Suzuki: Planting Trees Good, But No Global Warming Fix
Foundation responds to Tyee story, gives view on forests and carbon offsets.
Artificial new forests: not the 'gold standard.'
[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:
- How the Carbon Casino Pits Ecologist Against Ecologist
Robert Falls was inspired by the creation of the David Suzuki Foundation. Now he calls it an obstacle to restoring degraded ecosystems. - The New Carbon Cash, Explained
BC's about to dive into a vast market that limits and trades emissions. How it will work (or not). - Who Will Revive BC's Forests?
World relies on our 'lungs,' but replanting is lowest in 20 years.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
JStog
02-03-2009
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
02-03-2009
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
02-03-2009
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
02-03-2009
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.
Barher
02-03-2009
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?
Name goes here
02-03-2009
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.