Honestly that is something I could get behind, planting trees and protecting wild life areas.
Although I'm like 90% sure they are just going to put money in some laundering scheme and then pat themselves on the back for some numbers they are going to pull out of their buts.
"Planting trees to offset GHG emissions" is a virtue-signaling scam for guillible people in the near-totality of cases.
The forest was going to grow anyway. Hastening the process by 1 to 5 decades does fuck-all in the long run.
That same forest is going to get cut down and the wood burned or decomposed in a matter of decades at best.
"Oh but we will protect that forest!" and thus simply moving the wood-cutting to a different place, a place that probably had higher biodiversity value than your semi-artificial tree plantation.
There are few places where the trees wouldn't grow back naturally but an artificial plantation would sustain itself. And then you have to protect that plantation from lugging and fires FOREVER. Good luck with that.
Though if you can see the scam comming from miles away, a forest fire in a non-self-replacing artificial forest is just amother opportunity to virtue-signal a "net zero carbon sink initiative" while memory-holing the previous "net zero emission" went up and smoke, + the GHG emissions of the whole tree-planting entreprise. They won't account for that.
Although I'm like 90% sure they are just going to put money in some laundering scheme and then pat themselves on the back for some numbers they are going to pull out of their buts.
Knew someone who briefly interned at a carbon credit broker. Took less than a week before they were inducted into fudging the numbers and forging certificates.
Tree planting usually winds up being "we'll replace the natural forest with only commercially-desirable plants, and quietly war with any wildlife who might themselves want to use the trees, and then build all kinds of tourist shit in it."
Honestly that is something I could get behind, planting trees and protecting wild life areas.
Although I'm like 90% sure they are just going to put money in some laundering scheme and then pat themselves on the back for some numbers they are going to pull out of their buts.
"Planting trees to offset GHG emissions" is a virtue-signaling scam for guillible people in the near-totality of cases.
The forest was going to grow anyway. Hastening the process by 1 to 5 decades does fuck-all in the long run.
That same forest is going to get cut down and the wood burned or decomposed in a matter of decades at best.
"Oh but we will protect that forest!" and thus simply moving the wood-cutting to a different place, a place that probably had higher biodiversity value than your semi-artificial tree plantation.
There are few places where the trees wouldn't grow back naturally but an artificial plantation would sustain itself. And then you have to protect that plantation from lugging and fires FOREVER. Good luck with that.
Though if you can see the scam comming from miles away, a forest fire in a non-self-replacing artificial forest is just amother opportunity to virtue-signal a "net zero carbon sink initiative" while memory-holing the previous "net zero emission" went up and smoke, + the GHG emissions of the whole tree-planting entreprise. They won't account for that.
Knew someone who briefly interned at a carbon credit broker. Took less than a week before they were inducted into fudging the numbers and forging certificates.
So. Yes.
Tree planting usually winds up being "we'll replace the natural forest with only commercially-desirable plants, and quietly war with any wildlife who might themselves want to use the trees, and then build all kinds of tourist shit in it."