‘Carbon Offsetting’ Tree-Planting Schemes Are Harming Nature, Say Oxford Scientists
Planting trees in vast schemes to ‘offset’ carbon emissions is harming nature, scientists at the University of Oxford have said in a new study. The Mail has the story.
Celebrities and tycoons including Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, Elton John, Emma Watson and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos have all said they have used offsetting to cancel out the greenhouse gases emitted by activities such as flying in private jets.
But when offsetting involves planting large numbers of a single types of tree, it can actually degrade the environment, the authors argued.
Single species plantations are harmful to biodiversity and put forests more at risk of fire, it is argued, while they do little to suck up greenhouse gases.
Instead, the authors said we should prioritise conserving and restoring intact ecosystems.
Writing in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution, scientists from the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford University said the focus on offsetting carbon at all costs damages other aspects of the ecosystem.
Author Dr. Jesús Aguirre-Gutiérrez said: “Despite the broad range of ecosystem functions and services provided by tropical ecosystems, society has reduced value of these ecosystems to just one metric – carbon.
“Current and new policy should not promote ecosystem degradation via tree plantations with a narrow view on carbon capture.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Phony environmentalism is like a hammer that sees everything as a nail. It used to be that environmentalists used to care about sewage in the sea or the killing of whales, overfishing, the loss of Orang Utans and other genuine concerns. Now it has been hijacked by the pretend to save the planet Marxists and their army of useful idiots gluing themselves to stuff. ——–As someone once pointed out “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it”. (Mencken). ——-It isn’t the planet that needs saving, it is the people who need saved, from phony environmentalists and their climate models masquerading as science.
Environmentalists have never cared about anything but themselves.
Perhaps doing nothing, including demonising oil and coal, is the best option.
Ironically, the latest thing in corporate land is the Taskforce on Nature Related Financial Disclosures “TNFD”. OF COURSE, we are told that we need to solve ‘climate change’ to help nature.
Not sure I’ll bother pointing out that fossil fuels (and nuclear) are currently much lower footprint than wind and solar.
Should you be so inclined:
https://tnfd.global/
Being obsessed with a single issue has never been a wise idea for the long term. After all, the original Forestry Commission tactic was basically planting lots of relatively fast growing pine trees – for timber production, in the main. No doubt the after effects on wildlife are better understood now. Maybe some zero off setters are making the same old mistake.
Monoculture fir tree planting kills EVERYTHING growing below those trees.
Yep, and fir trees take lots of water, and aren’t very good at photosynthesizing CO2 into O2. And once harvested the ground is pretty useless for growing anything useful for a few years.
I can’t see anything wrong with planting some monocultures of spruce or other species. We need a certain amount of timber/wood pulp in this country and it’s probably better to produce it ourselves than importing it especially if it comes from countries with lower environmental standards and may be from natural old growth forests. Commercial plantations can be made more environmentally friendly e.g. by including some native species but this would reduce productivity.
Growing trees for timber is obviously totally different to planting them to offset CO2 emissions which is lunacy not least because it takes decades for trees to absorb large amounts of carbon meaning that in the highly unlikely event that the alarmists are correct by the time the trees have made any difference it’ll be too late.
They also burn more easily…wildfires/climate change bs etc…
All that resin soaked debris under trees devoid of any other vegetation, a perfect fuel, in a perfect environment for a wild fire. As you say all burning more easily in the wildfire/ climate change BS.
Wildfires in the UK? Nonsense. Its almost always arson.
Hux, best not comment until you have researched.
Dinger, I have researched.
Daytime temperatures in the UK cannot reach sufficient hotness to start fires and still less to ignite high moisture content vegetation.
There is a large sign flapping about on a gate a couple of miles from this house which declares:
Danger! Wild Fires 🔥
We are talking Saddleworth Moor where the peat is permanently wet. Wild fires? Bullshit.
We had a “wildfire” on the Moor a few years ago and it burned – actually smouldering peat – for a couple of weeks. The Fire Brigade later confirmed the fire was started by a left-over disposable barbecue discarded by the yobs who delight in invading the area as soon as there is a bit of sunshine.
Hux, iam just offering you the same advice you offered me on the 24th!
I dont disagree at all with your explanation but your tone at the time was very pompous and I was very surprised by it to say the least!
Yes, they’re purely industrial, they don’t support wildlife in the canopy or forest floor, there’s no deadwood left that would provide insect habitat. They’re ecological deserts!
And as we kno0w from reports from various councils around the country, once planted, who maintains these trees? Young trees need care. Or they die.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11590313/Thousands-trees-planted-councils-11m-taxpayers-cash-die-rush-job.html
https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2022-09-22/thousands-of-newly-planted-trees-die-after-council-fails-to-water-them
Atmospheric CO2 – 410ppm – is sub-optimal for good plant growth, circa 1 000ppm would be better which is the concentration in commercial greenhouses.
Planting trees as carbon indulgences to mop up C02 from ones private jet and Rolls, assumes the plant life is saturated with C02, but since it isn’t, planting a tree just means other plants get less.
NASA satellite photos show that over the last two decades, an area the size of the Continental USA has greened – naturally – particularly in arid places.
This shows the flora needs more C02 and can use all it can get.
Planting trees will just slow natural greening.
And… if we reduce atmospheric CO2 back to 1990 levels, that will kill off all the new natural plant growth and animal habitat that has established itself in since.
Why would the idiots want to do this?
This isn’t difficult to understand for anyone with higher brain function – but of course we are dealing with celebs and royals, so….
Or at least, dealing with those with inappropriate education! Good analysis by yourself, and remember that many greenhouses actually deliberately increase the CO2 level by burning methane in their heating plant, and spew out at least some of the exhaust inside rather then outside. I guess that if the fuel mix is changed to something like 20% H (allegedly to achieve Net Zero), they would have to burn more to compensate for it! That could ramp up the temperature inside – if they could afford it.
Vivek Ramaswamy — I sent a Substack article on him yesterday missing out the important parts. Here it is However, let’s contrast this with Ramaswamy’s stance on Trump’s handling of the tumultuous events of January 6 – or was it an insurrection? Some might say a protest, others a rebellion, and perhaps some even dub it a riot. The terminology is as varied as Ramaswamy’s viewpoints, especially considering it all unfolded just days after hundreds of fervent Trump supporters breached the hallowed halls of the Capitol building. “What Trump did last week was wrong. Downright abhorrent. Plain and simple.” But brace yourselves, for this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the pharmaceutical magnate’s (yes, I would totally trust that guy) depiction of Trump in his 2022 opus, ‘Nation of Victims’ (which, again, I read, so you can spare yourself the agony), a literary creation that could have seamlessly sprung from the pen of the most fervently progressive Democratic Party stalwart. “It was a dark day for democracy. The loser of the last election refused to concede the race, claimed the election was stolen, raised hundreds of millions of dollars from loyal supporters, and is considering… Read more »
Whatever you may think of Trump or Jan 6, there is an argument that in a country where an accused has a right to be judged by a jury of their peers, and it is self evidently the case that up to half of the country believe him to be innocent, well above the threshold for acquittal in the jury system, the charges should be dropped.
Trump was foolish to encourage the demonstration in the first place, and he did tell his supporters to be peaceful and go home (when it got a bit hot), so I don’t think the insurrection charge holds any water. Let us also not forget that he offered Pelosi additional protection for congress by the national guard, but she declined the offer.
Don’t know about Ramaswamy. Ron DeSantis has a proven record of taking on the liberal bureaucracy. He’s clearly the most ‘qualified’ to be the Republican candidate.
There is a TV ad currently running about crisps or potatoes or both. Anyway we now have “regenerative farming” which has evidently taken over from “sustainable farming” and “responsible sourcing” – anybody know what ‘regenerative farming’ is or any of the other catch-phrases?
In older times crop rotation and letting land lie fallow for a year or two was ‘regenerative”, and farming itself is a technology invented thousands of years ago to ensure sustainable food supply.
And what would irresponsible sourcing be?
Slogans. Abstractions. Conclusions (The Science) with no supporting evidence. A lot of very biddable, dim, ignorant blobs. Funny old World.
https://www.farminguk.com/news/mccain-pledges-to-use-regenerative-farming-principles_58339.html
“Regenerative Farming.”
Actually regenerative farming is an oxymoronic term because farming wouldn’t have survived if it wasn’t regenerative. Still it sounds nice and eco loony.
Sometimes leaving an area fallow was done to receive a grant for not producing something, to avoid over-production of it that could lead to a surplus and collapsing market prices.
Carbon offsets incentivize increased pollution by ignoring the actually poisonous emissions of private jets and other luxury indulgences. CO2 is completely benign, unlike the sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, and other toxic results of luxury combustion.
Reforestation projects can be a great way to bring back biodiversity restore degraded ecosystems, but it must be done at the right time (winter ideally); in the right places – sites which would historically have been wooded before it was clear-felled for housing, agriculture, etc; using trees native to the specific region; as long as it’s not taking up valuable agricultural land; and finally if you haven’t got the resources to provide after-care and management for years post-planting, you might as well ditch the idea from the get-go.
You can’t just stick a monoculture in the ground and leave it to take care of itself!
I’ve long been a supporter of the Woodland Trust, but they always take care of all of the above, and more! And that’s got nothing to do with CO2 sequestration, it’s good for the environment in many, many other ways.
Agreed. Quite close to my place there is a Woodland Trust area which was planted out in the late 1990s. Part of the rationale for that one was to reduce the risk of flooding in the river Thames (it’s quite near to the top end of the river). They were more worried about flash flooding than anything else.
…any chance you can just return to self-flagellation? I mean it is tried and tested……Can you please just whip and beat yourselves in the privacy of your own home..?..
and stop making the rest of us have to be a party to whatever mortification you think you are guilty of??
Pretty Please…..!!
Don’t worry Bill Gates will be there soon to cut them all down an bury them.