Carbon credits?? , Why don’t companies plant trees?

I know it’s a simple thought, but a concept I don’t think anyone can argue. If companies were to offset their carbon out put by calculating said output, and plant tree’s to offset equal to the environmental impact. Similarly could it not be done in other scenarios as well? Let us say for example a company was dumping solid or otherwise waste in to the water supply. Why would we not make that company, comparatively offset the damage by cleaning the water equal or greater to their output? This would also encourage technology exploration in the areas of cleaning the environment.

Let me give you an example. Please keep in mind in this example all of the numbers are real and sourced. However, the liability of the company used as an example, is hypothetical.

Let’s use General Motors of Canada, and let us assume they are responsible for the carbon that their products produce. General Motors of Canada produced 794,419 cars in 2006. 1 car produces 7000kg of emissions per year. Therefore 794,419 cars produce 5,560,912,000kg per year. Now on average each tree can process 24,000kg per year. On average we can plant 700 trees per acre. So to offset the carbon emissions of 794,419 cars, we would only have to plant 231,705 trees, on 332 acres. Wow that was easy!

What say you?

Sources
www.gmcanada.com...
www.autobloggreen.com...
www.iowadnr.com...

Logging companies help out greatly. A young, growing tree processes infinitely more CO2 than an old slow to non growing tree. Loggers clear out old growth and plant young trees. (I know, I know, evil loggers are just trying to put themselves out of business and really don't plant young trees. Makes for a great business model.)

More lumber, more trees, more CO2 processed. But there's always some salamander a hippie is trying to save or some woman with hairy pits living up in one on some selfish crusade.

Same goes for nuclear. Currently the US is only 20% nuclear at best. More nuclear = less CO2. But every time a proposed nuclear plant goes through the notions some hippie with molested nightmares of Chernobyl gets in the way and we're all back to burning tons and tons and tons of coal.

takes energy to build a nuclear power station... takes energy to mine uranium... takes energy to process uranium... takes energy to transport uranium... takes energy to build building deep underground to store depleted uranium... you see where i am going, i think solar and geothermal are better option than nuclear

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


It seems your ideas are based more on how to bash hippies than they are on actual facts relevant to the matter at hand.

I don't want companies planting trees, because, well, it's pretty obvious from every attempt in the past that human beings have absolutely no clue how to replant. Trees do not grow in uniform rows of one single species, which is exactly what you get when people plant them - corporates, hippies, garners, whatever they are, people want rows of identical tress - most of which aren't even native to the area to begin with and can easily cause more problems than they're supposed to solve.

For instance, a while back there was a planting project out here in Oregon. What happened is that a group wanted to "reclaim" a peat bog or something. What wound up happening is that when they dug up the ground, it wound up CAUSING more carbon dioxide emission as suddenly all that pressed vegetation started rotting, bacteria started growing, gas pockets were released, etc. Add to the fact that the trees they were using mostly died, then rotted, compounding the problem...

Honestly I'd rather companies invested money in new, less-polluting means of production than on a PR job of how sweet they are for poorly planting a few acres of the wrong species in the wrong place.

Similarly, Thisguy, I'd rather all them big bucks be put towards solar and geothermal development than either coal, or "just like coal, only it's a metal!" - Uranium has to be mined just like coal, and brings its own set of problems which are just as bad as coal. It's silly considering that Nevada and California, armed with a few solar panels, could probably power much of the western US, and the geothermal energy in the Continental Divide could probably do the same. We just need to fund research into increasing efficiency.

I remember this concept having a lot of conceptual branches during Al Gore's campaign in 2000. The concept, at that time, was to create an environmental economy by "trading" these credits. Those that contributed to the problem had to offset by purchasing credits - basically investing - with organizations that contributed to the solutions. It is a good way to fill the gap where, currently, there is no economic value and we are relying on a charitable act to urge reinvestment in the environment. Some of those hanging chads would have saved alot of trees.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Logging companies help out greatly. A young, growing tree processes infinitely more CO2 than an old slow to non growing tree. Loggers clear out old growth and plant young trees. (I know, I know, evil loggers are just trying to put themselves out of business and really don't plant young trees. Makes for a great business model.)

More lumber, more trees, more CO2 processed. But there's always some salamander a hippie is trying to save or some woman with hairy pits living up in one on some selfish crusade.

Actually I fail to see how someone who is interested in ensuring humans protecting biodiversity is selfish? Logging will always continue, that is a simple fact, but unchecked it can do massive damage to natural systems. While I totally agree that young growing tress process more carbon than old-growth slowly growing trees, the fact remains that mature climax communities are essential to the health of both dependent flora and fauna.

Same goes for nuclear. Currently the US is only 20% nuclear at best. More nuclear = less CO2. But every time a proposed nuclear plant goes through the notions some hippie with molested nightmares of Chernobyl gets in the way and we're all back to burning tons and tons and tons of coal.

Again your right, nuclear would drastically reduce CO2, but again the difference is more dangerous. Nuclear energy creates a wastes that is exteamly deadly to all living organisms that I know of. Waste that also take s thousands if not millions of years to go away. Thus Using Nuclear as our source of energy is is fundamentally flawed, we would essentially be setting ourselves up to do more damage in the long run.

Edit: to reply to the OP...

The idea sounds nice but as far as planting trees to offset carbon production goes I don't think it is possible to plant enough trees to accomplish the goals. The overall idea though is solid. Why not require that all environmental externalities to production be mitigated? As it stands now there is little or no incentive for companies to investigate and invest in methods of reducing or removing environmental impacts. Forcing regulations on producers to do no harm would force the invigoration of an industry whoes sole purpose was to develop technologies and strategies to reduce or remove these harmful impacts.

[edit on 24-1-2008 by Animal]

It appears as if this idea has begun to take root...

NPR Green Exchange to Trade Carbon Credits

I originally heard news of this during an interview with Al Gore on NPR in 1999 during his campaign. It just seems if we can pass numerous taxes on individuals...that this type of measure should be very necessary now...with corporate polluters. I will do more digging and see if there is any legislation that has been a part of this initiative. I would hope, with the clout that Al Gore now holds, and many many others who work on environmental issues, that this idea has legs moving somewhere toward this goal.

Thank you for bringing this concept up for further discussion.

Peace.

[edit on 27-1-2008 by DancedWithWolves]

I'm guessing that you have no clue that nearly all of our oxygen comes from sea plants and whatnot?

No....your guess would be correct....I am not familiar with the demographic break down of our oxygen producers. Please..do share some sources if you have the time. I would be interested in learning more.

And as to this initiative...I had not heard it specifically in terms of planting trees just to clarify. The thought...at least to my uninformed mind....was to cause an economy where there was a gap which relied on charity. The re-investment in "requiring" the purchasing of credits to offset "the bad stuff" would go in many, many directions such as you are suggesting to help the environment.

Peace.

It is all about the carbon tax, that you and I will be forced to pay just to exist, whereas corporations will be exampt. Trees don't put money into the coffers of our rulers, taxes do and a tax on life is the worst one ever.
Even if you decide to use a fireplace to heat your car you will be taxed for a predetermined amount of carbon usage calculated from the square footage of your home. People who use solar will be expected to pay a fee that the gov. hasn't conjured up just yet. No one will be exempt, even children.

We are screwed. Trees won't help.

I know it been a while but... I'll just say" CLIMATEGATE" and Google Al Gore getting sued by 30,000 Scientists. Ohh and the "Scientists" that fudged the numbers are going to be criminally charged!

Trees, planted far away from the company plant will not help the immediate environment.

instead how about air scrubbers on the Plants premisis and CO/CO2 scrubbers that are not eye-sores in City parks & highway cloverleafs where the land just lays there in a vacant condition?


trees are pleasant to the eye but not 100% efficient in all aspects needed
in this problem