Global warming and trees
I've heard there's been marketing for "offseting" carbon footprints by doing things like paying someone to plant trees.
At one level it seems harmless enough - people rich enough to afford carbon credits can pay others to do good things. But on the other hand, I'd question how such a "trade" is measured. By question, overall I mean I don't believe it.
For instance, let's say someone plants a tree for me and over its life, 100 tons of CO2 is extracted from the atmosphere. Someone might say that tree can pay for 100 tons of CO2 production, but that is a wrong calculation if the tree EVER is allowed to decay or is burned. Then its all released again. What's a proper calculation? The tree must be guaranteed to be processed in a way to NOT burn or let it decay. I mean guarantee to mean some sort of future effort is needed to preserve the wood, even if risks exist.
The promise isn't a bad one - especially if the tree wood can be used for building, although even a building can't last forever. Eventually fires will come or the wood will get wet and rot and the house torn down. At least productive uses of the trees mean it more likely that the CO2 can stay out of the atmosphere longer. AND it suggests choices - you might plant "fast growing trees" to maximize CO2 uptake or "slow hardwoods" that can be used for building lumber in the end.
If you grow a tree that is expected to be BURNED for energy, it can't be used as an offset at all, although I've read the idea that charcoal burial can be used both to store carbon AND enrich the soil.
Still overall, I imagine the work of "offsetting" fossil fuel burning takes more energy than if it was left in the ground in the first place and renewable energy was used instead. So overall, I think it's probably an illusionary idea, ESPECIALLY for the rich who want to continue an unsustainable lifestyle and think they're making a difference.
If the rich really wanted to make a difference, they'd be better off investing directly in renewable energy source. So I expect, but who knows?
At one level it seems harmless enough - people rich enough to afford carbon credits can pay others to do good things. But on the other hand, I'd question how such a "trade" is measured. By question, overall I mean I don't believe it.
For instance, let's say someone plants a tree for me and over its life, 100 tons of CO2 is extracted from the atmosphere. Someone might say that tree can pay for 100 tons of CO2 production, but that is a wrong calculation if the tree EVER is allowed to decay or is burned. Then its all released again. What's a proper calculation? The tree must be guaranteed to be processed in a way to NOT burn or let it decay. I mean guarantee to mean some sort of future effort is needed to preserve the wood, even if risks exist.
The promise isn't a bad one - especially if the tree wood can be used for building, although even a building can't last forever. Eventually fires will come or the wood will get wet and rot and the house torn down. At least productive uses of the trees mean it more likely that the CO2 can stay out of the atmosphere longer. AND it suggests choices - you might plant "fast growing trees" to maximize CO2 uptake or "slow hardwoods" that can be used for building lumber in the end.
If you grow a tree that is expected to be BURNED for energy, it can't be used as an offset at all, although I've read the idea that charcoal burial can be used both to store carbon AND enrich the soil.
Still overall, I imagine the work of "offsetting" fossil fuel burning takes more energy than if it was left in the ground in the first place and renewable energy was used instead. So overall, I think it's probably an illusionary idea, ESPECIALLY for the rich who want to continue an unsustainable lifestyle and think they're making a difference.
If the rich really wanted to make a difference, they'd be better off investing directly in renewable energy source. So I expect, but who knows?
posted by Ares Olympus at 6:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home