Latest news with #NBS
San Francisco Chronicle
a day ago
- Science
- San Francisco Chronicle
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
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Science
- Boston Globe
Want to plant trees to offset fossil fuels? You'd need all of North and Central America, study finds.
'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. Advertisement 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. Advertisement 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. Advertisement 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.'
Winnipeg Free Press
a day ago
- Science
- Winnipeg Free Press
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.' ___ Follow Melina Walling on X @MelinaWalling and Bluesky @ ___ 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
South China Morning Post
2 days ago
- Business
- South China Morning Post
China's youth unemployment stays stubbornly high ahead of crunch summer
China's youth unemployment rate fell for the third consecutive month in May, but remained higher than at the same point last year, suggesting the job market is still under intense pressure ahead of a critical graduation season. The youth jobless rate, which covers those aged 16 to 24 living in urban areas, excluding students , stood at 14.9 per cent last month, down from 15.8 per cent the previous month, according to data released by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) on Wednesday. But the rate remains higher than the 14.2 per cent reading recorded last May, and is likely to shoot up once again when a record 12.2 million university students graduate and enter the job market this summer. 'China still faces pressure in maintaining stable employment, mainly due to complex changes in the external environment,' said NBS spokesperson Fu Linghui on Monday. 'The coexistence of recruitment difficulties in some domestic industries and great employment pressures for certain groups persists, with ongoing issues regarding a mismatch between human resource supply and demand.' Beijing has launched a string of policies in an attempt to support youth employment in recent years.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
China Retail Sales Saw May Bump in Spite of Tariff Firestorm
China's retail sales rose in May in spite of long-simmering tariff tensions with its largest consumer export market, with in-country retail spending growing at the highest rate since December 2023. Newly released data from China's National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) showed that total sales of consumer goods reached 4,132.6 billion yuan ($575.44 billion) in May, beating the same period last year by 6.4 percent. More from Sourcing Journal China's Cosco Eyes Stake in MSC-BlackRock Panama Ports Deal Port of LA Imports Dip 9% in May After Tariff Shock Vietnam's Ready For High Stakes US Trade Talks To Avoid Steep Tariffs Despite the disruptions caused by the trade war with the U.S., which began heating up earlier this year, sales within China have been on an upswing. Between January and May, the total retail sales of consumer goods grew 5 percent, reaching 20,317.1 billion yuan ($2,829.05 billion), and sales of goods other than cars increased by 5.6 percent. NBS spokesperson and director of the Comprehensive Statistics Department of the National Economy Fu Linghui said the data points to China's steadfastness in 'expanding high-level openness' against a backdrop of 'rising protectionism and unilateralism, as well as obstacles to global economic and trade exchanges.' China has been focused on fostering symbiotic trade relationships with nations across the globe outside of the U.S., and the positive impacts of that strategy have become 'increasingly evident,' he added. From January to May, China's total import and export volume grew 2.5 percent from the same period in 2024, while trade of services grew 8.2 percent. The Asian superpower has also sought to increase its influence across continents, while taking in new talent, too. Fu said China has opened up its visa-free entry scope in order to promote 'economic exchanges and cultural communication.' That change resulted in a 72.7-percent increase in foreign arrivals who entered the country under the visa-free policy during the May Day holiday this year. The data presents an interesting dichotomy when compared to China's industrial output, which hit a six-month low in May, growing 5.8 percent from the same period last year and slowing from April's 6.1-percent rate. Growth was projected to hit about 5.9 percent, but instead backslid to the slowest rate seen since November 2024, when President Donald Trump was elected. Nonetheless, the country's consumer economy showed notable signs of recovery in May after months of stagnation due to weak demand and deflationary pressures. The sale of retail goods increased 6.5 percent from the year prior for a total of 3674.8 billion yuan ($511.83 billion), and the January-to-May timeframe generated 18,039.8 billion yuan ($2,512.59 billion)—an increase of 5.1 percent from 2024. Specialty stores saw gains of 6.3 percent while brand stores saw modest growth (1.8 percent) along with department stores (1.3 percent). But online sales were the winner, demonstrating 8.5-percent growth year over year. Clothing, shoes, hats and textile sales increased by 4 percent in May from the year prior, and 3.3 percent between January and May compared with the same period in 2024. Throughout the month of May, Beijing and Washington made plodding progress toward a trade deal, both agreeing to lower and suspend duties on each other for a period of 90 days on May 12. That agreement devolved in early June when the Trump administration accused China's government of 'slowrolling' compliance with the terms of the deal. Last week, U.S. and China trade officials traveled to London to hash out new terms, settling on a 55-percent duty rate for China-originating imports into the U.S. market. Goods making their way into China will face far lower tariffs of just 10 percent. In April, tariffs on U.S. apparel imports hit their highest point in decades, with China-made clothing bearing the brunt of the duty hikes. Such imports faced an unprecedented tariff markup of 55 percent, up from 37 percent in March and 22 percent in January—data that likely skews lower due to the fact that many importers frontloaded orders before the steepest duties took effect.
