Chester the Sequester

Yesterday I was reading some bit about how more businesses are trying to include "carbon offsets" to their business plans. I felt like the kid who sees that the emperor is naked. That's because a lot of this carbon offset business is a lie, or at very least a powerful case of self-deception.

Take all those folks are paying to have trees planted somewhere to offset their air travel. The idea is that as the trees grow they absorb carbon dioxide, lock it up in their tissues and offset the amount of carbon being added to the atmosphere by burning jet fuel. This sort of service is considered by many as "carbon sequestration." Only it's not. As far as I know there are only two ways to sequester carbon from Earth's atmosphere long enough to have a climatic effect: Bury it or lose it into space. Trees really do capture carbon, but only for a brief time in climate change terms. Most trees end their lives in two ways: By fire or decay. Both ends release carbon right back into the atmosphere -- unless the tree is deeply buried.

Nature sequesters carbon by burial very slowly and over huge amounts of time. We can't mimic that (yet). So let me propose, once again, the best way I know of to truly sequester carbon naturally: Don't extract the naturally sequestered carbon (fossil fuels) in the first place. Imagine if you could pay extra on a plane ticket so that some mountain in West Virginia is not strip-mined for its coal? I'm no economist, but it seems a little more honest and effective than all these lies about planting trees.

Comments

[Russell]

Larry,

Do you really want to call a $300 million (and growing) industry that is one of the only avenues available for individuals to support global CO2 reduction projects "a lie"? Do you really want to call an business that Merrill Lynch invested $9 million in a lie? Do you really want to call an industry that is supported by dozens of respected organizations, including The Conservation Fund, Rainforest Alliance, Center for Research Solutions, Environmental Defense, and others a lie? Unless you're willing to call out all those organizations as liars essentially pulling a hoax on both the public and multi-billion dollar companies like Merrill Lynch, I suggest you stop referring to carbon offsets as a lie - or as a powerful case of self-deception. Individuals that support projects that reduce CO2 emissions aren't being deceived or lied to - they're making a proactive decision to financially support projects that are good for the environment.

To address your other point: reforestation is in fact a well-supported method for capturing and sequestering carbon, so long as it's done right. Check your science.

[Larry O'Hanlon]

Thanks for your passionate comment Russell. But you missed my point. I was only talking about the tree planting part of the equation and not the entire carbon offset industry. The science makes it quite clear that planting trees is NOT carbon sequestration. To say otherwise is just plain silly. As for the $300 million figure and the organizations involved, that's a very poor argument. As George Orwell wrote: "Sanity is not statistical." Just because there's a lot of money going into something does not make it sensible. All you have to do is look at the mortgage industry to see that. Let's not forget the sad truism often attributed (perhaps incorrectly) to P.T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute."

[Brady]

I think you have a valid point in regards to trees being only a temporary way to sequester carbon. However, you use fire and decay as the primary means of release. With a focus as narrow as this you make it sounds like all the trees are going to die or catch fire at the same time. We both know this won't happen and as trees decay other trees are growing; again capturing the carbon.

To your point about industry getting involved in carbon offset by planting trees: As long as they truly are planting the trees, even if they only offer shade, then I'm all for it. However, I assume you are looking from a more economical point of view and imply these industries are wasting money towards a goal that is not the solution. I can only say, not every battle wins the war.

Personally I know you are right when you say "... the best way I know of to truly sequester carbon naturally: Don't extract the naturally sequestered carbon (fossil fuels) in the first place." OK, so that is natural, but it isn't feasible. What do we do now? Throw our hands in the air and wait for the perfect fix before doing something about it? Or do we take baby steps? Maybe those baby steps include participating and throwing money into carbon offset.

[Larry O'Hanlon]

You are right Brady. Baby steps are great. I just have a real problem when they are misleading steps. Such false steps could actually cancel out any trust folks have in these solutions. And there ARE some experimental ways to sequester carbon that do not involve planting trees. As for the matter of when trees die, they have only to release their carbon again at any time (and not all at once) in the next few centuries to negate their carbon-sequestering advantages. That's the time frame for global warming troubles, after all. So unless the trees makes it to multi-century age, they do little more than play a carbon shell game - hiding the carbon for a little while, but not sequestering it.