Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor
12 Replies to 12 Lies

12 Replies to 12 Lies about Industrial Tree Plantations

Posted on 22 September 202222 September 2022

By Chris Lang

To mark this year’s International Day of Struggle Against Monoculture Tree Plantations, World Rainforest Movement has released “12 Replies to 12 Lies about Industrial Tree Plantations”. The publication exposes the most common misleading statements used by plantation companies and their supporters. It’s based on a WRM briefing put out in 1999 titled, “Ten Replies to Ten Lies”, written by Ricardo Carrere.

In the introduction to the report WRM writes that,

Planting trees can be very good, but it can also be very bad. It all depends on who is planting the trees, what they’re planting them for, the scale and location of the plantations and the damage or benefits they bring to communities.

Industrial tree plantations are once again expanding rapidly at least in part because of the myth that plantations can address the climate crisis. As WRM notes, since the 2015 Paris Agreement, “plantation companies have benefited from new funding sources and policies that favor their interests”.

12 Replies to 12 Lies

Here is Lie 5, from the new WRM publication, about plantations and climate change:

Lie 5: “Plantations counteract climate change”

12 Replies to 12 Lies

Climate change is getting worse. In fact, climate change is increasingly referred to as climate chaos, due to the growing frequency of extreme weather events like heat waves, floods and droughts, with the destruction and despair that they cause.

The main cause of climate chaos is well-known: the burning of fossil fuels extracted from below the earth’s surface—mainly oil, coal and gas. When these are burnt, they are very polluting, releasing, among others, a gas called carbon dioxide, among other gases. The solution is also well-known: keep the oil, coal and gas in the ground.

So, why do companies and governments say that they are saving the planet by planting trees?

While it is true that trees absorb carbon dioxide, there are important differences between the carbon that trees absorb above the ground, and the carbon released from fossil fuels extracted from below the ground.

The carbon that circulates above ground — in the air, oceans, vegetation, and soils — is often referred to as biotic carbon. It can be stored temporarily in any of these places, including in vegetation, such as trees. From there, it can easily be released naturally, through fires, storms or insect outbreaks, to name some prominent examples. Large-scale forest destruction creates an imbalance in that cycle.

Another form of this element is fossil carbon, which is in underground deposits stored over millions of years. In order to turn these deposits into fuels for energy generation, they have to be extracted using heavy machinery. When the fuels are burnt, a lot of carbon dioxide is released at once, interfering with the above-ground climate for a long time and contributing to the excessive amount of carbon that is affecting the climate.

So, having said that, why can’t plantations counteract climate change?

First of all, when carbon extracted from underground deposits is released, it interferes with the climate for a very long time — for centuries, millennia or longer. There is no way that carbon can be stored for that length of time in a plantation tree. This means that the climate interference of fossil carbon cannot be undone by planting trees. At most, trees provide temporary storage, because most industrial plantations will be harvested after a relatively short period of time.

Second, the carbon in fossil fuels is so densely packed and concentrated, that a tremendous quantity is released when a tonne of oil, gas or coal is burned. Companies could never plant enough trees to absorb all that carbon, even temporarily.

So, why do companies continue to claim that plantations can counteract climate chaos, even though this is clearly not true?

Well, they have managed to sell this idea to many individuals and entities, including most governments and investors. By claiming that the problem is about (too much) carbon in the air, and that carbon emissions can be ‘compensated’ or ‘offset’ when trees are planted, they suggest the false idea of ‘zero emissions’. Tree plantations created for this purpose, which are known as ‘carbon plantations’, are also used in a mechanism called REDD+, which has been increasingly referred to as Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) since 2019 [1].

Companies have been insisting on this false claim because it ensures that they can continue to develop their polluting industries and increase their profits for a longer time, despite climate chaos and the huge tragedies it causes.

Finally, plantation companies usually do not account for all of the carbon emissions that they generate, such as those from direct and indirect deforestation caused by setting up plantations, or from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels needed for their fertilizers, agrotoxins, machinery, trucks, ships, and so on.


[1] Besides planting trees, REDD+ and also NBS erroneously argue that pollution can be “offset” by protecting carbon in forests that are at risk of being destroyed.

 

1 thought on “12 Replies to 12 Lies about Industrial Tree Plantations”

  1. Kathleen McCroskey says:
    23 September 2022 at 6:23 am

    As stated previously, removing the original forest removes the major part of that biosphere’s mineral content. Then you grow a plantation crop – taking that away removes further mineral content, this time directly from the soil (besides the inherent soil erosion). How many times can you do this before desertification? As for the footnote, avoiding deforestation cannot result in an “offset” since the forest was already fully engaged in the planetary biotic carbon cycle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SUBSCRIBE!

Recent themes
30x30
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

Recent Comments

  • Ben on Response from Kurt Kaiser, Director of Compass Carbon: “Your article was of great concern to us”. And some questions for Kaiser from REDD-Monitor
  • James Mewa Kamaya on Papua New Guinea’s Forest Authority cancels Mayur Resources’ Kamula Doso REDD project
  • Benedikt von Butler on Switzerland’s offsetting deal with Peru excludes REDD. It will still not reduce emissions
  • Chris Ibe on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow
  • Xindia on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow

Recent Posts

  • REDD-Monitor is moving to Substack
  • REDD Project in Brazil Nut concessions in Madre de Dios, Peru finally started paying communities a decade after the project started. “I’m still lacking money,” says one community member
  • REDD-Monitor’s top ten posts in 2022
  • The harsh reality of 30×30: The EU is keen to allow extractivism in the 30×30 target – but not Indigenous Peoples’ territories
  • Human rights abuses against Indigenous Peoples and the proposed “30×30” target

Recent Comments

  • Ben on Response from Kurt Kaiser, Director of Compass Carbon: “Your article was of great concern to us”. And some questions for Kaiser from REDD-Monitor
  • James Mewa Kamaya on Papua New Guinea’s Forest Authority cancels Mayur Resources’ Kamula Doso REDD project
  • Benedikt von Butler on Switzerland’s offsetting deal with Peru excludes REDD. It will still not reduce emissions
  • Chris Ibe on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow
  • Xindia on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow

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 EcoPlanet Bamboo Evictions FCPF Financing REDD Fossil fuels FSC Green Climate Fund Greenpeace Guest post Human rights ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer The Nature Conservancy UN-REDD UNFCCC Verra 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 Gabon Germany Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Luxembourg Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Netherlands Nicaragua Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Republic of Congo Sierra Leone Spain Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA West Papua
©2025 REDD-Monitor | Powered by SuperbThemes!