Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor
Tree planting

Tree planting is not a solution to the climate crisis

Posted on 10 June 202210 June 2022

By Chris Lang

“Trees can quickly and cost-effectively remove carbon from the atmosphere today. But when companies rely on them to offset their emissions, they risk merely hitting the climate “snooze” button, kicking the can to future generations who will have to deal with those emissions.”

That’s climate scientist Zeke Hausfather, writing in a recent article in the New York Times.

Hausfather notes that about 20% of the carbon dioxide we put in the atmosphere today will still be there thousands of years from now. Meanwhile, the carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere and stored in trees, vegetation, and soils is only temporarily stored.

Tree planting

Carbon is forever

He links to a 2008 article published in Nature Climate Change titled “Carbon is forever”, written by Mason Inman.

Inman quotes from a book written by David Archer, “The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate”:

The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever. The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this.

The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge. Longer than time capsules, longer than nuclear waste, far longer than the age of human civilization so far.”

Hausfather points out that effectively undoing emissions means keeping removing carbon from the atmosphere permanently. “There is a real risk,” he writes, “that, in a warming world with more wildfires, with pests preying on trees and with drying soil, carbon in tree plantations could end up back in the atmosphere sooner rather than later.”

Permanently removing carbon by planting trees would mean that the trees have to survive for thousands of years. The trees would have to be planted on land that otherwise would have been free of trees for thousands of years. Obviously, that’s a counterfactual that’s completely impossible to verify.

Tree planting

Hausfather raises another problem with using offsets from tree planting to justify continued pollution:

Companies using trees to offset their emissions often sign a 40-year contract. But the companies selling and buying carbon credits may not be around in 40 years. There is a real risk that no one will be left holding the bag if tree plantations are clear-cut for development, go up in flames or are devoured by mountain pine beetles a few decades hence. In short, the timelines over which carbon removal needs to occur are fundamentally inconsistent with the planning horizons of private companies today.

Carbon removal

In March 2022, Hausfather joined Stripe Climate “to help support early-stage technologies and build a market for permanent carbon removal”. In his New York Times article, he writes about carbon removal – putting carbon back into the ground, into deep oceans, or turning it into rocks:

There are only a handful of facilities in Europe and North America that are currently doing permanent carbon removal; the technologies have been deployed outside the lab for less than a decade, and they are still quite expensive, with prices typically in the hundreds of dollars per ton of carbon removed. But a growing number of scientists are working toward scaling them up and reducing costs.

Hausfather was a contributing author to the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report. The report found that rapidly reducing emissions is crucial to avoid climate breakdown. Removing CO2 already in the atmosphere is also an “essential element”.

To date, carbon removal efforts by companies and governments have largely relied on trees and soil. But even under a best-case scenario, these can only provide around half of the removal needed. We only have so much available arable land in which to plant the number of trees we need to store enough carbon.

Carbon offsets

Hausfather notes that the vast majority of carbon offsets involve paying someone else to avoid emissions, rather than actually removing CO2 from the atmosphere. “Offset markets are plagued by hot air,” he writes, “with many actors gaming the system by claiming carbon credits for actions they were already planning to take, such as building a clean energy project or not cutting down a forest they own.”

He acknowledges that the scale of carbon removal necessary to address the climate crisis is “staggering” compared to the tiny amount of carbon removed so far.

Hausfather concludes that,

To tackle climate change, we need to reduce emissions as quickly as possible. But we also need to invest in bringing down the cost of technologies to remove billions of tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the future. Trees and soil are not a panacea for removing carbon. While governments should be encouraged to enhance the amount of carbon stored in trees, plants, and soil, we should be skeptical of claims that rely on temporary removals to justify additional “forever” emissions.

 

  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Facebook

2 thoughts on “Tree planting is not a solution to the climate crisis”

  1. Kathleen McCroskey says:
    11 June 2022 at 5:38 am

    Unfortunately, all of the above is true. Carbon is not properly sequestered in a tree until the tree dies and becomes lignite or coal. That is the difference between biosphere and geosphere storage. Millions of years of properly sequestered carbon have been thrown into the atmosphere in a few generations. The natural systems of locking carbon out of the biosphere are ongoing, eternal processes that allow life to thrive on this planet. The problem with simply removing CO2 from the atmosphere overlooks the issue of the declining oxygen level in the atmosphere while at the same time we kill off the planet’s systems for producing more oxygen. So ideally, we must convert atmospheric CO2 into black carbon and release the oxygen. Can you think of an end-run to the laws of thermodynamics? I can’t – therefore it will take MORE energy to separate the carbon and oxygen than you realized as “energy” when you burnt the carbon! So, you have to STOP BURNING! Meanwhile, put a price on oxygen, so that you pay for the oxygen that you steal from the commons to burn your fuels. Then there are funds to pay for more oxygen production. And remember, there are far more factors contributing to a successful forest than just trees poked in the ground.

  2. will says:
    15 June 2022 at 4:44 pm

    Thank you Kathleen M for your comment, I agree your Oxygen production reward makes sense
    but there is the equivalent of about 6ft of water by weight of O2 in the atmosphere so people could
    argue that this could oxidize all the fossil and bio carbon without depleting the store in the near future.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

SUBSCRIBE!

Enter your email address to receive notification of new posts.

Recent themes
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

Recent Comments

  • Vijay Mallya on Peter Virdee sentenced to more than three years in prison for his role in carbon credit VAT fraud
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Indigenous Sengwer urge donors “to stop funding conservation projects that are stealing our land and destroying our life”
  • Marcos Brasil on Ecomapuá Amazon REDD Project, Brazil: Pública investigation reveals Ecomapuá Conservação is selling “illegal” carbon offsets from land it does not own, without transferring the money to local communities
  • Chris Lang on The Carbon Credit Registry carbon credit “reformatting” scam continues: A company calling itself Williams & Gray is running a recovery room scam
  • Kay on The Carbon Credit Registry carbon credit “reformatting” scam continues: A company calling itself Williams & Gray is running a recovery room scam

Recent Posts

  • Indigenous Sengwer urge donors “to stop funding conservation projects that are stealing our land and destroying our life”
  • The return of the Kamula Doso REDD project in Papua New Guinea: This time run by Mayur Resources, a mining company, and Santos, an oil and gas company
  • Oakland Institute and Survival International call on UNESCO and IUCN to cut ties with the Tanzanian government over the most recent human rights abuses against the Maasai in Loliondo
  • Statement from Kichwa Indigenous communities about the Cordillera Azul National Park REDD (PNCAZ) project: “No to the false climate solutions offered as ‘Nature Based Solutions’ and ‘carbon neutrality’ by oil and mining companies that pollute in other regions of the world, such as Shell, Total, BHP, and others, who buy carbon from the PNCAZ.”
  • 30×30 target “not supported by the science”

Recent Comments

  • Vijay Mallya on Peter Virdee sentenced to more than three years in prison for his role in carbon credit VAT fraud
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Indigenous Sengwer urge donors “to stop funding conservation projects that are stealing our land and destroying our life”
  • Marcos Brasil on Ecomapuá Amazon REDD Project, Brazil: Pública investigation reveals Ecomapuá Conservação is selling “illegal” carbon offsets from land it does not own, without transferring the money to local communities
  • Chris Lang on The Carbon Credit Registry carbon credit “reformatting” scam continues: A company calling itself Williams & Gray is running a recovery room scam
  • Kay on The Carbon Credit Registry carbon credit “reformatting” scam continues: A company calling itself Williams & Gray is running a recovery room scam

Issues and Organisations

30x30 AB 32 Andes Amazon Boiler rooms California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Cryptocurrency Deforestation FCPF FERN Financing REDD Forest definition Fossil fuels FPP Friends of the Earth FSC Greenpeace Guest post ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations Poznan R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer The Nature Conservancy UN-REDD UNFCCC World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region Costa Rica DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Germany Guatemala Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Laos Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nicaragua Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Republic of Congo Sierra Leone Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA Vietnam West Papua
©2022 REDD-Monitor | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!