Talk:Carbon offset planting

why is this statement "individuals can of course just plant trees in their own gardens or allotments, and you dont need to join any scheme to benefit from planting." such a problem Snozzer 18:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not correct to state that 'anyone can plant a tree in their own backyard' to offset CO2. Because, unless the planter can guarantee that the tree, at the end of its life, will become either timber, or stored in some way for the a long term (several hundred years), such that the CO2 is not released back into the atmosphere, it cannot count as an offset. Timbers in ancient buildings in the UK (C16) are still doing their job of storing CO2 and holding up the building.

If you sell your home, give up your allotment, or more typically, die before your tree(s) mature, you have no guarantee that the tree will not end up as firewood or by rotting, quickly realease its's CO2 and methane straight back into the atmosphere. Tomolongo 15.12, 30 October 2006 (GMT)


 * Is burning not an equally good end to the wood and carbon neutral IF the energy source being replaced was fossil fuel? I seem to remember a report by one of the major consulatncies, it may even have been AEA Technology, I will do some research and speak to some friends at AEAT. Snozzer 16:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Tomolongo replies-

All offsetting takes time. Only once your tree has matured, say 40- 300 years (depending on species) and, for instance, burned as a replacement for fossil fuels can you THEN say that you have 'offset' carbon. It is likely that the treeplanter will not be around to effect the offsetting.

End of life added to individual planting
I have added a piece to qualify the individual planting statement that I stand by, although I am in no way trying to take ownership of the article, I would like other people to expand it or more fully qualify it.Snozzer 07:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Two separate issues are being conflated here. If a tree is planted to offset (zero out) an activity that releases CO2, it cannot then be burnt to offset fossil fuel usage. For example if an individual flies from London to New York they may release ~750 Kgs of CO2. A tree could be planted to (over time)offset or zero out those emissions. A fast-growing species such as an Ash might re-absorb this quantity of CO2 over 50 or 60 years. If that tree was cut down and stored in a dry situation such as in the roof timbers of a house it might be able to retain its carbon for hundreds of years. If that tree was burnt to provide heating then its constituent carbon would be released immediately to the atmosphere, thereby cancelling out any offset benefit with regard to the original flight.

Wood is often described incorrectly as a carbon neutral fuel source. If you burn a tree for heating and then plant a tree to re-absorb the carbon that you have just released into the atmosphere, your activity will only become carbon neutral once the tree has reached an equivalent size to the one that was originally burnt. Realistically, the time period to achieve the putative carbon neutrality might run into hundreds of years.


 * What about ongoing coppicing, using say willow cuttings processed and pelletised for power stations. The Willow is not used in entirety, but merely harvested every other year ad infiniteum? "Snorkel | Talk" 08:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of criticisms of tree planting missing
This article misses a lot of very important criticisms of tree planting as a global warming response. Please refer to the substantial information on the carbon offset article

Merge proposed
This article now has less material on trees than the main article of Carbon offset. It seems pointless to keep this article unless significant material is migrated here or any additional information here is added to the carbon offset article. Jens Nielsen 19:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There is nothing in this article of any value so I have replaced it with a redirect to Carbon offset. SaintedLegion 16:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)