🌍 There are so many scammers in the carbon offset space. Protecting woodlands that were never threatened is an incredibly common scam, along with getting paid for planting timber plantations being planted anyway, then they just cut them later. 🤬
Then there’s this shite. Nigel Farage has nobody’s best interests at heart ever. Maybe he feels bad that Brexit trashed the UK’s reforestation efforts, but more likely he’s cashing in on the tsunami of corporate greenwashing. thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/…
I know for-profit companies in reforestation, rewilding, and carbon sequestration. Being for profit isn’t the problem, they’re actually saving the planet a little bit and making money, which helps them scale (and get more investment), not just lying to generate carbon credits.
Then there’s flight offsetting. “Ryanair offering passengers the chance to give a €1 donation towards a carbon offsetting scheme. The tree planting schemes will offset only 0.01% of the airline's total emissions.” If they even plant those trees... telegraph.co.uk/travel/destina…
It’s something I struggle with often. We have corporations approaching @GrowingTheTrees wanting to invest because they need carbon offset credits. We need land to do our work. If we pay them back with Forestry Commission approved woodlandcarboncode.org.uk credits I’m ok with that.
But if an airline wanted to invest... would I say yes? If the land was immediately put in our name, then they piss off and leave our ecologists and the Forest Commission to call the shots, then yes, I probably would. Otherwise it’s just free labour enabling greenwashing.
There’s a few less CO2ish companies who want to partner up and that’s fine with me. The woodland credits we generate are through the Forestry Commission, it’s on them if they overestimate. We just present our woodland management plan and they audit/verify.
One example of a brilliant reputable for profit company: thefutureforestcompany.com.

They buy degraded land, turn it into forest (not timber), farm wooly pigs (profit), use dead wood for biochar (profit), and sell Woodland Carbon Credits from leaving the trees alone (profit). Good!
Anyway, without money reforestation at the scale required isn’t going to happen. Land is expensive. Donations/taxpayer money helps, but when possible I think I’d rather take corporations money, and have full control over the work being done. Then they can’t cheat us. 😑

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Tree Sturgeon 🔥🚴‍♂️🌳

Tree Sturgeon 🔥🚴‍♂️🌳 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @philsturgeon

24 Mar
🌍 Now people in my mentions are saying that because slow trains haven’t stopped people flying domestically there’s no reason to build faster trains along the routes people commonly fly because they’re quicker than trains. 🙃 #whyHS2
The fun part about this graphic is that it says domestic trains are 41g. Yeah that’s a fair average when so many are diesel (and can’t be electrified due to limitations of the surrounding environment) but HS2 advertises 8g/km. closer to Eurostar levels of emissions.
These same people are acting like trains are inherently making people drive more, because some people drive to a train.
Read 7 tweets
23 Mar
🌍 Got people in my mentions adamant we won’t need high-speed electric rail in the future because some of their office worker friends are working from home sometimes at the moment. I don’t even know where to start with that, the stupidity, or the privilege.
The idea HS2 is no longer required because a pandemic has some folks WFH is based on daft assumptions. These people think 30% of Brits will WFH two days a week post pandemic forever. Let's take that as a fact (it's not), and keep in mind 55% of rail journeys are commutes.
If, post-pandemic, 30% of commuters continue to WFH half the time, and those days are spread evenly, then at any given point there's 15% fewer commuters commuting. Seeing as commuting is only 55% of rail, that's a 8% drop in rail journeys. Right? Math? Check me?
Read 8 tweets
22 Mar
Some real napkin maths here but in order for HS2 to take 120 years to become carbon neutral, it would have to reduce road use by 0.08% and domestic air travel by 0.06%. If it reduced air and driving by just 5% it would be carbon neutral in 1-2 years. Time to make some policy. Image
One awesome example of policy that should be implemented as soon as HS2 is launched is the outright banning of any domestic flights that are served by high speed rail, like France. railjournal.com/passenger/high…
On the left, the most popular airports for domestic flights to London. On the right, the HS2 route. Looky at that they match. Ban 100% of _those_ domestic flights and HS2 would be carbon neutral in months. ImageImage
Read 5 tweets
20 Mar
The new 4000 miles of road #RIS2 creates more CO2 than HS2. Cuts down more ancient woodland than HS2. Will never become carbon neutral. Will only increase traffic. And nobody seems to give a shit. Zero Twitter accounts shouting about it (unlike HS2). This stinks of deception.
Please ask yourself: if you believe that 400 miles of electric railway line won’t ever become carbon neutral, how will 4,000 miles of tarmac?

Remember, RIS2 cuts down more trees. Of the answer is electric cars... we’re at 5% and they’ll not be 100% until at least 2080.
Building more roads and more lanes creates an effect called “induced demand”. “Oh it’s easier to drive to work now, let’s do that.” You get more lanes, fixes things for a few months, then you get traffic. More lanes. More traffic. More lanes. More traffic wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-t…
Read 15 tweets
19 Mar
People are concerned about cutting down 30 hectares (ha) of ancient woodland for HS2. We have 308,000 ha of ancient woodland, so that’s 0.01%.

We need to reforest 30,000 ha/year. In 2019 the target was 5,000 ha and we only did 1,420 ha.

This is a bigger problem than 30 ha.
Some of these ancient woodlands are little scraps of trees. Here’s the total phase 1 & 2a list of what’s being cut down. 0.2ha is less than 1/5th of a football pitch

It’s not nothing, we shouldn’t remove woodland for no reason, but trains are a legit way to decarbonise transport
Are trains really all that? Yes. Carbon Brief wrote about how aggressive train expansion can improve transportation emissions and in the U.K. transportation is our biggest sector. Planes, cars, trucks, diesel trains, all need decarbonising / replacing. carbonbrief.org/eight-charts-s…
Read 13 tweets
7 Mar
Running something on “natural gas” doesn’t make it any better. Methane comes from fracking, is leaky as fuck, when it escapes is x30 times more potent than CO2, is still producing CO2 when it gets to be burned, and saying “yeah but banking uses electricity anyway” is not a retort
Setting mining up to run directly off of 100% renewables would be something, but those renewables would be better used decarbonising the grid: to power homes, hospitals, industry, and yeah banking, so there’s no valid excuse for this bullshit ever. This is a fossil fuel company.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!