From Dominic Wormell
Carbon offsetting seems to me an easy way out for many, letting them avoid addressing the amount of carbon dioxide they produce in their daily lives. I find it hard to believe, however, Fred Pearce’s contention that the planting of trees in a forest restoration programme could make matters worse (10 March, p 38).
Trees become woodlands, and woodlands become immense carbon sinks.
Sheep, on the other hand, strip hillsides bare and stop any regeneration. If trees were planted where once there was a bare hillside, a complex environment rich in biodiversity would develop.
I would love to know how many millions of tonnes of carbon could be stored on all the hillsides that are at present used for sheep farming in the UK.
Advertisement
The government needs to use offset money to encourage sheep farmers to be foresters instead. Forests that are sustainably managed can also be a source of biofuel and of material for houses and furniture, which are in themselves carbon sinks.
Forest continuously regenerates itself if allowed to do so, and must surely be more or less carbon-neutral.
Thus so as long as it is not clear-felled, forest stores carbon indefinitely.
Pearce suggests that carbon-offset forestry projects kick indigenous people off their ancestral land. Surely the biggest cause of this is clear-cutting of primary forest.
The black lion tamarin conservation programme in Brazil, run by the Institute for Ecological Reasearch (Instituto de Pesquisas Ecológicas), is a great example of how offset money could be used to conserve endangered species while also benefiting local communities. It provides previously landless people with resources to help them make a living on the land, while planting forest corridors in an environment denuded by cattle ranching.
Trinity, Jersey, Channel Islands
