Eric,

Thank you for the post.

I was under the illusion that my own project, a 2-acre prairie remnant, was paying for itself just sequestering carbon. I was dismayed to learn that it was removing, at most, 4 tons of carbon from the atmosphere each year... net, even after burning the top off every few years.

My reaction, posted elsewhere on this website...

"Yahoo... all the effort, all the fuel burned, all the days in the hot sun rather than reading a book... hell, the water I pumped out of the ground to keep myself hydrated... is currently worth -- as judged by the free market -- about $16.40 per year."

But I added...

"Good thing that is not my primary motivation or I would not bother. I know preservation of biodiversity, setting an example for others, and the pure aesthetic value is worth more than that."

It is very important to point out -- AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE -- that planting trees and other vegetation appropriate for a region is worth far more than what the market will ever assign to it. And there is more to preserving our natural environment than removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

I applaud your work and thank you for setting an example for others to follow. Even if your yard only stimulates a single child's interest in caring for the rest of the Earth, the effort you put into selecting and caring for the plants was worthwhile. And you never know... that apple tree might save a native pollinator's life and prevent an species from disappearing.

Another victim of Jean-Paul Marat's ghost and his virtual guillotine?

The reason to plant trees was traditionally for a wind screen to prevent wind erosion, and then for shade.  We like them because they attract birds as well.  I've been a native tree "nut" for a long time and would never even consider trading carbon credits for a tree.  Oops, I think that is your point!

There seems to be some wild concept that if you plant a tree, it could absorb via photosynthesis all those guilty man-made CO2 emissions.  Folks, it doesn't work that way.  We could stop every car, industrial stack, and every combustion source in the world and you know what, those trees would do perfectly well - if not better.  

Forgot to mention that stack and exhaust pipe emissions also contain ozone, sulfur acids, and other bad actors that TRY TO KILL TREES.  

Face it, the whole thing is a sham.  Enjoy your trees and take care of them as you can.  Some bug, storm, fungus, or chainsaw is just dying to cut her down, so stand up for your rights, mon.

Onward through the fog

I'd bet most carbon offset projects that plant trees are far bigger than your backyard project, but forget about that.  

No one, except maybe a handful of people, argues that offsets are a silver bullet for global warming.  

At this point, I don't understand attacking the merits of offsets.  The voluntary carbon markets have hit the ground and taken off running, you're not going to stop it but you can provide information to make them better.  

The only message I would take away from this piece is that buyers of carbon offsets should research what they are actually buying and decide if they think that's adequate to meet their desires for emissions reduction.

that if trees aren't any good for offsetting carbon, we should still consider using market concept to encourage the planting of vegetation.

That is, stop calling them carbon offsets.  Make them biodiversity credits, habitat credits, environmental credits, etc.  Eco-conscious people should still want to pay for them (after all, the purchasers of offsets are already environmentally-minded).  

You seem to talk some truth, Nature Scene.  However, your comment that offsets are going to happen and the implication "better get out of the way" is rather sad.  If I plowed and burned down 10,000 acres of native plants, grasses, and habitat to put in date palms every 20 feet, I should feel better?  No. I'd be one pissed off monkey!  

Tell me one, just one excellent bio- or geo-engineering project that makes sense to offset man-made CO2 with something else.  Gosh, on an annual basis (not forecasting for 30 year growth) I can't think of a single one.  But you're smart, maybe you have some ideas.  

DO YOU KNOW HOW STUPID IT IS DO OFFSET PRESENT DAY CO2 EMISSIONS WITH FUTURE REDUCTIONS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST, SUCH AS A TREE FARM?

I'm sure you do ... just checking.
sammie

Onward through the fog

At this point, I don't understand attacking the merits of offsets.  The voluntary carbon markets have hit the ground and taken off running, you're not going to stop it but you can provide information to make them better.

Actually from what I have read on this site, most people aren't against the idea of carbon offsets. They are against their current implementation and the existing problem with no regulation.

For carbon offsets to work, we need more immediate solutions. Everyone pushes trees because they are cheap. They are pushing the message that everything can be offset with planting trees. Instead of planting trees, why not introduce neighborhood power generation? Wouldn't that have a more immediate effect and truly offset carbon usage? Look at Pacific Gas & Electric's program. They are selling trees that already exist and have offset their carbon to make people feel good about their electrical usage. However if they promoted tidal power generators along the breakwaters in numerous bays along California's coast or use the cash flow to provide needy families with solar panels on their homes, they would actually do more. Maybe they could figure out a way to generate wind power on the thousands of power transmission towers criss-crossing the state. New clean power generation without requiring more land would be nice.

Offsets or the ideas of offsets are nice. But promoting trees when their contribution is really not that great isn't. Planting a few million acres of rainforest in Brazil would definately help but its a lot more than trees that go into that equation.

Hey if one wants to put offsets such as practical tide turbines, wind turbines, waves machines, and solar generators I'm all for it - but usually that juice is sold as peak and base-load electrical power, not as an offset.  Bummer.

Onward through the fog

This, by WiscIdea, is excellent:

<<
It is very important to point out -- AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE -- that planting trees and other vegetation appropriate for a region is worth far more than what the market will ever assign to it. And there is more to preserving our natural environment than removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
>>

And I love NatureScene's suggestion about "biodiversity credits" and "habitat credits."

But I am puzzled, therefore, that we should judge Eric's tree-planting efforts to be well done on those terms.  Are the trees that he chose to plant native to the Seattle region?  He tells us that they have attracted birds, which is a very good thing.  But will they attract native pollinators in the Spring?

I am only asking for information, and do not mean to imply any criticism.  Quite the contrary: Eric did a praiseworthy thing by bringing down the curtain on the tennis-court lawn, and by planting trees.

Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

It might also be smart to think of timber trees rather than ornamentals. Instead of eventually rotting or burning out the carbon gets to stay sequestered in furniture or framing.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

There was an interesting program on PBS long long long ago, so someone might want to verify this...

Damn degrades river and blocks salmon migration -- two strikes against the salmon.

Bears, raptors, and other predators can no longer hunt salmon, which they apparently drag or drop some distance from the river and consume only part of it.

Bear scat and scavenger scat no longer replenish nitrogen in soil.

Lack of nitrogen ptrevents healthy tree growth and forest regeneration.

Forest cover no longer protects stream from silt or maintains low water temperature for salmon.

The entire ecosystem collapses -- my extension of the horrible chain of events -- and no longer efficiently sequesters carbon.

Another victim of Jean-Paul Marat's ghost and his virtual guillotine?

Keith,

My understanding is that the "ghgs from hydro" argument has been somewhat overblown. I'm not closely familiar with the literature, but I've been told by knowledgeable folks that the problem is much pronounced in tropical settings where there is much fluctuation in the water level (more biomass grows quickly and is subsequently innudated). I think it's a less serious problem in temperate zones. (Please correct me if I'm mistaken!)

In any event, my power, which is supplied by Seattle City Light, has been subjected to fairly rigorous audits and it is considered the only large U.S. utility with zero net emissions. Still debatable, I suppose, but I'll leave it for another time...

On a related point, damns definitely degrade river systems -- no doubt about it. While City Light's power doesn't come from dams that block migrating fish, much hydro power does. And I'm not saying that hydro is environmentally benign, just that it's climate-friendly.

Finally, to caniscandida's point, about half of my trees and other plantings are native to western Washington. I live in an urban area where the terrestial ecosystem conversion is somewhere near 100%. So my backyard efforts aren't aimed to restore the native coastal forests and bog-meadows -- what I'm doing is just not comparable to wiscidea's laudable prairie restoration -- but simply to support some of the native critters, even while I make it a great place to hang out. It's been pretty successful for birds. Some of favorite, though rare, visitors include downy woodpeckers, golden-crowned sparrows, and even a sharp-shinned hawk. But I don't know enough about pollinators to have even the foggiest idea about whether my yard can be successful on those terms.  

While all of the nuveau "Science" guys have everyone believing in their program to soak someones money away from them by thinking that they will benefit this earth by purchasing some carbon,I just roar with laughter that all of you would go for it.Ya know,this old earth scientist says again for those who refused to process the news I have shared on this forum previously. Photosynthesis does not make oxygen,the oxygens frequency does from the cymatic grid that runs this planet(And all others too)When you have some sweet sap ,maple to be exact on your Johnny cakes from time to time,please ponder that that is a "CARBO" hydrate,made in the roots to feed the tree its nutrition for growth and its fruits.That tree (and other plants) must have a process for exhausting its waster from its nutrition,just as you do.That tree and other plants have pores(Stomata) that opens with a tone.Do you want to know which one opens it?Ask me ,as it is another conversation,so back to my mission.The oxygen hangs around trees in the first place because it seeks the ground,through our gravity process,which is another one of those little further conversations.The oxygen goes into the stomata and helps purge the used up carbo-hydrate component of the tree (or plant) and combines with a carbon molecule and VIOLA!!! You receieve a Carbon dioxide.All of the plants and trees could be removed from this earth and we would breathe just fine,we just would have nothing to eat.It really is simple,if you look at it in the correct"Scientific" way.Now if anyone "REALLY" wants to understand the "Glbal Warming"cycle we are enjoying at this time.I have shared that before,but,ya know,all of you were spoonfed science that  garbage at your higher learning institutions and most of you refuse to believe they took your money and your time and blew one hell of alot of smoke up your ass and you cannot process as a result. This was on purpose,but thats not my fault,IS IT ? My mission has been to bring earth science knowledge to your attention,so you dont make  this earth worse off than it actually is.Yet we do have a very serious problem on the earth that will,if gone un-checked remove all possibility of life in about 100 years,and no one but I,(That I know of) speaks to it.Why is that? But anyway,I digress,as I know you folks would rather just stay in the dark as it is much more comfortable there.

Earth Shaman

Adam Stein,
You write, "Tree-planting projects are a very small percentage of offsetting projects worldwide." Fair enough. I overstated the centrality of tree planting to offset projects.

Pangolin,
I have no idea what your point is. If you read my post, you would know that I think tree planting, especially on a small scale, is useless for offsetting emissions. And that finding ways to avoid emissions in the first place (i.e. less driving) is key.

Earth Shaman,
Dude, you are blowing my mind.