As has been pointed out by several people (a brief summary is available on wiki), tree-planting projects are sometimes a problematic source of carbon sequestration. In theory, they are brilliant, but when we talk about removing carbon from the atmosphere that we have added since the start of the industrial age, we mean to remove it permanently. It wouldn't be much of a solution if we found a way to remove CO2 for, say, 100 years. We could lock up massive quantities of CO2, only to have them returned to the atmosphere with a sudden vengeance in the not-too-distant future.
Of course, this is a problem with all carbon sequestration schemes. The problems for trees basically boil down to fires and the fact that they are so damn useful! In 100 years time, whose to say we won't have decided that we really need a certain forest after all, even if it was planted to soak up carbon emissions. Indeed, we'll hear all the same old arguments - it's only a small contribution to the problem, we have to have jobs, the economy must grow, etc.
The other problem with tree-planting projects, and it's a large problem really, is that, just like most things to do with the world of finance these days, we've let people get away with selling promises based on the future prospects of the trees (just like credit) rather than on what has actually been achieved. Now, I can understand the basis for this. Traders currently buy, for example, a whole crop of, say, fruit from a commodities market before the crop is actually harvested. They are therefore taking a risk - they pay a lower price, but risk losing money if the crop fails or is damaged, or just not the size they expected. The farmer gets capital to run their business, while taking less risk for guaranteed lower income. Sounds like a sensible arrangement, right?
For tree-planting, we are dealing with something vitally different. We are trying to permanently remove carbon from the atmosphere that results largely from the burning of fossil fuels, in order to avoid possibly catastrophic consequences due to human-induced climate change. The current practice of planting a bunch of trees and then selling the estimated lifetime carbon capture (known as forward-selling) is just untenable and too prone to error to be valid. Remember, the risk isn't that a crop of wheat won't produce the required quality or quantity over the course of a season, it's the risk that we, human beings, will seriously and perilously alter the world's climate, biodiversity, and ocean chemisty, and effectively bring about the end of our own civilisation in the process. Maybe the effects won't be all that terrify in the end, but that is the risk.
Obviously, the best way to help remove carbon emissions from the atmosphere is to make everyone pay for their emissions as they produce them, from carbon savings already in the bank. The notion of only spending what you've already earnt, rather than relying on the miracle of credit, is rather anathema in the western world, and in particular in the UK, the USA and Australia (Germans, for example, are more restrained in their use of credit). I think that our society should turn back more to relying on savings for our expenditures, rather than promises on future earning power. I'm sure some neo-classical economist could show me just how crazy an idea that is, but sometimes it seems to me that economists live in their own little world of non-dependent, linearly-aggregatable agents which we would be better off eschewing for most practical purposes.
However, carbon-offset schemes from trees don't work this way. They work on the promise of future value. Does this mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater, and not use carbon-credits generated from tree-planting?
No, of course not. It simply means the design of the systems is not adequate. So, here's what I propose:
- Carbon Credits can be sold at the end of every year, based on the estimated growth of the trees in the plantation area over that time. Estimating this sort of quantity in hindsight is certainly much easier than predicting the future value of something.
- The plantation is under a permanent, legally-binding, type of title that recognises the carbon stored therein. The plantation can be freely sold, with the proviso that any trees that are harvested, or destroyed by fire, are offset by the owner with carbon credits bought elsewhere. The harvested/damaged areas could be replanted, of course, with new credits being generated, but it is absolutely vital that any carbon lost from the plantation is offset elsewhere.
- Trees that die and rot into the soil should be offset at the time of falling, but perhaps the full amount wouldn't need to be offset as some of the rotten tree may end up permanently stored as a deep layer of soil. I don't think the reduction should be much though, as the risk would be high that most of the carbon could be returned to the atmosphere.
Would this be expensive? Well, compared to what? Destroying up to 90% of species on our planet, causing massive social upheavals and wars over diminishing and failing resources, and seeing our children's or our grand-children's lifestyles being significantly worse than our own as a result - or, doing something real about the problem now?
But the short answer is yes. Yes, it would be expensive to try to lock up carbon permanently once it's been released from fossil fuels.
You didn't really think you could offset your domestic flight's carbon emissions for just $20 now, did you?
No comments:
Post a Comment