Of tree planting and offset programmes

These posts should tell you one thing - that planting trees is not the immediate solution to offsetting carbon emissions. I remember seeing an article datelined Australia, which indicated that planners of a recent major celebration in Sydney were going to offset the consequences of a spectacular fuel dump by a military jet (and the fuel's ensuing conflagration) by planting 300 trees somewhere. Given the droughts and fires in Australia, my suspicion is that if the trees were ever planted they are probably already dead. But I'd also be intrigued to know who is auditing or will audit this offset, otherwise it is just as much hot air as was left by the jet in its wake. In the case of our example, it would take close to 15 years to reach the point where the number of trees required to offset that fuel dump did not have a lot of zeros attached. In short, it takes an already-planted well-developed tree growing rapidly to offer a short-term outcome. This is why avoiding emissions has to be the first step, and tree planting an associated initiative to get as much of the free atmospheric carbon dioxide as possible fixed back into some longer-term natural form that enhances biological capital, and, hopefully, our appreciation for the aesthetic values of landscapes rather than subdivisions. I think those Aussie planners were more concerned for simple and immediate pleasures ('aaah'), and felt no personal or professional responsibility for the display's effects. I do not actually know whether the display went ahead. I do know that they should be planning to plant trees now for the probability of any such display (or any other flyby, even in Iraq) 15 years from now. Otherwise, don't do it.