Carbon Math

We can think of a truly balanced greenhouse gas emissions equilibrium by quantifying the amount of emissions we produce annually in comparison to how much of emissions can be fixated to result in net zero emissions growth. Balanced annual carbon dioxide emissions is the state where the amount of a greenhouse gas emitted into the atmosphere is equal to the amount of greenhouse gas that is absorbed or removed from the atmosphere over the course of a year. The idea would be to completely flatten the greenhouse gas growth curves we discussed previously. The balanced equation for carbon dioxide gases would look like this: CO₂ Emitted−CO₂ Absorbed/Removed=0

Eventually, the annual amount of annual emissions should trend lower, resulting in a overall reductions of greenhouse gas concentrations in our atmosphere. For example, our goal for carbon dioxide levels should be to reduce CO₂ emissions until atmospheric CO₂ gas concentrations are back at 350 ppm (parts per million).

Realistic Timeframes

We often hear celebrities and corporations touting their environmental consciousness by purchasing carbon offsets, claiming their high-consumption lifestyles are somehow "green" because they've contributed to climate projects elsewhere. But the truth is, carbon offsets are often ineffective---and in many cases, misleading.

A carbon offset is a credit that individuals or organizations purchase to compensate for their own greenhouse gas emissions. The money typically funds projects that either reduce future emissions (like renewable energy or energy efficiency) or remove carbon from the atmosphere (like reforestation). In theory, these credits allow buyers to "cancel out" their emissions by paying for reductions elsewhere.

The core issue is that many offset projects do not represent additional carbon sequestration. In other words, the forest being protected or the trees being planted might have survived or been planted anyway, even without the purchase of that credit. If the sequestration would have happened regardless, then the offset isn't actually offsetting anything---it's simply being used to justify continued emissions. This means buying credits for a transatlantic flight doesn't erase the carbon released; the atmosphere still ends up with those extra emissions.

There's also a problem of timing. When developers promise to plant two trees for every one they fell during construction, it can sound like a fair trade. But what's rarely discussed is how long it will take for those saplings to match the carbon-storing capacity of the mature trees they replaced. In reality, it can take decades---sometimes centuries---for young trees to absorb the same amount of carbon as the ones cut down. In a crisis that demands urgent emissions reductions within the next five to ten years, these long-term promises don't hold up. The climate doesn't operate on the timeline of reforestation. The damage is happening now.

Another problem when replanting trees to replace those already removed is that there usually isn't an established team set to actually make sure they are surviving and fixing the carbon that would have been sequestered by the prior tree as the years go by. In that sense, offsets are like the world's most forgiving credit card: The buyer gets all the benefit in the beginning, but it takes a century for the full debt to actually be repaid. Ensuring the credibility and effectiveness of carbon offset projects requires robust monitoring, reporting, and verification mechanisms. However, some studies have found shortcomings in the transparency, accountability, and monitoring of offset projects, raising questions about their reliability and credibility.

Offsetting projects may offer a comforting narrative---that we can continue business as usual while neutralizing our impact---but that narrative is out of sync with the speed and scale of the problem. Real change comes not from symbolic gestures, but from reducing emissions at the source.

Mature trees are much more efficient at capturing carbon than younger ones. For example, a 100-foot pine tree can sequester around 60 pounds (27.2 kg) of CO₂ each year. In contrast, a young tree might only absorb 1 to 2 pounds (0.45 to 0.9 kg) annually in its early stages. To match the carbon capture of one mature tree, it would take about 30 baby trees. However, considering the survival rate of young trees, which can be as low as 50%, you would need to plant around 60 baby trees to account for those that might not make it to maturity. After all, those 60 trees, each capturing 2 pounds of CO₂ a year, would collectively absorb 120 pounds of CO₂ annually---still less than the mature tree, but a step toward mitigating carbon emissions. However, initially, the baby trees will not sequester as much as a mature tree. Their sequestration rate increases as they grow. If we assume it takes about 10 to 20 years for baby trees to grow significantly. Over the first 10 years, the baby trees grow and gradually increase their sequestration rate. Assuming linear growth, the sequestration starts small and increases yearly.

So to be totally realistic about balancing out the carbon lost by losing one mature 100 foot large tree we would need to plant approximately 60 baby trees (to account for a 50% survival rate). Expect the carbon offset to equalize over 20 to 30 years as the baby trees grow and increase their sequestration capacity.

One of the most immediate and devastating consequences of deforestation is the destruction of biodiversity---the rich web of plant and animal life that depends on forests to survive. These ecosystems are not only home to countless species, but they also play a vital role in stabilizing the climate. Trees absorb and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, helping to slow global warming. But forests also support animals and microorganisms that contribute to the health and resilience of the ecosystem as a whole. When we destroy forests, we don't just lose trees---we lose the entire living network that keeps the land fertile, the air clean, and the water cycles functioning. Protecting these natural environments isn't just about reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels; it's also about preserving the ecological balance that supports all life, including our own. We are deeply connected to these environments---physically, emotionally, and spiritually---and spending time in thriving natural spaces has been shown to reduce stress, improve mental health, and enhance our overall well-being.

Lately we have been hearing about new types of renewable energy using wood pellets from harvested trees. This form of energy involves the harvesting and killing of living trees. The wood is then processed to make wood pellets to be burned for energy through combustion. All the carbon sequestered over the lifetime of the tree is released back into the atmosphere. Fossil fuels are sources of potential carbon based energy from living things of the past stored underground. Living trees are different in that they are still actively fixating carbon as they grow, while fossil fuels are from organisms that have already sequestered carbon millions of years ago.

Thus destroying ecosystems by deforesting trees to be used for energy generation might actually be worse for our long term heath due to habitat destruction. This is another example of characterizing energy supply alternatives as sustainable green sources when the reality couldn't be further from the truth. Therefore, harvested wood pellets are pretty much the same type of energy that comes from extracted fossil fuels. They both adversely alter the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Offsets

When you look at trees it's natural to think they are cleaning the air around us. Trees aren't actually removing dust and smoke or exhaust from the air though. They cannot filter all the particulate matter found in the air we breathe. But they do provide oxygen critical for life. Plants are also one of the primary drivers of carbon sequestration. Trees make breathing more fulfilling. To truly reverse some of the impacts of climate change, nearly all land that has been deforested would need to be renewed through afforestation efforts. Even after the natural plants and flora were reestablished through afforestation, it would take decades before the newly planted trees would be able to sequester as much carbon as the previously existing trees.

One thing that's easy to overlook is the insane amount of fossil fuels we have extracted and burned from the depths below. Layer upon layer of carbon stored in the ground underneath us over hundreds of millions of years. The amount that has been extracted and burned far exceeds to amount of land we have on the surface of the Earth. Because as you go through the depths of the Earth to extract fossil fuels, each step down is like one snapshot of life in Earth's past. The history of our planet is uprooted, transported, refined, moved again, then burned. This drives the accumulation of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

Offsets themselves are doing damage by distracting from overall reduction efforts. Instead of focusing on ways to reduce emissions, people are accounting for carbon emissions on different books. Offsets distract us from the reality that CO₂ keeps accumulating in the atmosphere. The hunger for these offsets is blinding us to the mounting pile of evidence that they haven't --- and won't --- deliver the climate benefit they promise. We need to focus on reducing consumption to a level where we can form an equilibrium greenhouse gas balance. Pretending that offsets mean emissions are not rising is harming the overall effort to protect the environment. There should be no annual emissions growth. They should level off with the expectation that despite any type of population growth they will decrease with efficiency gains and additional minimalistic sustainable life practices.

REDD provides a way of placing a market value on the carbon sequestering abilities of a forest. A key question is whether REDD will be implemented in a way that will be different -- and indeed any more successful -- than other forest conservation policies in creating incentives for individuals, villages, managers, and neighbors and in addressing the enforcement costs and benefit sharing associated with a REDD agreement.

Take for example the global program, Joint Implementation, it had a similar track record. A 2015 paper found that 75% of the credits issued were unlikely to represent real reductions, and that if countries had cut pollution on-site instead of relying on offsets, global CO₂ emissions would have been 600 million tons lower.

Despite a decade's work and $3 billion, results were "delayed and uncertain," the science of measuring carbon was only "partially in place" and there was "considerable" risk of what's called "leakage" --- when protecting one patch of land leads to deforestation somewhere else. That problem alone creates "considerable uncertainty over the climatic impact," the report concluded.

Cohesive Existence

It's been often been said by people of different backgrounds, "There are just too many people." They don't believe we can ever actually revive our ecosystems without having to reduce the population. I would argue though, we don't need to have population decline to beat climate change. Yes it could potentially improve the health of our environment. But it is not the sole way we could move forward.

Instead of cutting the population, we need individuals to make sustainable consumption choices. The efforts of individuals connect with the community as a whole. These communal efficiency gains play a profound part in the transformation towards a sustainable society. Therefore population reductions are not necessary to achieve a cohesive existence with the natural world.

Our Influence

In the end we realize current efforts are mostly slowed down by the competing priorities of the government. Corporate profit objectives actually end up being deterrents to sustainable growth.

Unfortunately expecting the government to implement policies to protect the environment hasn't been sufficient. The polices and treaties signed and enacted by governments have done little to bring balance to global ecosystem sustainability. New laws are not being written timely enough to address the rapidly evolving situation. If eventually they will be it we be ages from now.

Many efficiency gains might end up being offset or diminished nearly entirely by physical waste and excess indulgence, the antithesis of minimalism. So what can we have faith in? What actually works? The only thing we can control is our own choices. Your response to the situation is the leading a sustainable life. Your influence is the key to the longevity of humanity. Your actions are the key to realizing a sustainable future. Through minimalism we can play a part in the transformation of the human spirit for all time.