A study by ESSEC terms offsetting impractical at the required scale.
A new study published in science journal Nature by the ESSEC Business School has shed light on the substantial costs and un-viable spatial requirements needed to offset fossil fuel emissions with afforestation by fuel companies.
The study reveals that the necessary scope of forestation to remove the effects of fossil fuel burning would be unsustainable. According to the study, projects of any necessary scale would cost $11 trillion and require a forest area to be planted that would be larger than North and Central America combined.
Planting trees to cancel fossil fuel emissions is nothing new, with many fuel companies having experimented with reforestation over the last 30 or so years. Until now, the general belief is that the activity helps counterbalance carbon emissions produced by use of fossil fuel companies’ products.
But ESSEC’s latest study questions the practice, terming it impractical at the necessary scale, and labelling it as “physically impossible” to achieve.
The study was led by Dr Alain Naef, Assistant Professor at ESSEC, Dr Nina Friggens, and Patrick Njeukam. Together, and working on the assumption of a carbon emission price of $150 per tonne, they found fossil fuel companies would not be able to continue financially if they expanded their afforestation activities to the required levels.
In addition, the research showed that the cost equivalent direct air capture mechanisms would total more than seven times the global annual GDP.
Dr Alain Naef said, “Our findings are clear: it is cheaper to leave fossil fuels in the ground than to burn them and try to offset the damage later.”
Carbon offsetting dates back over six decades, evolving into a state whereby it can be traded through complex global markets. Early concepts began in the 1960s with the idea of carbon offsetting pursued and researched particularly in the US. During the 1970s, amendments were made to the US Clean Air Act, introducing new tradeable emission offset strategies. These allowed facilities to increase their emissions by paying another company to reduce emissions of the same pollutant.
In 1988, the first land-based carbon-offset scheme was initiated, though this was primarily a philanthropic exercise hoping to engage companies in the emissions of carbon.
1997’s Kyoto Protocol introduced the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which allowed developed nations to invest in projects to reduce emissions in less developed countries. It also saw the introduction of a credit system, where developed countries could earn credits if they met emission reduction targets.
The European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) established the world’s largest carbon trading market in the first few years of the millennium. This voluntary market expanded in the 2010s, driven by demand for climate action and corporate social responsibility efforts. However, carbon offsetting has always been questioned in terms of its effectiveness, something that ESSEC’s latest findings concur with.
In 2023, the carbon offset market experience a significant decline in value, dropping 61% from $1.9 billion in 2022 to $723 million in 2023, fuelled by the concerns about the integrity of many offsetting projects.
Dr Naef and his fellow researchers have said that the planting of trees on the necessary scale has the potential to damage water sources, food production, and wildlife. The researchers concluded “many un-forested areas simply aren’t suitable for tree planting because trees need specific conditions – the right soil, nutrients, and water – and not all land can support that. Ignoring these ecological limits risks making things worse, not better”.
Although afforestation is considered more economical when compared to carbon removal, ESSEC’s study highlights the disruptions both methods could have on existing ecosystems.
(Image source: “forest” by barnyz is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.)
