Opinion

Suzuki: Planting Trees Good, But No Global Warming Fix

Foundation responds to Tyee story, gives view on forests and carbon offsets.

By Nicholas Heap, 2 Mar 2009, TheTyee.ca

Tree in palms

Artificial new forests: not the 'gold standard.'

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

[Re: Chris Wood, "How the Carbon Casino Pits Ecologist Against Ecologist" -- Feb. 25, 2009]

No one questions the value of trees. But many people have raised concerns about planting trees as a way to generate carbon offsets.

In order to address global warming, we need to reduce the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, preventing this insulating blanket of gases from thickening and warming the planet further.

Because it is often impossible to immediately reduce one's emissions to zero, more and more people and companies are turning to carbon offsets, in an effort to become "carbon neutral."

These offsets allow people and businesses to buy "credits" for the emissions they produce. The money is used to purchase the rights to emissions reductions that were generated elsewhere by carbon offset developers. These offsets are produced precisely because of the money to be earned from their sale.

Carbon offsets are not in themselves a solution to global warming, because they are unlikely to produce the overall deep greenhouse gas reductions required to avert dangerous climate change. But buying offsets can be an effective interim strategy that can be implemented immediately.

Many reputable projects funded through offsets -- such as wind energy or solar power projects -- are emission reduction offsets that reduce overall fossil fuel use. By conserving energy and switching from fossil fuels to renewable and clean energy sources, we significantly reduce human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

Saving natural ecosystems

Another important means of reducing the flow of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is to stop our ongoing destruction of natural ecosystems, especially old-growth forests, wetlands, grasslands, and peatlands. Natural ecosystems store massive amounts of carbon in their vegetation and soils, but when they are cleared for agriculture or pasture, destructively logged or mined, flooded, and degraded by human-set fires, much of their stored carbon is released back into the atmosphere as heat-trapping carbon dioxide. Thus the destruction of natural ecosystems is not only a primary driver of the extinction of species but also a driver of global warming as well.

Quite apart from their value as potential carbon stores, trees and forests provide a plethora of environmental goods and services that directly benefit our lives. Trees are not just sources of wood products; they provide medicine, food and clean drinking water. They stabilize steep slopes and increase property value. Forests provide habitat for over half of all terrestrial biodiversity on the planet. All of these reasons for preserving our intact forests are crucial, and the ecological services provided by forests would be essential even in the absence of climate change.

'Artificial forests' aren't the answer

But despite their many benefits in other areas, the David Suzuki Foundation has concluded that tree-planting projects -- the creation of brand-new artificial forests -- are not the most effective way for us to avoid dangerous levels of global warming, since a tonne of carbon stored in a growing forest is not equivalent to a tonne of offsets produced from energy efficiency or renewable energy projects.

For one, it is much more difficult to quantify the amount of carbon that trees take out of the atmosphere than it is to quantify reductions in fossil-fuel use. The amount of greenhouse gases sequestered by tree-planting offsets can vary considerably, depending on the species planted, the local site conditions of the project, and the amount of fossil-fuel greenhouse gases emitted in the course of establishing and maintaining a project.

While Robert Falls is quoted in The Tyee article as saying that he "fears that a fixation with 'accounting procedures' is distracting from [the David Suzuki Foundation's] ultimate environmental objectives," we believe that these considerations are appropriate given that offset purchasers are paying real money in exchange for a precisely-stated amount of emission reductions.

Trees are also vulnerable to natural disturbances such as wind, insect infestations, and fire, and thus the carbon they store can still end up in the atmosphere. And climate change itself is causing B.C.'s forests to die, as a recent UBC study has demonstrated.

Plant trees, be realistic

Moreover, we know that we don't have much time to deal with the climate change problem. So it's not realistic to treat offsets from tree-planting projects that may only be generated decades in the future as being equivalent to those that have already been produced by a wind turbine or an energy-efficiency project.

So yes, by all means, we should be planting trees. And we should be doing everything we can to avoid deforestation. But when it comes to carbon offsets, we believe that purchasers should invest their money in the products most likely to prevent dangerous climate change. Among other things, offsets must be timely, permanent, and accurately quantified. We believe that emission reduction offsets verified by the Gold Standard (one of the strongest standards in the world for carbon offsets) offer the best assurance that these essential criteria are met. Offsets from tree-planting projects do not.

Relates Tyee stories:

[Tyee]

Nicholas Heap is a research and policy analyst with the David Suzuki Foundation.

23 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • JStog

    3 years ago

    Planting trees is Good, just be honest about it.

    Planting trees is good just realistic about the true numbers.

    A fixation with accounting practices is
    needed by "The Suzuki Foundation" too.

    If Planting a tree is "artificial" then the organic meal on your table is too.

    Using artificial words and accounting practices puts "The Suzuki Foundation" on similar ground as ERA.

    Planting a tree doesn't stop the Natural Regeneration of a forest nor impede bio-diversity.

    Whats artificial? The Suzuki Foundation and ERA's soliciting of funds is. Accountability = none!

    ERA's offset programs don't add up to whats being sold. But either does The Suzuki Foundations solicitations.

  • Fish-counter

    3 years ago

    Suzuki is right, as usual, but....

    Planting trees is still a good idea, for all the reasons he talks about in his article. We need to plant trees AND reduce CO2 emissions.

    Aside from the delicate bio-accounting math, trees still photosynthesise, absorbing CO2 and producing oxygen. The other major source of oxygen is phytoplankton in the oceans.

    We owe the air we breathe to trees and algae. Anything that affects the equilibrium between O2 and CO2 makes me nervous for the future. Aside from the minor changes in atmospheric CO2, 98% of the gas is dissolved in the oceans. We know that the ocean acidity has increased by 30% in the last few years.

    The Mountain pine beetle has killed or will kill about 50% of all the trees in BC. British Columbians have a responsiblity to replace those trees. They are as much a part of the global equation as the Amazon jungle; not as large a part, but a signifcant one nonetheless.

  • freebear

    3 years ago

    Carbon Offsets for sale!

    I want in on this money making scheme!

    Any CEOs that want to pay me to ride my bike while you drive your carbon burning vehicle?

    We need to make do with less, not more!

    Until then the planet is fuc@ed!

  • x4estworker

    3 years ago

    Bad science from the Suzuki Foundation

    No one should be surprised that the Suzuki Foundation is treating this issue in an ideological matter and ignoring the science. As the deep ecologists that they are, cutting down old-growth trees is a travesty and any attempt to regenerate a forest through tree planting, even with the naturally occurring species in that area, is somehow artificial and unacceptable.

    The fact is that an old-growth forest has been accumulating carbon throughout its life span. The rate of carbon sequestration is very low once this forest reaches the old-growth stage because the rate of growth of an old growth forest is very low. As the old-growth forest becomes older, the trees start to die and rot and that process releases huge amounts of carbon back into the air.

    On the other hand, a fully stocked young forest grows at a much faster rate than an old-growth forest. It is during this growth process, which occurs for a few months every year, that the process of photosynthesis takes place. In the chemical process of photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is removed from the air and fixed into the tree as carbon. Oxygen is released as one of the byproducts. That is how carbon is sequestered.

    For the Suzuki Foundation to make the bold statement that cutting down old-growth trees leads to the release of carbon is just false. Any carbon sequestered into those trees already remains in those trees when they are manufactured and used as forest products. While there might be some carbon release from leaving the limbs and tree trunks behind to rot, the vast majority of the already sequestered carbon stays in the old growth wood.

    Just goes to show you how desperate some ideologically driven environmentalists are to stop the logging of old-growth.

  • Illahie

    3 years ago

    Fish-counter

    The oceans are basic not acidic

  • Barher

    3 years ago

    Forests good, agiculture bad

    To lump all agriculture in with bad practices that result in carbon being released into the atmosphere is ill considered.

    Little of BC's agriculture is the destructive industrial model and done properly should actually qualify for carbon credits.

    Besides what will people eat when we have eaten all of the forest, grass and peat?

  • Rod Smelser

    3 years ago

    What is the Suzuki Foundation's expertise?

    What is the Suzuki Foundation's expertise in forestry matters?

  • Name goes here

    3 years ago

    pay people to stop chopping

    Planting trees is not an effective carbon offset because it take years for trees to mature and absorb carbon dioxide. But go ahead and plant trees, but this should be a reduced price of carbon credits.

    A more expensive carbon credit should be paying people not to chop down existing trees. These trees are absorbing GHG's and they continue to be an ecosystem for all the animals and insects.

  • North of Hope

    3 years ago

    acidic oceans

    the acidity of the oceans is increasing. Scientific American has done some great work to show us that.

  • Illahie

    3 years ago

    North of Hope

    I have not seen the Scientific American article. Do you have a reference? The chemistry of the oceans is quite complex, but the pH of the oceans are decidedly basic.

    There are many alarmists who belive that CO2 levels are increasing the acidity of the oceans. This belief is incorrect.

  • Rod Smelser

    3 years ago

    Acidic Oceans: Article in Foreign Affais as well

    North of Hope
    the acidity of the oceans is increasing. Scientific American has done some great work to show us that.

    There's an article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs (March-April 2009 Vol 88 No 2) on pages 64 to 76 titled "The Geoengineering Option", by David G Victor, M. Granger Morgan, Jay Apt, John Steinbruner, and Katherine Ricke which makes reference on pages 69 and 70 to the phenomon of ocean acidification.

    Quote:
    Over the last centry, the oceans have become markedly more acidic, and current projections suggest that without a serious effort to control emissions, the concentraion of carbon dioxide will be so high by the end of the century that many organisms that make shells will disappear and most coral reef econsystems will collapse, devastating the marine fishing industry.

  • Illahie

    3 years ago

    Environmental Fearmongering

    In the grand scheme of things this pH stuff is perhaps a bit petty. It is however an excellent example of the fearmongering by some of the environmental alarmists out there.

    The thing about the pH of the worlds oceans is that it is a black and white issue. To be acidic, the pH of the oceans have to be below 7 which is neither basic or acidic. The smaller the pH number, the more acidic. A pH above 7 is basic, not acidic.

    To imply acidification when the oceans are quite strongly basic is a total falsehood. In fact, it is a bald faced lie.

    If the oceans were acidic, concrete structures would quickly dissolve, when in fact, concrete in the ocean gains calcium with time. There is a process called electroecretion where you can add a electric potential to steel, imerse it in the ocean and build a ferro cemment structure with the calcium which is already in the ocean.

    Anyone who talks about ocean acidification is at best ill informed.

  • Illahie

    3 years ago

    Spelling mistake above

    The correct spelling is electro-accretion.

  • Moat

    3 years ago

    Both sides of the issue have

    Both sides of the issue have merit, but I think the main issue here is whether or not the criticism of a company of Ecosystem Restoration Associates is warranted.

    I guess if we are going to try and play the game of counting offsets and seeing how many drops in the bucket we are contributing to addressing the issue of CO2 in the atmosphere, than maybe the Suzuki Foundation has a point. Offsets are abstract, while the planting of trees overly simplifies the issue.

    However, the Suzuki Foundation should be encouraging companies such as ERA as an important step in creating visible and very public reminders that caring for the environment can be done at a local level.

    The benefits of restoring these forests or small belts of forests go far beyond reducing CO2 emissions.

  • gregwah

    3 years ago

    Carbon Capture

    Would hemp plants be a good plant to consider as a carbon fixing agent? They are multi-usefull from what I have read and can grow quite quickly. Also consider the amount of trees lost due to the pine beetle epipdemic. This bio mass needs to be compensated for.I wonder why haven't I heard any mention of hemp as a fix for any environmental or economic problems in the mainstream media. I bet it would grow great in Afghanistan, and give the farmers and their families there a decent income. If only there were some sort economic stimulus that could address this.

  • Rod Smelser

    3 years ago

    Moat - Few people in MR liked the results

    However, the Suzuki Foundation should be encouraging companies such as ERA as an important step in creating visible and very public reminders that caring for the environment can be done at a local level.

    Few people in Maple Ridge liked the results, a mature poplar forest alongside a strembank being removed to plant carbon offset seedlings. There was a serious loss of recreational and amenity values. It was a major embarassment for the municipal administration.

  • Moat

    3 years ago

    Rod....

    The way ERA went about their project in Maple Ridge could have been a little better. However, it turned out to be more of an embarrassment for Michael Sather, the former NDP MLA who was running for mayor, when he overreacted without having the full story.

    Maple Ridge has a lot of challenges. Too bad those with varying degrees of green streaks turn on each other from time to time.

  • mopled

    3 years ago

    Trees are good

    Even though the CO2 thing is BS (bad science)

    The fuss about ocean acidification is pure hype.What we are talking about is a tiny change in PH. "Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of -0.075)[1][2].(wiki)"

    I no longer trust Suzuki. Carbon trading is a scam the Mafia would be proud of and was first suggested by the head of Enron, the supposedly deceased Ken Lay.The same recipients of bail-out money, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and the other Wall Street pirates are buying heavily into carbon trading.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11359
    http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2008/11/29/how-enron-originated-the-emissions-trading-scam/

    Carbon offset trading fraud -- huge criminal activity
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEPUxE2uIw

  • JStog

    3 years ago

    Hot Air Or Ponzi Scheme

    Looks to me like ERA's Maple Ridge project was poorly planned and hastily implemented.

    Restoring degraded areas shouldn't be difficult. Clearly, removing the mature poplar forest was unnecessary. Better results would have been accomplished by simply Underplanting the area with new seedlings. Ecological restoration needs a sensitivity to the publics view as well.

    I suspect ERA's racing to fill glossy promotional brochures. Feel good pictures sell. But collecting money for BS and selling shares in Hot air just doesn't add up.

    Planting trees is a good thing and needs to be promoted for honest reasons.

    This Carbon trading looks like a Big Ponzi scheme to me.

    mopled
    Your Youtube link says it well. Thanks

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/

  • Rod Smelser

    3 years ago

    Moat: Sather never overreacted

    The way ERA went about their project in Maple Ridge could have been a little better. However, it turned out to be more of an embarrassment for Michael Sather, the former NDP MLA who was running for mayor, when he overreacted without having the full story.

    Sather never overreacted in my opinion. Who says he did?

    A mature stand of poplars was removed on the supposed grounds that they are not a native BC tree species, which I am told is not true. They are indeed native to this area.

    It's not hard to figure out what the real reason for their removal was. Taking out more existing trees meant planting more seedlings and saplings, which are the forest's unit of currency in the carbon credit game. The real green here is accruing to well-to-do professionals and executives, none of whom live in Maple Ridge or Pitt Meadows.

  • Moat

    3 years ago

    Rod, we are probably on the same side, but....

    First off, I do like Michael Sather, but I thought he could have muted his reaction and attack the program’s funding formula, not the idea of planting the trees or restoring ecosystems. He did not come off that well in the press (IMO) and ultimately had a disappointing showing in the municipal election (fact). Again, I generally appreciate Michael Sather.

    But are you really telling us that you favor red alder and vine maple over douglas fir, western red cedar, hemlock, and sitka spruce? Before the area was developed, what do you think was there? I wish a group would come and plant a mixed forest and replace the scrub alder and blackberry bushes near the freeway entrances/exits where I live!

    Yes, the trees that were recently cut down are native, but realistically, the mixed coniferous forest in these areas are unable to return without the absence, or at the very least, help of people. Yes, playing “mother nature” is a dangerous game, but we should be assisting companies who are willing to help restore/protect ecosystems. Now, if we get behind the scenes, and find out that the politics behind these activities is a “sham”, that is another issue. However, at the moment, this group is willing to plant trees.

    Until we stop playing the “I’m greener than you” game… we are going to continue to allow the greedy to pillage the nature in our urban environment.

  • Griff

    3 years ago

    Green Snow Job Coming

    Watch out Canadians, and especially British Columbians.

    If carbon credits are going to be issued to those who plant trees, who will receive those credits?

    95% of British Columbia's Forest is vested - not in the name of British Columbia citizens - but is deemed "Crown Timber". 5% is in private hands.

    I'd be happy to come back to the "public ownership" issue if anyone wishes to continue that but for know ask yourself.

    The forest companies who hold the lock on "our" "Crown Forests" are paid in full, (plus 15% for "profit and risk") for every tree they plant. By us, BC Taxpayers. Who occasionally, somewhere in the back of their minds, get a nice warm feeling when the think that the citizenry “owns” those forests.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but talk to a forest industry exec and he’ll be quick to straighten you out. He'll point out that their company’s tenures (read monopolies), be they tree-farm-licenses, Forest Licenses, Pulpwood Harvesting Agreements, etc. – or even old temporary tenures (come back to those later) are between them and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth 11, in right of the Province..

    Their costs for tree planting (and many other basic forestry activities) are offset against the stumpage owed for the timber they harvest.

    So, if they are "public forests", and we the public are paying the full costs for reforestation, shouldn't we the public earn any carbon credits to come?

    Thirty years ago a Cowichan logger named Jim Gillespie pulled his 20 ton skid yarder onto the legislature lawn, quipping to the press that it was the only way he could keep his eye on his equipment and the gov't at the same time.

    We need to be even more vigilant. Move are afoot behind the scenes to make it possible for forest companies to earn the credits that we are paying for. Further schemes are in the works to let the gov't "offload the expense and headaches associated with managing forestry by allowing the licensees to gain ownership of the lands they now have under license.

    With the recent major pine beetle outbreak in the interior - someone has to bring these devastate stands back into production and if companies like Canfor and West Fraser are willing to take on that responsiblity, why not.

    Watch out and keep your eyes on Victoria.

  • Griff

    3 years ago

    Green Snow Job Continued

    Sorry - the Jim Gillespie reference took place 55 years ago - how quickly nothing changes!

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.