The Problem with Planting with Trees.
If you are new here you may be surprised with the title of this article. What’s this? A plant grower who doesn’t want you to plant trees? Harriet, WHY? I hear you cry. For those that have followed the Harriet’s Plants journey for a while, you will know that at the core of my business is sustainability. It is why as a grower, I am passionate about not only growing peat free but also educating people about the detrimental effects of peat harvesting. I pride myself on being transparent about all my business practices from peat free to packaging, employment to energy. There are always areas of my business to improve and I am constantly researching how I can make my business as sustainable as possible. One solution I am asked about all the time is tree planting as a way to offset my carbon footprint.
As you probably already are aware, trees absorb and store carbon dioxide, which is one of the main gasses contributing to the greenhouse effect causing global warming. Deforestation accounts for 10% of the global emissions. Trees have been shown to help cool the streets in cities, they clean the air and have a positive impact on air pollution (another growing environmental problem). Tree roots help prevent soil erosion and trees provide an important habitat for wildlife. In short, trees are awesome, and we love trees.
So, what is the problem with companies planting more trees? A lot of big companies will advertise that to offset their carbon footprint they have taken the decision to plant x number of trees for every x amount of orders. The quantity and commitment vary massively between companies, but the principle is the same. Just as TOM’s revolutionised the footwear industry in 2006 by gifting a pair of shoes to underprivileged children with every full priced purchase. A new breed of philanthropy was born. In the coming decades countless businesses repeated the model and it has become a successful sales tool. Fast forward to today, as our planet is facing a climate crisis and you will notice that the same is being done with the promise of planting more trees which is problematic in a number of ways. Firstly, as a solution it is too simplified, the planted trees lack biodiversity, the practice promotes overconsumption, but most importantly it distracts the consumer away from questioning a company’s less than ideal sustainability credentials.
Can we really solve the whole climate crisis by planting a tree? It is important to recognise that tree planting is only one part of solving the climate crisis, it is not a catch all solution to alleviate our collective carbon guilt. Most companies resort to fast and cheap when it comes to tree planting. Trees take a long time to grow and need continual care. Trees only really become highly effective carbon stores when they reach 20 to 30 years old when they start drawing in significant amount of carbon. Saplings are very vulnerable to threats such as droughts, storms, pests and diseases so not every tree planted will survive but this often isn't factored into carbon offsetting calculations. Tree planting programs need to take a long-term view and ensure that there is protection in the place long into the future. Just like Peat, trees are a significant carbon store. Keyword: Store. If there isn’t a fully thought out end of life plan to the trees that are being planted, then the stored carbon can be re-released into the atmosphere. To be able to thrive all forests need to be thinned. If timber from glade trees is used in building, then the carbon will remain stored inside the structure but if the wood is left to rot then the carbon is released. Responsible tree planting schemes need to factor in end-of-life plans for the trees and the carbon they are holding, so that all the good work isn’t lost.
Then as with all sustainability considerations there is the human aspect of these schemes. 1.6 billion people rely on forests, including 60 million indigenous people for their livelihoods, food, building materials and medicines. Plantations often offer nothing to local communities who lose the land to the corporations behind them. Research by friends of the Earth groups has found that these projects often fail to deliver on the promises of job creation and sustainable development instead depriving communities of vital resources and having a negative impact on the cultural diversity of the area. Communities that refuse to join plantation projects often suffer intimidation and tree planting projects can come at a huge human cost. This doesn’t have to be this way, when tree planting programs are integrated into local communities they can draw a local knowledge to restore biodiversity and directly benefit the local people.
It is so important that new tree planting schemes consider biodiversity. Tree planting programs often use plantations made up of rows and rows of timber trees which will end up being harvested when they reach maturity. To boost the carbon saving credentials they need trees that store carbon very quickly so many companies use fast growing species. This can lead to a whole host of problems. Planting the wrong species of trees in the wrong places can do more harm than good. This can introduce new pests and invasive species that harm the nutrients in the soil. You may have seen this type of monoculture planting in palm oil plantations, these are maintained with chemical pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers which kill vital pollinators and they require ongoing human intervention. Instead of planting more trees, it would be more beneficial to the carbon cause to protect existing forests. Existing forests are already effective carbon stores with established ecosystems. These forests are also critical to the lives of many communities but they are under threat. More than 20% of the Amazon rainforest is already gone and we're losing more every day. In many developing countries where many of the crucial tropical forests are found, deforestation is big business. This is largely to meet consumer demand for commodities in developed countries. Between 2009 and 2012 Brazil and Indonesia spent over 100 times more in subsidies to industries causing rainforest deforestation than they received in international conservation aid to prevent it. Planting new trees is a ‘sexy’ marketing message, but the companies can make a bigger impact by protecting existing forests through schemes like REDD+
Our consumption levels in the west are driving our climate to destruction. If we are going to lower emissions, we (in developed countries) need to consume less. By promoting a tree planted with every purchase, these brands are encouraging unhealthy levels of consumption and are further fuelling the problem. Clever marketing to make our choices seem on the surface to be good for the planet. Our drive for everything to be as cheap as possible is usually the cause of exploitation of people or the planet. Too often these programs are a short-term fix that haven't fully considered the full impact across the community, biodiversity and long-term carbon storage. Don’t fall for greenwashing. Look behind the marketing and interrogate the ethics of the companies you choose to spend your precious pennies.
If these companies really cared about their carbon footprint could they not be addressing their issues it at the source!? Tree planting and conservation would be a bonus rather than an equalizer to offset malpractice.
Trees are wonderful and if properly considered, a tree planting scheme may offer some salve to the global crisis. However, it is very important that as a consumer we educate ourselves in to greenwashing. It is a prevalent and pervasive problem across all industries. All businesses have a carbon footprint. I believe it is our moral responsibility as business owners and individuals to make that footprint as small as possible. Planting one tree without changing fundamental polluting factors in the wider business is simple greenwashing. Buying a chocolate bar that promises to plant a tree may feel like a positive consumer move but without giving thought to the companies sustainability credentials it may also be funding bigger problems. My advice, vote with your money. Instead of funding big businesses that make hollow promises, ask to see their sustainability reports and sign petitions for change. Even on a small scale, instead of buying an item that promises to plant a tree, grow a variety of plants in your spaces that welcome pollinators. It is those small steps, if made by enough people, that will truly make a difference to our carbon crisis.
This is by no means me suggesting that planting trees is always the wrong this to do, but it IS me, challenging a green washing scheme that may be overlooked by many.
I hope you enjoyed reading this blog post. FEEL FREE TO SHARE EITH FRIENDS AND COMMENT YOUR VIEWS.
