The gimmick is to express the CO₂ emissions of various activities in terms of the number of trees required to offset them: “ ‘Treeprint’ refers to the number of mature trees (and their carbon-storage potential) needed in order to offset emissions associated with a certain activity. Once consumers appreciate the Treeprint necessary to counterbalance their carbon footprint, they can reduce certain activities accordingly, or plant the calculated number of trees in order to create a net carbon footprint.”
For example, here are the figures for various meals…
Then they survey the lifestyles of various consumers: “low travel online”, “upwardly mobile”, “high carbon”, and “travel focused”, calculating the treeprint of each component of their lives.
Finally, they sketch the “sustainable lifestyle” consumer who meets the CO₂ budget of 2500–3300 kg per year. This is a long table in small type on page 51 of the report. The French magazine Les Echos created this infographic in their article, «Climat, COP26. Auprès de mon arbre» hitting some of the “high” points of this “sustainable”, “net zero” style of life.
How many trees did Credit Suisse plant to offset the energy wasted in creating the noxious emissions/miasmas which permeate this drivel. Speaking of carbon, a sprinkle of activated charcoal might sop up some of the funk.
It really is sad that so many of those in the driving seats of the global economy apparently were sick and missed that day in high school when the teacher explained the Carbon Cycle on which life on Earth depends.
But surely even a banker must ask herself – What happens to the carbon in all those sincerely-planted birch trees when they get old & die?
After reading some papers on the energy return on energy of solar, I highly doubt that bankers are able to do the required math. Not that it is hard math. It is just that the “scientists” don’t even seem to be able to do real math. The IEA doesn’t think the energy associated with installing a solar panel should count. The batteries required for solar don’t count. You don’t use the proven life of the device. You don’t use proven efficiency. It is maintenance free.
I wonder, for example, if in the hated cow gets any credit for the carbon reduction they arguably provide?
This is just a hick’s observation. A pasture that is not grazed deteriorates. It thins. It is weed infested. It supports less bugs, less wildlife and has poor soil. If properly grazed the grass stand improves dramatically. Weed control is diminished and often eliminated. Basically the whole ecosystem is pretty dependent on the lowly livestock. The soil … microorganisms, fungus and such are improved which I suspect actually does allow capture and holding of carbon permanently.
A good chunk of ground is suited for grazing and not crop land. Those vegan meals won’t be grown on this ground. I am too lazy to calculate the calorie deficit that will need to be made up elsewhere. Given fertilizer also requires hydrocarbons, the yield loss on existing vegan ground won’t help.
But on the positive side. The loss of wildlife that exhales pollution will help get to net zero. I think there are too many birds anyway and who ever thought a skunk was worth having around.
Maybe we can use the ground as graveyards for the malnourished.
