3 ms·
You absolutely are not. Shell is doing the cheapest possible thing; planting trees. It is NOT permanent and not sustainable. As soon as someone decides to cu
by hwillis 6y ago
You absolutely are not. Shell is doing the cheapest possible thing; planting trees. It is NOT permanent and not sustainable. As soon as someone decides to cut down those trees, that CO2 goes right back into the air. Shell is also estimating the offset at $5/ton, which is an order of magnitude lower than expected: https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr888.pdf https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr888.pdf
Planting trees simply will not work. Cumulative anthropogenic GHG emissions are >410 gigatonnes of carbon with 10 gigatonnes worth of GHG released each year. There's 550 ~gigatonnes of carbon in all living creatures, with about 450 Gt in plants, most of that terrestrial. Even if we went back to pre-human levels of forestation it would not cancel out all the CO2 we have already emitted.
- teekert 6y agoThanx you, I was hoping for this reaction. Shell's tactics feel completely wrong, and so they are. How can they get away with this?