A ton of fossil carbon isn't the same as a ton of new trees: Why offsets can't save us

[NickB79]

https://phys.org/news/2023-03-ton-fossil-carbon-isnt-trees.amp

You've probably heard about Australia's rubbery offset schemes and questions of integrity. But there's an even more fundamental problem. One ton of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is not the same as one ton of carbon stored in the tree trunks of a newly planted forest.

The carbon in coal, gas and oil has been safely stored underground for extraordinary lengths of time. But when trees take carbon dioxide back out of the atmosphere, they may only store it for a short period.

There is simply no way around it. Avoiding the worst of climate change means stopping the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. Offsets will not save us. In fact, unlimited use of offsets could see even more emissions, if coal and gas companies "offset" emissions and ramp up exports.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. Wet blanketism (but). Even if it only stores for 50 years (its longer), it still buys time

The article doesn't claim 50 or any figure. It's very short on facts. 50 is my placeholder figure.

1) Typical tree lives longer than 50 years. Many routinely live considerably longer.

2) Even trees destroyed by flood or drought keep carbon locked up for decades.

3) Trees may be more prone to fire because of warming, but increased carbon encourages tree growth.

4) Trees encourage other greenery to grow.

5) Even if it is only { pick a number of decades } or so decades, that buys time for us to get off carbon fuels.

In that regard, the article is right. The true way that will have to be reached is to stop using carbon based energy.

[rickford66]

2. Don't do something, just sit there.

Yes. That's the ticket. Ya can't get there from here. It'll never work. The Earth will be gone in five billion years anyway.