Planting trees to offset carbon - what's wrong with it?

It's human nature: we like to fix problems after they've happened.  There's no impetus to do so beforehand, because we cannot comprehend the scale of the damage until we have to face it.

That's how I see carbon offsetting.

Many scientists are in agreement that we are currently at a tipping point: it's not too late to solve the problem of climate change, but it will be soon.

But because we like our cosy lifestyles (I'm not knocking it - I'm just as bad) we'd rather invest time and energy on a quick fix than alter our lifestyles and expectations.

So we invented carbon offsetting to try and manipulate the carbon cycle to our advantage.

The carbon cycle consists of carbon pools (where carbon is stored, for example vegetation, the ocean etc) and carbon flows, by which carbon flows between these pools.  Plants naturally remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis (converting carbon dioxide into new plant tissue) causing carbon dioxide to flow from the atmosphere into vegetation. 

Therefore, by planting extra trees, we can supposedly offset the negative effects of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and carry on polluting at will.  This idea is promoted by many companies as a way to ease the conscience of ethically sensitive consumers.

Sounds good, yes?  Surely it's better to do something than nothing. 

But that completely misses the point.

If people are encouraged to offset carbon emissions, then they are receiving the message that it's OK to pollute.  The burden can be passed onto someone else (usually a poor community which is charged with the responsibility of maintaining the forest). 

The facts are clear to see: this is not acceptable.  Something must be done to reduce climate change emissions as well as mitigating them.  The situation is too urgent to simply carry on as we are.

Not only this, but carbon offsetting schemes are very often flawed P.R. exercises:

- Carbon offsetting forests are often forced on poor communities which lack either the knowledge or the skills to maintain them.  Such communities can even be displaced by such schemes.

- These forests can consist of trees which are alien to the environment in which they are planted, therefore damaging the local ecosystem and descreasing biodiversity.

- The lifespan of a tree is not guaranteed: it can be killed by disease, deforestation or climate change itself, therefore eliminating any benefits.   We all remember the debacle of the Coldplay Forest (Telegraph article: The Coldplay Forest).

- Sometimes old trees can be cut down in order to plant trees to supposedly offset carbon!

- There is a lack of accountability.

- They deflect attention away from reducing carbon emissions.

Don't get me wrong - planting trees is obviously a good thing. 

In the face of widespread deforestation, and climate change, tree planting is an extremely positive activity and one that can indeed reduce carbon emissions in the atmosphere.

However, it should not be viewed as 'offsetting' - it is something that should be done as well as reducing emissions.

It is telling that the firest travel company to introduce the idea of carbon offsetting to mitigate the effects of flying (Responsible Travel) were also the first to get rid of it (you can read why here:http://www.responsibletravel.com/Copy/Copy101331.htm)). 

Friends of the Earth are also strongly opposed to the idea of carbon offsetting (you can read why here: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/dangerous_distraction.pdf)

So for the sake of the planet, please don't make the mistake of using companies that offer carbon offsetting, or promoting such companies to others. 

Prevention is better than cure.