3 ms·
I get that carbon capture is very expensive and difficult, but surely planting trees does remove carbon from the atmosphere? That's where their biomass mostly c
by thamer 5y ago
I get that carbon capture is very expensive and difficult, but surely planting trees does remove carbon from the atmosphere? That's where their biomass mostly comes from.
On my Wren profile, it says "Your annual carbon emissions are equivalent to..." with a few equivalent amounts like "18793 miles driven in a car" or "The amount of CO2 349 pine trees absorb in a year". So isn't planting 349 pine trees in a year offsetting my emissions, literally removing the CO2 my lifestyle produced? (maybe once they're grown).
If what you mean by offsets is more something like "pay to have N people switch to cleaner fuels instead of cooking with coal", then sure. But on Wren you can choose how to distribute the amount you pay; some can go to planting trees, some can go to cleaner fuels, or rainforest protection, etc.
I looked up other similar services yesterday and found Terrapass (https://www.terrapass.com/ https://www.terrapass.com/ – also not affiliated) and their plan for 13,000 lbs/year costs $4.86/month or $58.32/5,897kg or ≈ 1c/kg. That said, it wasn't exactly clear from a quick look whether it was lowering emissions by this amount of removing the same amount.
I do get your point though, and the distinction is definitely important. The name Carbon Removed certainly makes this goal clear. I wish other services clearly differentiated how much CO2 was actively removed per dollar spent.
In any case, best of luck! I'm glad to see more of these initiatives and wish you success.
- kisamoto 5y agoTrees definitely do capture CO₂ and sequester it away - that's why we also support them. However planting trees does not make up the majority of offsetting projects. Offsetting can and does include things like "not cutting down these trees", or "using drones to check trees are alive". Non-tree based offsets include things like "greener stoves" as you mentioned. These all get certified that they do _something_ however the quantity of CO₂ mitigated is vague. Bloomberg actually did a short video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20xMbGkEIQI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20xMbGkEIQI) on how tree based offsets can be abused within the rules set out by the verification systems. On top of this trees take time to reach maturity, die from disease & wildfires releasing their CO₂ and in some cases encourage farmers to deforest to replant for the offset credits. This is all very negative but I am trying to provide the other side of the coin. Trees are not enough to reverse the impact we, as a society, have had on the climate, but they are a very important part and should be supported. Our approach is to use forestation (we also double plant and calculate carbon sequestered over 10 years) in combination with much needed technological solutions to help develop them and bring them down the price curve. Thank you so much for this discussion and your luck. Keep up the great work learning and doing good for the climate.