2 Comments
User's avatar
Kathleen McCroskey's avatar

Besides the above mentioned problems, to say that a tree "would not rot" is a big red flag, indicating some amorphous emission from the back-side of a male bovine. It is either wood or plastic - pick one answer. Either way, it could burn in a forest fire. The life of a tree is nothing compared to the tens of thousands of years life of a CO2 emission.

Expand full comment
Chris Lang's avatar

Thanks Kathleen - there are other problems with these trees. Planting huge areas with trees that do not flower or produce pollen suggests large areas of sterile plantations, with few insects and few birds.

Living Carbon claims that they don't want to plant monocultures, but they are aiming for five million trees in 2023 and doubling that figure every year to 2030. So: 2023 - 4m; 2024 - 8m; 2025 - 16m; 2026 - 32m; 2027 - 64m; 2028 - 128m; 2029 - 256m; 2030 - 512m. That's a total of 1,020,000,000 million trees.

I'm planning another post about Living Carbon - for this post I wanted to focus on the sale of carbon offsets and the raising of US$36 million venture capital in the complete absence of peer-reviewed science about the behaviour of these trees.

There was a very good BBC programme on these GE trees broadcast in August 2022 that goes into some of the potential ecological impacts: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001bbwc

Expand full comment