Trust in trees: A rejustification of carbon balancing through planting
Can planting trees restore faith in carbon offsetting’s true impact? How are grassroots initiatives reshaping the narrative?
In January 2023, the German weekly newspaper Die Zeit, The Guardian UK, and SourceMaterial (a non-profit investigative journalism organisation) revealed that more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by the largest certifier were greatly exaggerated with many effectively worthless, following a 9-month investigation. This meant that these offset credits used by multinational countries worldwide are in fact “phantom credits” not representing genuine carbon reduction. Moreover, one study in 2023 revealed that the majority of carbon offset schemes are significantly overestimating the levels of deforestation they claim to prevent.
These recent revelations reignited an ongoing debate among many conservationists, with a catalogue of supposedly reputable international companies leading consumers to believe their efforts to mitigate and offset their emissions are in fact “greenwashing”. There have been many instances of falsified carbon reduction partnerships in the past, ranging from Disney to Volkswagen to Shell (a company with numerous instances throughout recent decades). However, the media focus on the failings of the carbon industry is arguably counterproductive, in a sector purported to be critical to efforts in reaching “net zero”. This article assesses multiple perspectives on carbon extraction to understand its challenges and inherent value.
What is greenwashing?
Greenwashing is most simply defined as “behaviour or activities that make people believe that a company is doing more to protect the environment than it really is.” This concept involves conscious advertising campaigns or marketing drives to deliberately deceive the public that their products or procedures are sustainable and/or environmentally sound.
“Greenwashing” as a term was conceived by an environmentalist, Jay Westerveld, in 1986. Westerfield wrote an essay criticising hotels that encouraged guests to save towels they did not need to use, passing this off as a green initiative while creating an abundance of waste behind the scenes. The hotels were merely trying to save money on energy and improve their (false) sustainable credentials. Greenwashing can take many forms, including misleading product labels and images and other unsubstantiated claims. Moreover, according to Planet Tracker (who defined the following types of greenwashing), these activities are becoming “more sophisticated”:
Greencrowding is built on the belief you can “hide” in a crowd to avoid discovery, relying on safety in numbers. If sustainability policies are being developed, the group will likely move at the speed of the slowest. For an example, see “The Alliance to End Plastic Waste: Barely Credible”.
Greenlighting occurs when company communications (including advertisements) spotlight a particularly green feature of its operations or products, however small, to draw attention away from environmentally damaging activities being conducted elsewhere.
Greenshifting is when companies imply that the consumer is at fault and shift the blame onto them.
Greenlabelling is a practice where marketers call something green or sustainable but a closer examination reveals this to be misleading.
Greenrinsing refers to a company regularly changing its ESG targets before they are achieved. Planet Tracker has reported on this type of activity previously in an examination of Coca-Cola and PepsiCo in the report, Soda-pressing.
Greenhushing refers to corporate management teams under-reporting or hiding their sustainability credentials to evade investor scrutiny. In recent months, asset management firms including Blackrock and HSBC have downgraded some Article 9 funds to Article 8 classification, ostensibly to comply with the stricter regulations under SFDR. Moreover, the action was potentially undertaken to avoid the scrutiny associated with the Article 9 standard. For further greenhushing analysis, see “Greenhushing – Sophisticated Greenwashing?”
How “greenwashing” impacts genuine carbon initiatives
Verra, a non-profit organisation that manages the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) Programme (and one of the largest companies implicated in the Guardian revelations) released a rebuttal to the study that argued the investigation had “massively miscalculate(d) the impact of REDD projects”. Verra has issued carbon credits to companies as diverse as Easyjet and Lavazza Coffee. Vera subsequently opted to phase out the carbon credit scheme two months later and stated it would update its methodologies in the coming months.
One immediate solution is to levy fines on EU companies for making unsubstantiated claims about their sustainability; however, this is not without its issues. Regardless, the carbon solutions sphere as a whole has—for many—become “an industry where…flaws have become the norm”. Perhaps the most damaging aspect of various revelations is the consequential effect they might have on the general public and their overall confidence in carbon mitigation and removal.
For example, the Guardian claimed in its 2023 exposé that many international carbon credit certifiers have missold products as “carbon neutral” or given consumers false confidence that they can continue their lives as normal (without adaptation or compromise) and circumvent making the climate crisis worse. There is a risk that the integrity of genuine carbon balancing initiatives (also encompassing multiple other objectives) signifying positive climate action on a smaller scale could be detrimentally affected.
First, to demystify the difference between different types of carbon action that can be taken, defining them is essential. These concepts are distinct, despite them often being conflated:
Government-issued carbon credits are a means for a company purchasing credit from a government to gain ‘permission’ to generate one tonne of CO2 emissions. The central criticism of this type is that companies or institutions can decide not to invest in avoiding generating emissions as they can buy unlimited credits.
Voluntary carbon credits facilitate carbon emitters to offset unpreventable emissions through the purchase of carbon credits from projects targeted at removing or reducing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Voluntary credits can be favourable for companies not capable of fully lowering their emissions and can have advantages for biodiversity protection, pollution prevention, public health improvements and job creation.
Carbon offsetting involves the reduction or removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to compensate for emissions made elsewhere. Carbon offsets involve mitigating or removing carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere to compensate for the emissions we cannot entirely circumvent in our daily lives.
There are two types of carbon offsetting:
Emissions removals, where carbon is removed directly from the atmosphere by planting trees or technological air capture.
Avoided emissions, where emissions are prevented - including renewable energy solutions, adapting different technologies to be more efficient (e.g., cars) or the protection of forests.
Lastly, carbon balancing is a means of climate action where the carbon produced by human activities is measured and then “balanced” through investment in environmental schemes. This is the approach taken by 9Trees, alongside the multiple and diverse benefits of tree planting, such as enhanced biodiversity, increased rural employment and restored woodland habitats.
As can be seen from these similar yet disparate definitions, the world of carbon removal and mitigation is complex and even bewildering, particularly to the general public who are only presented with a relatively minuscule proportion of climate dialogue (reported to be around 4% - read more further below). In addition, conflicting carbon developments and the back-and-forth nature of scientific discussion, as perceived by the general public, may reflect widespread malaise about the carbon conversation and broader climate dialogue. However, carbon extraction remains essential as a central part of a cumulative array of methods of positive climate action.
A 2022 UN report suggested that becoming carbon neutral by 2030 may now be unattainable to prevent 1.5˚C of global warming without substantial efforts to remove carbon—and exceptionally difficult to avoid 2˚C without it. In 2023, despite a relatively bleak synthesis report, the IPCC noted high confidence that “achieving and sustaining global net negative CO2 emissions would reduce warming”, involving rapidly reducing emissions from all sectors. How this can be achieved is typically grouped into several categories of action at different scales.
Carbon removal and mitigation solutions
Although global carbon capture may rely heavily on large corporations reducing emissions and carbon capture using technology, cumulative action on many fronts and across multiple scales from top to bottom is required. These typically consist of the following:
Clean energy solutions
Transitioning from environmentally damaging fossil fuels to clean energy is challenging. However, this process is essential with persistence and innovation key, all the while phasing out our reliance on fossil fuels. Potentially looking to China for inspiration, this would include developing various new renewable energy projects, promoting energy efficiency measures and providing affordable low-carbon alternatives to fossil fuels.
Technological solutions
New technologies are in development, such as Direct Air Capture (DAC), but these innovations have yet to be deployed at scale compared to other project types.
Nature-based solutions
Natural is resilient and offers innumerable means of sequestering carbon that is still being quantified. Projects involving forest preservation and restoration are the most common but offsetting and balancing can also include other natural carbon sinks, such as aquatic and soil-based projects. One of the most practical and achievable methods of implementing nature-based solutions is planting trees. However, “where”, “when”, and “how” are all subject to an ongoing debate in the conservation world. For example, seagrass or coral restoration and saving one whale could be better than planting 60,000 trees. These multifaceted, multiscalar suite of efforts to fight the worst effects of climate change in the face of a non-linear future.
Watch this film by George Monbiot on trophic cascades that can be positively reinforced through the protection of whales:
Personal and lifestyle change
People often report feeling powerless to affect climate change, and—granted—much of the action is up to governments and large corporations. However, collective mobilisation is required as part of a paradigm shift in consciousness where we are all part of the solution. In addition, novel new methods of feeding populaces and reducing our dependency on meat products must act in conjunction to augment these efforts. For example, a company in Finland has recently developed innovative, sustainable food protein produced using air and electricity for global use. Nonetheless, the scientific community must act faster.
Further reading:
Fear vs. Action
As mentioned above, with the abundance of information available on carbon and climate change from diverse sources, it is worth noting again that media coverage only covers a minimal amount of climate research. Researchers have observed a disproportionate emphasis on papers within the natural sciences, neglecting other areas of climate-related investigation, such as social, economic and technological aspects and the evaluation of potential solutions—fields which receive comparatively less attention.
The media's preference for highlighting research often centres on projections of the rate and magnitude of climate change, especially at the global level and over extended timeframes. For instance, modelling global average temperature trends at the end of the 21st century is a recurring theme in approximately half of the most prominently covered papers, despite constituting only 4% of the overall body of climate studies. The concern here is not solely the limited scope of information accessible to the public regarding climate change research but also that the information presented is more likely to lead to fear, denial, and inaction above motivating proactive climate measures; thus, it is hoped that focusing on positive, constructive and practical actions (i.e., solutions-based) can cumulatively create paradigm shifts of change.
Further reading:
Some prior studies have demonstrated that the most effective way to encourage behavioural changes and engagement in actions against climate change is by emphasising the immediate and local consequences. Conversely, presenting global-scale effects that appear remote in both time and space can lead individuals to feel powerless and disengaged. Hence, it becomes evident that research with a focus on solutions and tangible outcomes plays a crucial role in fostering positive responses to climate change challenges. A 2023 study concluded that harnessing emotions is more effective in promoting pro-environmental behaviour than relying solely on social norms.
The native, Scots Pine-dominated Caledonian Forest in Scotland: Are “non-natives” vital for future forest adaptation to climate change? Source: National Geographic / Terry Donnelly, Alamy
9Trees nature-based solutions for carbon balancing
9Trees is an organisation that seeks to address multiple objectives, including enhancing biodiversity, restoring woodland habitats, and creating jobs in the countryside. In addition, part of these objectives includes “balancing” carbon by planting the optimal tree species in the most appropriate locations. However, the forestry sector in particular has received criticism concerning its integrity as a provider of carbon solutions. Nonetheless, as many forestry organisations often remind us, forest carbon balancing is a tool, not a silver bullet. The most common criticisms include the following (with some counterpoints provided in the context of 9Trees):
Q. Trees only reach maturity over many decades, meaning they are insufficient as a solution to absorb enough carbon when it is required, which is now. Will this not be a futile action?
A. First, as previously noted, forests are merely one (albeit important) in a range of natural solutions. Moreover, they have exceptionally diverse and vital additional benefits, such as:
Enhance biodiversity and mutually interact with mycorrhizae (fungi) - vital for our soil
Alleviate flooding
Maintain soil nutrients
Improve water quality
Support mental health
Cut pollution and clean air
Stabilise riverbanks
Connect natural habitats
Keep river temperatures cool
Support over 200 species of animals and plants in the UK
Q. Does tree planting create conflicts with local stakeholders?
A. 9Trees works directly within communities, liaising with landowners and working with local specialists to identify and plant the most appropriate species. All our trees are native and grown in the UK, with the species of tree chosen to suit each site.
Q. Is it not difficult to guarantee the permanence of trees, given that they may be subject in the future to burning, clearing, or mismanagement?
A. It is a pertinent concern that the life of a tree cannot be guaranteed, particularly beyond fifty-year land agreements. However, 9Trees has found this is a sufficient amount of time to establish a healthy woodland that is contributing towards multiple ecosystem benefits. 9Trees aims to create nature-rich biodiverse woodlands for wildlife and wellbeing.
However, conservation organisations such as 9Trees work closely with the landowners - these are genuine people who share their vision and want to do something to help tackle climate change. Some landowners have committed to leaving the land to 9Trees when they pass away, affording the organisation complete control of these sites. With the others, 9Trees is developing a long-lasting relationship, and as they are the managers of the fifty years, they would like to influence what occurs afterwards.
Moreover, 9Trees intends to sign extended agreements, buying land or sites previously planted on. Once further established as an organisation, it can build more trust by showcasing its methods and brand through successful, biodiverse sites.
Q. Fast-growing invasive species are often introduced as a solution to the tree deficit in the UK. Could this not make the problem worse?
A. 9Trees typically plant a mixture of the following trees: Oak, Hazel, Birch, Hawthorn, Willow, Wild Cherry, Rowan (mixed with Guelder Rosa), Alder, Blackthorn, Dog Wood and Spindle. 9Trees generally only plant native broadleaf trees, carrying out an ecological survey on sites before planting, discerning a mixture of species that will survive tailored to each site.
However, there is mounting evidence that planting “non-native” trees may be required to engage with the worsening climate crisis more swiftly and effectively. The Committee on Climate Change has called for the planting of more trees in the UK to meet net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 (from the current low of 13% of total land cover to up to 19% by 2050). John Healey of Bangor University believes relying on indigenous species alone is impossible due to the severity of the climate crisis and our lack of time.
Healey purports that, firstly, we must plant millions of trees (including imported species) on open land - including non-natives. This must exclude land with high biodiversity value and carbon sequestration potential. Moreover, he stated that indigenous species grow too slowly to be an efficient option for rapid carbon absorption, plus unharvested woodland eventually stops sequestering carbon when it reaches maturity. In a warming world, it could be vital for the UK and other countries to build adaptability into forests to prepare themselves for any number of unexpected climate change outcomes.
Just like many small actions can provoke change, every singular minuscule tree can grow to become a vital component of a forest. Source: Neil Insh
Cumulative, collective action is vital and can make a difference
9Trees offers a guide to living more sustainably, detailing seemingly minor changes that can make a cumulatively significant impact. If we can collectively mitigate carbon through reducing, reusing and recycling combined with myriad small lifestyle changes and being more thoughtful in our actions, we will be more prepared for uncertain futures. For example, this could simply involve taking public transport to work, ordering less online, or being more regimented with our energy use at home. Meanwhile, we could donate to conservation charities so they can plant more trees and/or volunteer once a month to a green organisation.
9Trees is a grassroots organisation that focuses on building UK forests to be more adaptable and resilient for an uncertain future whilst encouraging carbon mitigation and balancing. Moreover, there is an emphasis on the holistic benefits that trees—as ecosystem service providers—can offer humans, including cultural and livelihood benefits, flood mitigation aspects, and enhanced biodiversity. These smaller-scale interventions can augment all these factors as we plant trees using a “biodiversity first” mindset.
A “biodiversity first” approach is essential
The globe is confronting two considerable crises: a climate crisis and a biodiversity crisis, with the latter often omitted in conversations about actions to mitigate the former. Moreover, many assertions from conservationists fail to consider the interrelated complexities of our landscapes. This should not necessitate planting on every small space of land available in the UK and beyond but a “right tree in the right place” methodology that puts biodiversity first, with a focus on not just restoring woods and planting trees but also preserving current forests.
When this is implemented, nature can take over and resume its function as a provider of essential services, as this article detailed above through the manifold benefits of trees. This could be easily achieved through tree planting conducted with care; for example, the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) has estimated that planting a tree every 20 metres in 58% of hedgerows in England alone would significantly contribute towards targets to increase UK tree planting to 30,000 hectares per year by 2025 and net zero by 2050.
This endeavour to plant trees without upsetting (and instead enhancing) ecosystem balance is critical to the mission of 9Trees. This assists in habitat creation and is vital for endangered (but important) species such as curlew, lapwing, redshank, snipe, grey partridge and black grouse essential for biodiversity obligations. Targeted tree planting using the most appropriate species and locations at the same time as protecting our existing trees and ecosystems can make a significant difference. However, it should be acknowledged that this forms merely one part of the fight against climate change and biodiversity loss and is certainly not a “silver bullet”.
Rooted in community: 9Trees workers plant for a greener future, one tree at a time.
Placing trust in grassroots conservation
Carbon balancing is necessary for climate change mitigation and provides an incentive-based means of generating investment in nature-based solutions. The practice can be invaluable for companies but they must also cut their carbon emissions by at least half every decade to reach net zero in 2050. Thus, rebalancing carbon in the atmosphere should be considered a vital measure—but not a substitute.
In the UK, the aims of 9Trees are multifold. It is a grassroots organisation that does not work with carbon credits, only carbon balancing. There is an emphasis on creatively rethinking and recalibrating our lives to meet achievable personal and collective targets that can cumulatively make a tangible difference to the climate crisis. For example, a typical UK resident uses around 11.7 tonnes of carbon per year (and there is two times as much carbon in the atmosphere). UK emissions dropped to their lowest levels since the 1730s in 2023 - this was due to a combination of reductions in gas and coal.
However, although the benefits of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is clear, further reducing levels has a long way to go, with other areas remaining exceptionally high; e.g., transport. The UK must address emissions from buildings, transport, industry and agriculture to reach its 2050 target. Moreover, this must be a focus of international understanding and cooperation, with countries such as China, the USA and India as the highest emitting countries. This will be no easy task given the increasingly fracturing relations between many countries in 2024.
Last year’s IPCC report 2023 stated that “...human-caused climate change is a consequence of more than a century of net GHG emissions from energy use, land-use and land-use change, lifestyle and patterns of consumption, and production”. If we can do some of the following steps covered in this article, we will have more hope in mitigating the worst effects of climate change:
Make the transition to clean energy.
Reduce our carbon production as individuals by changing our lifestyle habits and choices (however small, in a reduce-reuse-recycle framework).
Invest in nature-based and technological solutions to absorb carbon.
In addition to 9Trees, thousands of legitimate carbon balancing projects are effectively mitigating and counteracting emissions. The objectives of these organisations are rarely singular; instead, carbon balancing should form part of a range of initiatives on multiple fronts. Recent examples of successful carbon balancing projects from Kenya include the Mikoko Pamoja community-based mangrove conservation project and the sister project Vanga Blue Forest project. These illustrate world-leading examples of how carbon-balancing initiatives can equitably and justly benefit communities in the global south.
Similarly, Carbon Link is an organisation assisting ordinary people in Wales and worldwide (for example, Boré in Coast Province, Kenya) to take ownership of their climate impact by supporting carbon draw-down initiatives. Carbon Link has donated 10,000 trees to 9Trees as part of measures to augment local efforts to boost localised carbon balancing measures through planting. Ru Hartwell of Carbon Link believes that tree planting as a means of capturing carbon is essential:
“Carbon in living things will always ultimately circulate back into the atmosphere, no matter how hard we try to slow that down…this is one of the strongest criticisms of what we do. It says we are not balancing like with like, but (some) nuanced points are missed in this largely valid criticism.”
Hartwell outlines two overarching points to remember:
The sequestration of carbon within the active pool, exemplified by tree storage, presents a preferable alternative to allowing carbon to remain unsequestered.
The storage of carbon within trees affords us a temporal advantage. With a limited window of opportunity—spanning mere decades—to address the climate crisis, the longevity of trees ensures the continued absorption and utilisation of detrimental carbon. This storage does not need to be perpetual; rather, it serves as a temporary measure, affording us time to develop alternative solutions or—ideally—to rally collectively as a global species to restore our planet to its “primordial” state (a time before the industrial revolution).
Thus, tree planting becomes a form of “holding” carbon until we can find targeted solutions to the issue—not “fixing” it permanently for posterity.
Meanwhile, to regain public trust and make a palpable difference on all fronts, Stuart Moore of Planet Neutral (a community interest company offering practical and financially economical methods of decarbonisation) believes that action should be global, including in the UK. Moreover, he considers the key to improving the credibility of carbon mitigation lies in being clear and transparent about the numbers used to make decisions whilst avoiding making untenable claims of perfection:
“I think rather than trying to make a specific claim, the key is to have transparency so be clear about the numbers used to make the decisions and not to make grand claims of perfection.”
Moreover, Moore believes there is a strong need for projects to be everywhere and in the UK - not just in developing countries. Thus, it is crucial to highlight that addressing climate change necessitates an extensive, collaborative mitigation strategy incorporating (and foregrounding) the preservation and restoration of natural ecosystems.
Carbon markets have the potential to allocate funding to support these conservation efforts efficiently. However, it is important to focus on evidence-based solutions rather than promoting ideological viewpoints under the guise of science, as this can detract from proven strategies for mitigating climate change. Given that we must find ways of limiting warming—and fast—it may be the case that cumulative solutions on all fronts are our best shot at minimising the most detrimental effects of a changing climate. For example, according to Sylvera, a combination of:
Reducing fossil fuel use and emissions
Protect/restore natural carbon sinks on a large scale with engineered removal
An increase in funding for nature-based solutions
Incentivising investments into genuine climate action
As a solution to trust and transparency issues in the market, Sylvera proposes a scoring mechanism for evaluation based on carbon bookkeeping, examining the accuracy of the reported activities of a company or project. It also considers:
"Additionality": Assessing the probable effect of the claimed carbon avoidance or reduction endeavours.
"Permanence": Evaluating whether the greenhouse gas emissions avoided or eliminated by the project are expected to endure over a substantial timeframe.
"Co-benefits": Gauging the extent and comparative influence of project activities on local biodiversity and communities.
Moreover, they believe the tools and technology to assess and improve the carbon markets already exist and are in deployment. Ultimately, no tools in the fight against climate change should be abandoned; instead, we should construct bona fide and adaptive solutions to our entire arsenal of climate-combatting weapons.
The 9Trees vision: Rebuilding trust through local action and biodiversity
The vision of 9Trees is to tackle climate change by restoring new woodland habitats, promoting biodiversity, creating jobs within the countryside sector and connecting more people to nature. They will not sell you carbon offsets but will plant trees on your behalf and in the best way possible. Moreover, they only plant trees in the UK and continue to look after each tree, so these species store as much carbon as possible. 9Trees’ specialist knowledge in conservation means they can create woodlands that support local wildlife and improve biodiversity.
9Trees works with local authorities and organisations to plant on carefully selected land, not destroying vital flower meadows, peat land or other special sites of scientific interest. They work directly within communities, using local specialists to give your trees the very best start in life. All of the trees planted are native and grown in the UK, with the species of tree chosen to suit each site. Some landowners will even allow you to visit your trees. They are also a Community Interest Company, ploughing profits back into valuable schemes, training and education.
Final Note
The trajectory of the emissions of contemporary society is fundamental for shaping our future; this should involve a wide array of actions, including reducing our emissions, a full array of carbon sequestration measures (technological and “nature-based”), restoring and preserving natural habitats for greater biodiversity, adapting our lifestyles, and every possible push towards positive change outlined in this article. Forests can adjust to climate change, although the pace of adaptation is not rapid enough; therefore, we must assist forests to be prepared by bolstering their prospects. Although large-scale measures are necessary, every small action also makes a cumulative difference.
Further reading:
Should you carbon offset with 9Trees? What I learned — 9Trees CIC
By Neil Insh - Researcher