Want to plant trees to offset fossil fuels? You'd need all of North and Central America, study finds
Planting trees has plenty of benefits, but this popular carbon-removal method alone can't possibly counteract the planet-warming emissions caused by the world's largest fossil-fuel companies. To do that, trees would have to cover the entire land mass of North and Central America, according to a study out Thursday.
Many respected climate scientists and institutions say removing carbon emissions — not just reducing them — is essential to tackling climate change. And trees remove carbon simply by "breathing." But crunching the numbers, researchers found that the trees' collective ability to remove carbon through photosynthesis can't stand up to the potential emissions from the fossil fuel reserves of the 200 largest oil, gas and coal fuel companies — there's not enough available land on Earth to feasibly accomplish that.
And even if there were, if those 200 companies had to pay for planting all those trees, it would cost $10.8 trillion, more than their entire combined market valuation of $7.01 trillion. The researchers also determined that the companies would be in the red if they were responsible for the social costs of the carbon in their reserves, which scientists compute around $185 per metric ton of carbon dioxide.
'The general public maybe understand offsetting to be a sort of magic eraser, and that's just not where we're at,' said Nina Friggens, a research fellow at the University of Exeter who co-authored the paper published in Communications Earth & Environment, a Nature Portfolio journal.
Carbon offsetting essentially means investing in tree planting or other environmental projects to attempt to compensate for carbon emissions. Trees are one of the cheapest ways to do this because they naturally suck up planet-warming carbon. Fossil fuel corporations, along with other companies and institutions, have promoted tree-planting as key part of carbon offset programs in recent years.
For example, TotalEnergies, a global energy company, said in a statement that it is 'investing heavily in carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nature-based solutions (NBS) projects.'
To do their calculations, the researchers looked at the 200 largest holders of fossil fuel reserves — the fuel that companies promise shareholders they can extract in the future — and calculated how much carbon dioxide would be released if this fuel is burned. The researchers also focused solely on tree planting because the expense and technological development needed for other forms of carbon capture are still mostly cost-prohibitive.
Forestry expert Éliane Ubalijoro, who was not involved with the research, called the study 'elegant.'
It 'gives people a sense of proportion around carbon,' said Ubalijoro, CEO of CIFOR-ICRAF, an international forestry research center.
But she cautioned against oversimplifying the equation by looking only at carbon capture, noting that tree planting done right can foster food security and biodiversity and protect communities from natural disasters.
The paper effectively makes the point that it's financially impossible to offset enough carbon to compensate for future fossil fuel burning, said Daphne Yin, director of land policy at Carbon180, where her team advocates for U.S. policy support for land-based carbon removal. And the idea that companies would ever be required to account for the downstream emissions from the fossil fuel they extract is a 'fantasy,' she said.
The idea of planting trees is appealing to the public and to politicians because it's tangible — people can literally see the carbon being incorporated into branches and leaves as a tree grows, Friggens said. But she says other methods shouldn't be overlooked — microbes underground store carbon too, but they can't be seen.
And it's a physically and mathematically inescapable fact, illustrated in part by this study, that there's no getting around it — we have to stop emitting carbon, said Jonathan Foley, the executive director of Project Drawdown, who also was not part of the study. Carbon emissions are like an overflowing bathtub, he says: Before you start cleaning up, you have to turn off the water.
'Trees are the sponges and the mops we use to clean up the mess," he said. "But if the taps are still running and the water's pouring out over the edges of your bathtub, destroying your bathroom and your home, maybe you've got to learn to turn off the taps too.'
___
___
The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Plants emit insect-repelling chemical that could secretly be poisoning our air
In the 2008 film 'The Happening', plants turned against humans in an eerie twist of nature, releasing invisible neurotoxins that drove people to their deaths. It was pure sci-fi horror, but the idea that plants can chemically shape the world around them isn't fiction. In fact, the air we breathe carries traces of a quieter kind of warfare — not against people, but pests. Scientists at Michigan State University have cracked a 40-year mystery around isoprene, a natural chemical that some plants emit to repel hungry insects. But there's a twist: while it defends the plant, it could be polluting the air. Isoprene is a colorless, volatile hydrocarbon, a simple organic compound made up of five carbon atoms and eight hydrogen atoms (C₅H₈). It's naturally released by certain plants, especially in hot weather, and is one of the most abundant hydrocarbons emitted into the atmosphere, second only to methane. Unlike the fragrant terpenes you'd smell in pine forests or poplar groves, isoprene is odorless yet highly reactive. Once released, it interacts with sunlight and nitrogen oxides from vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, contributing to the formation of ozone, aerosols, and other pollutants that degrade air quality. 'Everyone understands what it smells like when you walk through a pine forest,' Sharkey said. 'In an oak grove, which has more hydrocarbons because it makes so much isoprene, you just don't notice it.' Until now, scientists weren't entirely sure why some plants go to the trouble of producing isoprene at all, especially since it doesn't seem to help them grow. But the new research suggests the answer lies in defense, not just against heat stress, but against hungry insects. In controlled greenhouse experiments, MSU researchers grew two types of tobacco plants — one genetically modified to emit isoprene, the other left unchanged. When whiteflies invaded, they swarmed the non-emitting plants while avoiding the isoprene producers altogether. Further tests using hornworms confirmed the pattern. Worms that fed on isoprene-rich leaves grew smaller and weaker than those that didn't. But it wasn't the isoprene itself that harmed them. Instead, the chemical triggered a spike in jasmonic acid, a defense hormone that disrupts an insect's ability to digest protein. 'The defense was not the isoprene itself, but the consequence of what isoprene did to the plant,' Sharkey said. Another surprise came from soybeans. Long believed to have lost the ability to make isoprene through evolution, soybeans were found to release it in small bursts when their leaves were damaged. The discovery suggests they still carry the gene to produce isoprene and switch it only under stress. Researchers say this discovery could change the way we protect crops. But that upside comes with a downside. Isoprene is a hydrocarbon that can worsen air pollution, especially in areas where air quality is already poor. If more crops are genetically modified to emit isoprene, it could further harm the atmosphere. The findings also raise concerns about how soybeans might be contributing to air pollution. 'That's one of the questions that's most important to come out of this research,' Sharkey said. 'Should we add isoprene to crop plants so that they're protected against insects and put up with their effect on the ozone? Or should we genetically engineer plants to turn off the isoprene synthase as much as we can to improve the atmosphere?' The findings come from two new studies published in Science Advances and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Killing the planet with kindness: the worst ChatGPT prompts
It is no secret that ChatGPT is taking over the life of the layman. Whether it's used for writing essays, job applications or emails, or, more concerningly, for providing reassurance to an anxiety riddled brain, its ubiquity is undeniable. Yet equally pervasive is the very fact that every search harms the environment. ChatGPT, which is based on the GPT-3 model, consumes a significant amount of energy during its training and operational phases. The energy consumed in the training of GPT-3 amounted to 1,287 megawatt-hours (MWh), resulting in more than 550 tonnes (t) of CO₂ emissions associated with this process. In addition to the training phase, the operational use of ChatGPT also contributes to energy consumption. A ChatGPT-like application, which is estimated to handle around 11 million requests per hour, produces approximately 12.8t of CO₂ per year. Furthermore, the energy requirements for running AI applications like ChatGPT are expected to increase significantly. Current rack power levels are around 15 kW or less, but as AI demands grow, this could rise to as much as 100 kW in the near future. In summation, the use of ChatGPT has enormous implications for the environment's CO₂ levels. Research has begun into exactly the kind of prompt that takes up the most energy with ChatGPT, and what the most harmful thing you can ask is. In Germany, researchers ran 14 open-source large language models (LLMS) through 1,000 benchmark questions. Measuring the CO₂ emissions from each response. Models which used internal reasoning to 'think' through answers could potentially produce 50 times more emissions that those which responded concisely. Questions related to philosophy or abstract algebra, which required deeper reasoning, produced far more emissions than topics like history, which pertain to more factual things. Models with more parameters given also produced more emissions. However, perhaps most intriguingly, the increase of politeness increases emissions. When users are friendly as say 'please' and 'thank you' to ChatGPT, more words are generated. This means that the model is executed for longer, requiring more power and emitting more emissions. More interestingly, the additional words actually have little impact on how useful or accurate an answer is. However, the impact on the environment is huge. These facts become concerning when we assess how younger generations are increasingly using ChatGPT as a kind of online confidante. Whether it's late-night overthinking, navigating the stresses or school, university and work, or even how to get over a situationship, Gen Z are turning to ChatGPT for reassurance. Yet as their relationship with the chatbot becomes more intimate and colloquial, so too does their language. Ultimately the concern arises as they thank ChatGPT for its service, or ask it to 'please' help them, given that research demonstrates this uses more energy and emits more Co₂. Gen Z may be environmentally conscious, yet their intimacy with the digital world is now proving to be harmful to the planet. As Gen Z increasingly lean on ChatGPT for emotional support and companionship, the environmental cost of constant AI usage often goes unnoticed. While digital conversations may feel weightless, every chat leaves a carbon footprint. Even virtual friendships have real-world consequences. "Killing the planet with kindness: the worst ChatGPT prompts" was originally created and published by Verdict, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CNN
20 hours ago
- CNN
Plastic shopping bag policies are actually working, a new study suggests
Sign up for CNN's Life, But Greener newsletter. Our limited newsletter series guides you on how to minimize your personal role in the climate crisis — and reduce your eco-anxiety. That extra fee at the grocery store for a plastic shopping bag isn't just an inconvenience –– it is actually making a difference for marine ecosystems, according to a new study. Policies that ban or impose fees on plastic bags are associated with a 25% to 47% decrease in plastic bag litter in shoreline cleanups, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Science. Plastic litter is a big risk to the health of marine ecosystems, and the problem is growing, said lead study author Dr. Anna Papp, an environmental economist and incoming postdoctoral researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The United States has no federal-level policy on plastic bags, so researchers analyzed 180 local programs, including full bans, fees on shopping bags and partial bans –– which sometimes have special regulations such as requiring thicker plastics to make shopping bags reusable. Researchers then analyzed data from more than 45,000 US shoreline cleanups to compare the litter before and after the policy was passed as well as the differences between areas with and without a policy, Papp said. 'The main finding is that these policies led to a decrease in plastic bags as a share of total items collected,' she said. Other studies have shown that plastic bag policies affect how many bags consumers use, said Dr. Erin Murphy, manager of Ocean Plastics Research for the Ocean Conservancy. But this most recent research 'really takes it to the next level, showing it's not only reducing the amount of bags we're using, but it's actually achieving our broader objectives of environmental cleanliness,' she said. Plastic bag pollution is harmful to both animals and humans. On beaches or other outdoor spaces, plastic pollution can have a negative impact on tourism or the value of spending time in nature, Papp said. Plastic bag litter is particularly dangerous to marine animals for two reasons, Murphy said. First, they enter the environment more easily than other types of plastic. 'They're hard to recycle, they're single-use, and they're lightweight, and so they blow very easily in the wind. Even if we're trying to properly manage them, it's easy for them to escape waste management systems and get into the environment,' she said. Second, once they enter the environment, plastic bags can lead to population-level effects on marine species, Murphy said. Many species, including marine mammals and sea turtles, will eat the plastic bags, obstructing the gastrointestinal tract and preventing them from eating until they die, she said. Plastic bags can also entangle wildlife, keeping hatchling sea turtles from reaching the ocean and shading coral reefs, all of which can lead to disease and death for marine species. 'In 2024 alone, our International Coastal Cleanup volunteers cleaned up over 500,000 grocery bags from the environment and 500,000 other plastic bags, totaling more than a million different plastic bag types from the environment,' Murphy said. 'They're always in our top 10 items found in the environment, and that alone is an issue.' While bans and fees on plastic bags are helping, they are not eradicating the problem, Papp said. 'Plastic pollution is a growing global problem,' she said. 'The overall percentage of plastic bags is still increasing … This increase is just slower in places with policies.' The evidence suggests some policies are more effective than others: Full bans made a bigger impact than partial bans, and fees seemed better than bans, said study coauthor Dr. Kimberly Oremus, an associate professor at the University of Delaware School of Marine Science and Policy. 'One hypothesis is that in at least some cases, the revenue from fees is being used to further reduce litter. In Washington, DC, for example, they use the revenue from plastic bag fees to clean up river shorelines,' Oremus said. However, the hypothesis has not been investigated, and there is not yet enough data to say for sure that fees are more effective than bans, she said. More must likely be done outside of these policies as well, Papp said. The United States needs regulations not just on the consumption of plastic bags but also on the production and supply of them, she added. There are also steps you can take so your plastic shopping bag doesn't end up in the environment, Papp said. For one, if you do use a plastic bag, don't let it fly away and create litter. Then, properly dispose of it — for example, you can take it to a plastic bag recycling station, she said. And you can always go back to the three R's, said Dr. Rebecca Taylor, an assistant professor of agricultural and consumer economics at the University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign. Reduce the number of plastic bags you use, reuse them when you can and recycle them when you must.
