Carbon Offseting

by Roger Lovejoy

The Scam

First we consider ourselves to be the whole human race and then argue that as someone else is producing less CO₂ than thier quota or we can convince them to use less that their quota, we can have it and give them a Bennie Baby or some other token of thanks. This clearly only works for the powerful and rich, dominant and authoritarian bodies.

An examples is that I will grow a tree on your behalf if you pay me a relative amount for the CO₂ you are responsible for generating. How much you generate is of little imporatance if you have the money. To me it's money for nothing. I just have to buy farm land land and let it natural regenerate to woodland.

I'm already doing that, so where's your money : )

The real problem of Carbon Offsetting Global is that

• The carbon footprint for Plymouth for 1 year would require covering an area twice the size of Devon every year and adding another such area every 35 years at by then the 'Forest' will give out as much as it absorbs and it can't be used for fuel as has to act as store of CO₂. Ok we can make lots of wooden houses, boats, toys etc but it mustn't be burnt or allowed to decay.
• Clearly in doing so would mean no land for anything else.
• However food production absorbs the same amount of CO₂ but isn't locked up for 35 years
• Growing biomass is not the answer. The issue is sequestration, the absoption and storage of CO₂ for very long periods. True trees store CO₂ for longer than annula crops, but annual crops if used more inventively could be a better option.
• Hemp fibres can be incorporated into brinks and insulation which may provide a longer lasting carbon store than trees. After about 35 years trees shed as much biomass as they consume, whereas hempbricks may like straw and cob last for hundreds of years.

However none of the above are viable as (a)there is not enough land and (b)once the petrochemical fertilisers, soil improvers and pesticides run out we will need every bit of biomass to help grow our food.