Can you really offset your carbon emissions by paying a company to plant trees for you?

Answer 1

This really is a cop-out. What we need to do is to stop damaging the planet. It's no use doing the damage and then paying someone else to repair it. It's not fair to do damage and then exonerate yourself by paying to partially repair that damage. Just do as little damage in the first place. You can still plant trees and that will improve the atmosphere - you don't have to damage the atmosphere first.

Answer 2

This is a handy way to make money, but the chances are that the trees would have been planted anyway.

Trees are currently the only technology we have for removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it. To have an effect, we would need to treble the amount of standing timber in the world. That's not an impossible aim, but it would involve an unprecedented degree of peacetime international cooperation (and there aren't enough votes in it!)

Answer 3

If some one concern about their carbon emission it also a great deal. We have to do some work for protect this world becoming hot. ( Green house effect) If we do not have time for planting trees we can find an alternative. It is OK.

Answer 4

Even if the trees were not going to be planted anyway they will only store carbon for a limited time, until they are harvested for timber, die or there is a forest fire.
We have to drastically reduce the amount of fossil carbon we are putting into the ecosystem by harnessing every source of renewable energy, using less, and possibly using more nuclear power (the dangers of radiation are hugely exaggerated).

Answer 5

there's a habitual style right here: one person can provide a pragmatic answer and the nutz and 2ITs come out of the woodwork to curve it to their very own schedule. Carbon procuring and advertising is only an coverage coverage for polluters, confident, yet whilst it did no longer exist then do you think of ANY money would be placed aside to mitigate their strikes? I somewhat would intend to confirm advice that the money flows by potential of technique of those procuring and advertising agencies to the people who make a measurable great huge difference; yet a minimum of its's better than no longer some element, for the instantaneous. it somewhat is attainable now to accomplish a little element good for our environment and gets a fee for it, for a transformation. think of of it yet in a undeniable way, it somewhat is an fee that CO2 manufacturers gained't desire to pay. Even at $.15/TCO2 it continues to be one greater fee which makes them lots much less aggressive. the fee in accordance to Tonne gained't be extreme sufficient, in spite of the certainty that it somewhat is an incentive to minimize. useful on an identical time by using fact the do no longer some element decision + carbon tax expenses better than the alternative.

Answer 6

Great idea but where are we going to put them.............. my garden's not big enough. Probable way to do it is to reduce the carbon used in the first place........ however we have to realise that Britain can't do it alone even though Mr Blair seems to think so, our emission on the global scale is tiny. So yes we can do something but the public won't be convinced until USA, India, China and Russia start to do their bit!

Answer 7

I don't know how to calculate how much would a tree consume of CO2,
if we could, then it is a very good idea,
any way, I think whether we can calculate it or not, we should plant trees, and work hard to conserve existing trees in forests and jungles

Answer 8

No. For example, they might plant them but then not water them so they die. Thinking that planting trees somehow relieves you of the responsibility to conserve resources and support the search for cleaner energy is like thinking that it is OK to rob banks as long as you as God for forgiveness each time.

Answer 9

Yes, you can. But there's not enough room in all of the world to plany enough trees to consume all of the CO2 we produce.

It's a nice thought - but it's not really sustainable.