Paper and Forest Industry's "Green-Offsets" Need Clarification

Paper and other tree-oriented companies are usually seen as culprits in greenhouse gas emissions. So it comes as no surprise that these companies make it a top priority to change this image of themselves, and be considered instead as an environmentally-friendly industry. The industry’s attempts at “greening” their image is covered in the article “A Role for Trees in Climate Change Legislation?” by Anne Mulkern.

The paper and forest industries present several points in their argument. For example, one of their claims is that the products made from trees - for example, paper, lumber, and furniture - store carbon (Mulkern, 2009). Of course, such claims are made for self-beneficiary purposes, in their attempts to avoid the policy that would cap their greenhouse gas emissions, which leads to the following statement by Mulkern:

“The forest industry wants to be included on the list of what Congress considers as ‘green offsets’ the credits that companies can buy to counteract their carbon emissions…” (Mulkern, 2009).

Mulkern defines green offsets as “credits that companies can buy to counteract their carbon emissions”, but does not clarify as to what exactly those green offset credits achieve. Green offsets can be loosely defined as a way of having both economic development and environmental protection. Therefore by buying credits, the companies would be paying others to take actions in offsetting their greenhouse gas emissions, so that the net impact on the environment in terms of emissions is zero.

If the paper and forest companies did succeed in buying green offset credits, it would appear that the total carbon emissions is zero and would change the industry image to an environmentally friendly one. But green offsets have not been applied to forest industries before because lawmakers offer credits in favour of more permanent trees. Commercial forests, which are routinely cut down and replanted, in turn, cyclically capturing and releasing carbon. Permanent forests have more to offer: not only do they capture carbon, but are also important for air, water, and habitat reasons. Until there is a better understanding of how much carbon the forest industry is producing - which includes the energy used for transporting and processing - compared to how much carbon commercial forests absorb, the concept of green offsets cannot properly be applied to the industry.

It is important not to misinterpret terms such as ‘green offsets’. It can effectively give the illusion of an environmentally-friendly company. If the paper and forest industry were to receive green offset credits, it would go toward their commercial forests, which are routinely cut down and replanted; therefore, carbon emissions still remain in the atmosphere. The credits are better off given to permanent forests, which are more beneficial to the environment. Of course the paper and forest industry would rather resort to green offsets than a carbon cap - a limit on the amount of carbon dioxide released - but the environment would benefit more from the latter.

References

Mulkern, A. “A Role for Trees in Climate Change Legislation?”. Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=trees-in-climate-change-laws. 11 May 2009. Retrieved 27 October 2009.