what would survive best where.

Today is always the best time to plant something new. Even in the dead of winter, you can start a tree in a pot.

jump to top BenSchiendelman [TypeKey Profile Page] says:

Check out this US Carbon Footprint Map, an interactive United States Carbon Footprint Map, illustrating Greenest States to Cities. This site has all sorts of stats on individual State & City energy consumptions, demographics and State energy offices, State Taxes and more down to the local US City level...

http://www.eredux.com/states/

jump to top Fred says:

Do trees re-release their stored CO2 after the die and are eaten/digested by microbes and bugs?

jump to top Matt Fischer says:

That photo looks lovely. Do you know where it was taken?

jump to top Tan The Man says:

"To plant a mix of everything everywhere" would mean the triumph of invasive species. I'm all for more plant life but let's be sensible.

jump to top Hudson says:

Ok... trees are good and planting more is better and there are many benefits to having more trees in the world. I completely agree.

The question still remains why offest with trees?
So if I plant a tree, I can feel better about driving a gas guzzling car or SUV? ...or fly accross the country? If we managed to have zero carbon emissions in the world does that mean we don't need to plant trees anymore?

I don't think so.

So I'll ask the question again " Why Offset With Trees When Fossil Fuels Are To Blame?"


jump to top A says:

Planting trees is just fine but don't confuse it with fixing the emissions issue. Have a look at the chart on http://theblog.carbontracking.com/?p=5 to see the time-lag between emissions and offsetting through tree-planting. Lots of good reasons for tree planting but don't include offsets on that list.

/ Colm

jump to top Colm O'G says:

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

th ads
th top picks
th ads