For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. – HL Mencken, journalist and social critic (1880-1956)
When British physicist Freeman Dyson wrote in 1972 of his dream of the greening of the galaxy — in which humans would populate the stars by means of massive genetically engineered trees planted on comets — few took him seriously. Likewise when he advocated triggering nuclear explosions underneath space probes as a means of propulsion, most gave the idea a bemused miss. Dyson is, however, a tenacious character. When in 1977 he advocated using trees to soak up excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, people took notice.1 Third time lucky.
The timing was certainly perfect. Scientific understanding about climate change was just beginning to provoke industry concerns that governments might soon start to crack down on corporate polluters. Seeking ways to head off this dreadful prospect – which one industry group once referred to as the road to serfdom — some companies started to explore ways to offset their emissions by using tree plantations rather than cut pollution at source.
You might also like these New Internationalist books
Climate Change
Looks at scientific findings, the politics of climate change and the options for working towards a low-carbon future.
By Dinyar Godre
Inside Israel-Palestine
An ideal guide, in question and answer format, to this most complex of conflicts.
By Dinyar Godre
Conflict and Peace
Peaceful alternatives to invasion and force - all explored through real cases where conflicts have been resolved.
By Helen Ware
When British physicist Freeman Dyson wrote in 1972 of his dream of the greening of the galaxy — in which humans would populate the stars by means of massive genetically engineered trees planted on comets — few took him seriously. Likewise when he advocated triggering nuclear explosions underneath space probes as a means of propulsion, most gave the idea a bemused miss. Dyson is, however, a tenacious character. When in 1977 he advocated using trees to soak up excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, people took notice.1 Third time lucky.
An external evaluation revealed that subsistence activities undertaken by the largely indigenous population, such as gathering fuelwood for cooking, were now criminalized and conflicts erupted over rights to the trees, excarcerbating existing tensions over access to resources and local decision-making. Initially the tree species used were largely inappropriate for the area and resulted in land degradation. The evaluators, Winrock International, concluded in 1999 — 10 years after the project began — that AES’s offset target was falling far below the expected level. By 2001, farmers were still not receiving direct payments for the trees they planted and looked after and many were not aware that these trees were being used for storing carbon for AES. These problems, however, did not prevent the company from getting approval for its coal-fired power plant.2
By 2001, farmers were still not receiving direct payments.
It wasn’t until 1989 that the first carbon offset project was launched, conceived by US power company, Applied Energy Services (AES), together with the environmental think-tank World Resources Institute, the official US aid agency USAID, and the big development NGO, CARE. At the time, AES was looking for regulatory approval for a new 183 megawatt coal-fired power plant in Connecticut. It eventually got the go-ahead thanks to its mitigation project in the Western Highlands region of Guatemala. The project entailed planting 50 million non-native pine and eucalyptus trees on some 40,000 small farm holdings in this deeply impoverished region, which in theory would soak up the equivalent carbon dioxide emissions expected to be generated for the lifetime of the plant.2
According to Hannah Wittman of Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, the project was a dismal failure.
What it did first and foremost was to take access to the trees out of the hands of ordinary people.
An external evaluation revealed that subsistence activities undertaken by the largely indigenous population, such as gathering fuelwood for cooking, were now criminalized and conflicts erupted over rights to the trees, excarcerbating existing tensions over access to resources and local decision-making. Initially the tree species used were largely inappropriate for the area and resulted in land degradation. The evaluators, Winrock International, concluded in 1999 — 10 years after the project began — that AES’s offset target was falling far below the expected level. By 2001, farmers were still not receiving direct payments for the trees they planted and looked after and many were not aware that these trees were being used for storing carbon for AES. These problems, however, did not prevent the company from getting approval for its coal-fired power plant.2
