Scams are all around us and “net zero” is just one of many. For example, Justin Trudeau was reelected Prime Minister of Canada last night. Shocking because he’s always talking about being more green than other parties (including “the Greens”). He even bought in a revenue neutral carbon tax a couple of years back but he never stopped subsidizing oil companies (a promise he mas in 2015 but has repeatedly broken)
It’s frustrating when political candidates for executive offices make promises that depend on legislators. At best they can push for programs, but it’s the legislatures we should be riding.
Carbon offsets are so often simply scams that they are a PITA. Need work. On the other hand, getting 100% of anything is a case of impossible expectations. Diminishing returns also tend to be exponential. True offsets, stress the true, are positive, especially in these early days.
Tree-planting projects should have value for other than sucking up CO2. They’re good for restoration of recently-denuded lands (the Sahel, Madagascar), cooling urban areas, wind-breaks on prairie, wildlife habitat, well-managed timber, erosion control, etc..
Nowadays we have to pay more attention to drought tolerance, flood tolerance (Katrina flooding spared the big old live oaks but killed all the southern magnolias), rooting needs (so they don’t readily fall over in a windstorm or uproot themselves when the ground gets soggy), vulnerability to thriving insects, etc.
“But the fact is that there aren’t enough trees to offset society’s carbon emissions – and there never will be. I recently conducted a review of the available scientific literature to assess how much carbon forests could feasibly absorb. If we absolutely maximised the amount of vegetation all land on Earth could hold, we’d sequester enough carbon to offset about ten years of greenhouse gas emissions at current rates. After that, there could be no further increase in carbon capture.”
Not enough trees in the world to save it, comes under impossible expectations. Plant em anyway, they beat the hell out of mechanical air scrubbers and are worthwhile in themselves. Who is Bonnie Waring?
Bonnie Waring is a Senior Lecturer, Grantham Institute – Climate Change and Environment, Imperial College London and the article in The Conversation is quite interesting – she advises not to plant trees where they don’t belong – e.g in peat bogs (which are good at carbon sequestering on their own), and observes there is a limit to the carbon trees can absorb, due to things like soil nutrients/fertilizer exhaustion etc. Clearly she is indicating we must reduce and limit (if not cease all together) our industrial carbon emissions. I The same message most scientists of Earth sciences are telling us.
But we ALL wind up f$#*ed!
“I’m calling Gus and then going over to your brother’s house!”
Scams are all around us and “net zero” is just one of many. For example, Justin Trudeau was reelected Prime Minister of Canada last night. Shocking because he’s always talking about being more green than other parties (including “the Greens”). He even bought in a revenue neutral carbon tax a couple of years back but he never stopped subsidizing oil companies (a promise he mas in 2015 but has repeatedly broken)
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeaus-carbon-taxes-big-costs-and-broken-promises
It’s frustrating when political candidates for executive offices make promises that depend on legislators. At best they can push for programs, but it’s the legislatures we should be riding.
Carbon offsets are so often simply scams that they are a PITA. Need work. On the other hand, getting 100% of anything is a case of impossible expectations. Diminishing returns also tend to be exponential. True offsets, stress the true, are positive, especially in these early days.
Tree-planting projects should have value for other than sucking up CO2. They’re good for restoration of recently-denuded lands (the Sahel, Madagascar), cooling urban areas, wind-breaks on prairie, wildlife habitat, well-managed timber, erosion control, etc..
Nowadays we have to pay more attention to drought tolerance, flood tolerance (Katrina flooding spared the big old live oaks but killed all the southern magnolias), rooting needs (so they don’t readily fall over in a windstorm or uproot themselves when the ground gets soggy), vulnerability to thriving insects, etc.
Bonnie Waring:
“But the fact is that there aren’t enough trees to offset society’s carbon emissions – and there never will be. I recently conducted a review of the available scientific literature to assess how much carbon forests could feasibly absorb. If we absolutely maximised the amount of vegetation all land on Earth could hold, we’d sequester enough carbon to offset about ten years of greenhouse gas emissions at current rates. After that, there could be no further increase in carbon capture.”
https://theconversation.com/there-arent-enough-trees-in-the-world-to-offset-societys-carbon-emissions-and-there-never-will-be-158181
Not enough trees in the world to save it, comes under impossible expectations. Plant em anyway, they beat the hell out of mechanical air scrubbers and are worthwhile in themselves. Who is Bonnie Waring?
Bonnie Waring is a Senior Lecturer, Grantham Institute – Climate Change and Environment, Imperial College London and the article in The Conversation is quite interesting – she advises not to plant trees where they don’t belong – e.g in peat bogs (which are good at carbon sequestering on their own), and observes there is a limit to the carbon trees can absorb, due to things like soil nutrients/fertilizer exhaustion etc. Clearly she is indicating we must reduce and limit (if not cease all together) our industrial carbon emissions. I The same message most scientists of Earth sciences are telling us.
Thanx.