Last month, Tectona G Capital launched a timber fund aiming to raise US$130-US$200 million, that would “invest in Forest Stewardship Council certified green-field teak plantations in Brazil and Panama”.

In order for any plantation to create carbon credits, it has to be additional. Tectona G Capital finances teak plantations – how on earth can any teak plantation that your company finances possible be anything other than business as usual?

Planting trees is almost always a good thing to do, for many reasons, but it isn’t going to help get us out of the carbon mess we’re in.

Plantation incentive policies have sometimes been justified on the grounds that plantations might have ameliorating effects on destructive natural forest use by providing an alternative source of wood. To date, however, plantations have had no discernible global impact on reducing deforestation.

Let’s assume that plantations are established as carbon offsets, the carbon absorbed by the trees from the atmosphere is accurately measured, that the project is additional (that it would not have otherwise taken place) and that there is no leakage (that forest destruction simply moves somewhere else). All of which are big assumptions, but for the sake of argument let’s say that all of that is possible. And that the plantation stays there for the 200 years or so that the CO2, emitted by the polluting company that buys the offsets, remains in the atmosphere. The problem is that this is still not going to address climate change. As George Monbiot pointed out in a recent article, carbon offsetting simply cannot address climate change:

Carbon offsetting makes sense if you are seeking a global cut of 5% between now and forever. It is the cheapest and quickest way of achieving an insignificant reduction. But as soon as you seek substantial cuts, it becomes an unfair, impossible nonsense, the equivalent of pulling yourself off the ground by your whiskers. Yes, let us help poorer nations to reduce deforestation and clean up pollution. But let us not pretend that it lets us off the hook.

And this is not about keeping “the poor people poor” as you claim. Industrial tree plantations do not relieve poverty, they increase it. That is why World Rainforest Movement supports organisations such as the Movement of Landless Rural Workers in Brazil and Via Campesina in their opposition to the spread of industrial tree plantations.

We need to encourage tree plantations whilst at the same time ensuring that the carbon offset is validated and accounted for. The reporters in these pages are simply trying to scare the public and create a ‘Monster’ for the public entertainment.

The Solomon islands is bare. New Guinea is not far behind. So the answer is to remove any incentive for a forest to be planted and for jobs to be created. Wonderful stuff!
Lets keep the poor people poor!!

I would rather say ” Plant more trees! The more the better!. Let governments create incentives. Let the consuming developed societies create incentive. Plant more managed forests so that the last virgin forests in native reserves are protected and economically unviable to cut down. What you are stating is that tree plantations are simply bad. Which is simply one sided and biased reporting the likes of the governmetns and media that you are fighting in the first place.
Don’t become like them
Report a balanced and true picture. Which goes like this.
Bankers and corporations are offsetting their guilt and polluting penalties by planting trees. They should instead be investing in rational and well managed forests that remove the impacts on natural forests and can adequately protect the forests from fires.
You have swung to the extreme on the other side and by doing so remove any incentive or ‘Solution’ to those who are disenfranchised by the current fraud.
You in effect remove hope.
Any hope of solving the environmental armagedon in the pipeline.

Be who you dreamed of being when you were an innocent child not an angry and frustrated person