Tomorrow’s”Beyond the Carbon Budget” meeting (12.45 at the Friends Meeting House, 6 Mount St) sees the launch of a
report entitled “States of Nature: Reflections on the threats to Manchester’s biodiversity and what ordinary people can do about them.” It has been written by local bio-diversity campaigner Dave Bishop. Here is a sneak-preview…
Does Planting Trees Counter Climate Change?
We often hear that we need to plant trees in order to counter climate change. Oliver Rackham tells us that Britain is far too small to make an appreciable difference to global CO2 levels;
“… exhorting people to plant trees to sequester carbon dioxide is like telling them to drink more to hold down rising sea level.”
Recently Miles King, Conservation Director of the Grasslands Trust commented on the Woodland Trust’s ridiculous plan to plant 6 million trees, in 2012, to mark the Queen’s Silver Jubilee. He wrote:
“The Woodland Trust press release extolled the virtues of trees as carbon stores. The planting scheme will be making Britain greener in more ways than one – as well as the beauty of the trees themselves, they will reduce the impact of pollution; the carbon lock-up potential from six million trees is roughly equivalent to the annual carbon dioxide output of a million cars.
This statistic didn’t look quite right to me so I did some calculations – and yes, what it actually means is that over the lifetime of the trees – a couple of hundred years – and assuming a lot of caveats, they will soak up the CO2 produced by a million cars in one year.”
He went on to write:
“What’s really interesting is that converting intensively managed grasslands to wildlife-rich grasslands creates the same amount of carbon storage as planting trees. And you can carry on grazing them, unlike plantations.”
manchester climate monthly 
Well, that in turn doesn’t sound right does it?
I know from personal experience that the WT are not above playing fast and loose with statistics. But this is a pointless fight to pick – who wants to arbitrate between the claims of two special-interest groups, both advocating things that in themselves are good?
PS Not too much walking at the end of the Test, from the Aussies’ last man, was there? So let’s hope we hear no more about all that… 😉 I’m just glad it was a good game, with both sides in the running, and hopefully it presages a good series.
There are lots of benefits to planting more trees, where appropriate, than just for sequestering CO2. The argument that planting trees is like “Tree-planting vs climate change” is like “drinking more water vs sea-level rise”. It is a similar argument people use for not changing their behaviour. What is the point of one person reducing their energy consumption, it is not going to stop climate change. Basically, a childish attitude and very selfish. Everyone has a part to play and of course the more affluent they are, the more they can do. I also had someone comment on a post about rising temperatures, how much CO2 does a volcano emit? Again, another childish comeback by those not prepared to make changes.
I do agree that it’s dangerous to encourage the idea that we can easily offset carbon emissions – in fact I remember complaining to the WWF about that as long as 8 years ago. They had an article in which somebody suggested salving your conscience for your weekend break in Prague by making a donation to them – as if it was a sin to expiate, not a behaviour which is simply unsustainable. But (as Patrick Sudlow says) you could apply the same argument to UK carbon emissions, and (a fortiori) Manchester’s: anything we do is too insignificant to make a difference. We still have to try, though. Trees *do* absorb CO2 and, for that and many other reasons, planting them is a good idea – no? I can’t really see how grass can absorb as much, I’d want a bit of convincing on that one especially as the claim comes from the head of the Grasslands Trust! Didn’t even know there was such a thing, and I know nothing about their motives and agenda.