Next Generation Energy is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them In a previous post I discussed real carbon negative energy, biofuels produced from plant biomass. Under certain practices, the very roots of the plants are the below ground carbon sink, while the above ground biomass is a potential fuel feedstock. This approach is also restorative as degraded farmlands can be 'recovered' or habitat for native species reestablished. Like all other forms of next generation energy it will not satisfy all of our energy needs, but it can provide a substantial amount of transportation fuel. At the moment, several companies are scaling up facilities to process plant waste products, which will likely be followed by the use of dedicated energy crops.
Plant cultivation also serves solely as a carbon offset. Trees have excellent capacity for this for obvious reasons. A tree trunk, relative to more herbaceous plants, is a long lasting reservoir of carbon. The Conservation Fund provides a tool to calculate your carbon footprint and then offers to plant trees for a fee to offset your emmissions. This from the calculation of a roundtrip flight from NYC to LA,
"The average American's annual carbon footprint is just over 20 tons. Make a donation to The Conservation Fund and we'll plant 1 tree in protected parks and wildlife refuges across the United States. Over the next century, these trees will sequester approximately 1.19 tons of carbon dioxide -- a potent greenhouse gas."
To offset the average annual carbon footprint (20 tons) requires about 16 trees annually, which will be planted by the Fund for about $175. Portals to purchase offsets are also readily available when purchasing airline tickets. A word of caution, do take the time to evaluate the outlet. TerraPass, Carbon Neutral, and Clean Are Pass are for-profit entities that can direct less than half of the funds to clean projects while non-profits Carbon Fund and the Conservation Fund direct over 90%. Funds are also directed towards various green projects that ultimately may have questionable impact on footprint mitigation. As far as I can tell, these industries are in need of regulation that would inform and guarantee to a point the actual benefit of an offset purchase.
So, does it work? What is the potential of these offsets if the money actually goes towards planting trees, for example. Americans consume at least 150 billion gallons of gasoline annually. Each gallon amounts to 20 lbs of CO2; thus 3 trillion lbs per year. The average estimate for a 100-year-old tree is 2000 lbs of sequestered carbon. Can we plant 1.5 billion trees annually to offset American transportation impact alone? I'm guessing here, but I say no way. Is there enough land to do so and if yes, what would be the impact of food production? Finally, what sort of guarantees are there to maintain the carbon sink? Plant roots and tree trunk are after all not permanent. Nonetheless, it is safe to assume that all footprints are not offset. Ten or twenty millions trees have been planted, not one billion. If we can't plant that many trees, the funds can be directed towards other projects capable of mitigation. Are we selling indulgences to offset sins? I think it best not to be too cynical. There are countless lifestyle choices that impact ones footprint. Sometimes you need to fly and the thoughtful thing to do is offset and continue to work towards sustainable solutions.
Comments
"I think it best not to be too cynical."
It's impossible to be too cynical about offsets. They're just as despicable a con as the Civil War option of hiring a substitute for the draft.
Yes, sometimes one needs to fly, and sometimes one needs to drive. If one's life is reasonable in regards to CO2 generation one is moral. If one's life isn't reasonable in that regard one is immoral no matter how many indulgences you buy.
And don't even let me get started about all the juicy and irresistable possibilities for corruption in what is and what isn't an offset.
Posted by: Sully | September 28, 2008 1:52 PM
I am a little cynical about tree planting projects to offset or mitigate. Just planting a tree may accomplish very little. The tree has to survive and thrive to sequester much carbon. I observed the planting of 3000 pine trees as part of project mitigation. The planting was done in the summer in Illinois, with no additional care. It did not rain. None of the little trees survived even their first month in the ground. Unless there is a firm commitment that the trees will be cared for and protected, I would't spend a penny on it. I also recall the helpful neighbor who mowed a relative's hayfield for him. So much for my relative's year-old walnut plantation.
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | September 28, 2008 9:50 PM
Personal offsets are indeed highly dubious at best. Large scale offsets undertaken by industry and institutions can be quite significant, but don't trust PR departments.
The biggest offset is conservation and increase efficiency. If you want to feel better about flying to conferences, maybe help your neighbor upgrade their home insulation... or even better, push your local bank (or Credit Union if you are wise these days) to offer very attractive loans for home (and business) energy efficiency improvements. Don't forget pressuring you political reps for sensible programs (or even run for office yourself).
Posted by: travc | September 29, 2008 3:52 AM
BTW: Planting trees is certainly not a bad thing (most of the time at least). But offsetting CO2 emissions is probably the least compelling reason IMO.
Posted by: travc | September 29, 2008 3:54 AM
First, to interested readers I recommend excellent book by David MC MacKay - Sustainable energy without hot air - online at www.WithoutHotAir.com,
second - biomass sequestration is fine, but one has to keep in mind that i) energy crops is water and mineral intensive - it exloits soils faster than "normal" crops and
ii) if one uses fuels produced from crops, that does NOT mean reducing of CO2, it only means NOT increasing CO2
only possible way how to reduce CO2 concentration is biomass coupled with CCS - but there is a scale problem - only small powerplants are supposed potentionally to be coupled with CCS.
and iii) carbon offsets are highly speculative - what happens to the planted trees? will they burn, used to build furniture? Possibly best option is to use them for cellulosic ethanol - but still - one needs to fertilise soils - how to do that?
Best,
Posted by: Alexander Ac | September 29, 2008 5:30 AM
"Possibly best option is to use them for cellulosic ethanol - but still - one needs to fertilise soils - how to do that?"
In theory the nutrients remain behind at the processing plant after the methanol (actually) is produced; so it should be possible to get most of them back to the soil.
But, assuming we also want a few billion people to continue eating, biomass will always be a side show in energy until someone comes up with an algae or weed that can grow on the ocean surface in unused and unproductive areas, plus the way to harvest it at reasonable efficiency.
All the other talk of algae ignores the fact that no matter how efficient the algae is it must be spread out to harvest sunlight at the thin energy density that pertains. Sure, there is waste land, but that land is waste in large measure because it lacks the water that the algae needs.
Meanwhile - here's a question for solar knowledgeable folks. One of the breakdowns for rooftop solar is the cost of the needed storage if you want to fully supply a home. Why isn't someone out there making solar panels in modules sized to the approximate constant base load of a house combined with the minimal electronics necessary to switch over to it only when the panel is supporting the base load? A small step, but it seems to me a step toward making it more economic to add storage later and increase the number of modules on rooftops over time - at least in sunny locales.
Posted by: sully | September 29, 2008 10:06 AM
OK, what would you say if I told you I can give you a 10% discount on any offset you like, and still make a profit? All I have to do is take your money, put it in the bank for 10 years, and then buy the offset you were going to buy anyway. It's not like the difference between a 100-year timescale and a 110-year timescale is a big deal, right?
Future value discounting matters.
Posted by: Dunc | September 29, 2008 12:04 PM
thankss
Posted by: chat | January 22, 2009 11:59 AM
offcourse plants,trees are the sink of carbondioxide gas so each and every person is responsible to grow and take care of forests which is a natural resourse and gift of nature,due to deforestation many climate change phenomenas causes global warming,ozone depletion etc
Posted by: sana Amin | February 15, 2009 1:14 PM
i have a question that next generation has the right to live and will survive in clean and pure air?if yes the why yes? and if not then why not? plz ans me with examples
Posted by: sana Amin | February 15, 2009 1:20 PM
Steve
4/24/09
I think if were going to plant trees,we need to take it slowly,first start with areas where it rains the most,eventually if it start's raining more,thenplant more rain,because without rain trees arn't going to grow,I think we count,we need air,maybe overlook people in jail like inmates and have them plant trees and have them do the work,maybe make it so they get a break for all the good they,were going to have to make some efforts if humans are going to survive.
Posted by: Steve | April 24, 2009 1:37 PM
I also recall the helpful neighbor who mowed a relative's hayfield for him. So much for my relative's year-old walnut plantation.
Posted by: zayıflama | June 12, 2009 2:16 AM
OK, what would you say if I told you I can give you a 10% discount on any offset you like, and still make a profit? All I have to do is take your money, put it in the bank for 10 years, and then buy the offset you were going to buy anyway.
Posted by: sex alemi | June 16, 2009 1:00 PM
have a question that next generation has the right to live and will survive in clean and pure air?if yes the why yes? and if not then why not? plz ans me with examples.
Posted by: hiphop | June 16, 2009 1:02 PM
I think we count,we need air,maybe overlook people in jail like inmates and have them plant trees and have them do the work,maybe make it so they get a break for all the good they,were going to have to make some efforts if humans are going to survive.
Posted by: sikiş videoları | June 21, 2009 3:51 AM
All I have to do is take your money, put it in the bank for 10 years, and then buy the offset you were going to buy anyway. It's not like the difference between a 100-year timescale and a 110-year timescale is a big deal, right?
Posted by: sikiş | June 21, 2009 3:55 AM