References for “Carbon Offsets: Planting Trees is Greenwashing”

By Daniel Brouse
June 21, 2024

Carbon Offsets and Sequestration: Planting Trees is Greenwashing — Brouse (2023)

To support the statement “Giving carbon offsets for planting trees and allowing for the continued use of fossil fuels is greenwashing and accelerates the pace of climate change,” here are some references:

1. Carbon Offsets and Greenwashing:
   • Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). “Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?” Environmental Education Research. This paper discusses the concept of greenwashing and the ineffectiveness of certain carbon offset schemes.
   • Gillenwater, M. (2012). “What is Additionality? Part 1: A Long Standing Problem.” Greenhouse Gas Management Institute. This paper critiques the concept of additionality in carbon offset projects, which is crucial for understanding greenwashing.
2. Ineffectiveness of Tree Planting as Offsets:
   • Bastin, J.-F., et al. (2019). “The global tree restoration potential.” Science. This study discusses the limitations and potential of tree planting for carbon sequestration.
   • Houghton, R. A. (2013). “The emissions of carbon from deforestation and degradation in the tropics: past trends and future potential.” Carbon Management. This paper highlights the challenges and limited impact of reforestation projects.
3. Fossil Fuels and Climate Change:
   • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2021). “Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.” This report provides comprehensive evidence on the impact of fossil fuels on climate change.
   • International Energy Agency (IEA). (2021). “Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector.” This report emphasizes the need to reduce fossil fuel usage to meet climate targets.
4. Accelerating Climate Change:
   • Anderson, K., & Peters, G. (2016). “The trouble with negative emissions.” Science. This article discusses the reliance on future technologies, like carbon offsets, and their impact on current fossil fuel use and climate change acceleration.
   • Harvey, F. (2021). “Climate crisis: the massive impact of global warming on the Arctic.” The Guardian. This article explores how ongoing fossil fuel use exacerbates climate change impacts, particularly in sensitive regions like the Arctic.

These references provide a foundation for understanding how carbon offsets, particularly through tree planting, can be seen as greenwashing when they allow for the continued use of fossil fuels, thus accelerating climate change.

The fossil fuel industry uses carbon offsets as a strategy to maintain and even expand the use of fossil fuels while attempting to address concerns about climate change. Here’s how this works:

1. Promoting Carbon Offsets: The fossil fuel industry invests in or purchases carbon offsets, which are credits representing reductions in greenhouse gas emissions achieved by others. These offsets can come from various projects such as reforestation, renewable energy, or methane capture.
2. Continuing Emissions: By purchasing carbon offsets, fossil fuel companies claim to neutralize their own emissions. This allows them to argue that they can continue extracting, refining, and burning fossil fuels without increasing their net carbon footprint.
3. Public Relations: The industry uses carbon offsets as part of their public relations strategy to portray themselves as environmentally responsible. This helps to counter criticism and regulatory pressure related to their contributions to climate change.
4. Regulatory Compliance: In some regions, carbon offsets are part of cap-and-trade systems or carbon pricing mechanisms. By using offsets, fossil fuel companies can meet regulatory requirements without reducing their actual fossil fuel production and consumption.
5. Delaying Transition: By relying on carbon offsets, the fossil fuel industry can delay transitioning to renewable energy sources. Offsets can be cheaper and less disruptive to their current business models compared to investing heavily in clean energy technologies.
6. Economic Benefits: Investing in carbon offset projects can also bring economic benefits to fossil fuel companies. For instance, they might invest in projects that align with their other business interests or use offsets to enter new markets.

In summary, the fossil fuel industry uses carbon offsets to give the appearance of reducing their environmental impact while continuing to produce and use fossil fuels. This approach helps them meet regulatory requirements, maintain public support, and delay the transition to a low-carbon economy.

THE REAL PROBLEM

The exact amount of O2 contributed and CO2 absorbed is a complicated equation on a daily or yearly basis. Trees both absorb and emit CO2. However, this calculation is relatively meaningless because CO2 has an average lifespan in the atmosphere of 100 years. In contrast, 99% of a tree’s carbon has an average cycle of 7 years. Essentially, 0% of the CO2 causing climate change is stored in a tree. The importance of trees and forests lies in their role within the soil ecosystem. Trees act as caretakers for the CO2 stored in the soil.

For a frightening example, look at the forest fires in Canada. These fires are more intense and frequent due to human CO2 emissions. Last year, Canada’s largest contributor to CO2 emissions was wildfires. While this may not be a significant factor in the long term, as that CO2 would have returned to the atmosphere within 50 years anyway, it creates a feedback loop that accelerates climate change.

But it gets worse. The real feedback loop problem is the permafrost. Forest fires and a warming climate have ignited the permafrost, causing ‘zombie fires’ that burned all winter under the snow and continue to burn this year. Millions of years of CO2 are stored in the permafrost. While we do not know exactly how much carbon is stored in nature, it is reasonable to assume that temperatures could be pushed from 3 degrees to 6 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Humans cannot thrive above a rise of 1.5 degrees. Much of the Earth will be uninhabitable if the temperature rises an additional 6 degrees Celsius. If humans also add 3 degrees Celsius, the temperature and humidity will approach a wet-bulb temperature that will not sustain human life.

CANADIAN WILDFIRE CASE STUDY
For a frightening example, look at the forest fires in Canada. These fires are more intense and frequent due to human CO2 emissions. Last year, Canada’s largest contributor to CO2 emissions was wildfires. While this may not be a significant factor in the long term, as that CO2 would have returned to the atmosphere within 50 years anyway, it creates a feedback loop that accelerates climate change.

But it gets worse. The real feedback loop problem is the permafrost. Forest fires and a warming climate have ignited the permafrost, causing ‘zombie fires’ that burned all winter under the snow and continue to burn this year. Millions of years of CO2 are stored in the permafrost. While we do not know exactly how much carbon is stored in nature, it is reasonable to assume that temperatures could be pushed from 3 degrees to 6 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Humans cannot thrive above a rise of 1.5 degrees. Much of the Earth will be uninhabitable if the temperature rises an additional 6 degrees Celsius. If humans also add 3 degrees Celsius, the temperature and humidity will approach a wet-bulb temperature that will not sustain human life.

Also see: Soil Degradation and Desertification

The Human Induced Climate Change Experiment