· 2 min read
In this series, illuminem and carbonparadox share 24 carbon paradoxes that demand our attention and discussion. Each one highlights a tension we must address to improve the way we value and protect our planet.
There are two main ways to tackle greenhouse gasses. One is to remove them from the atmosphere–by, say, planting new trees–and the other is to prevent them from getting there in the first place–by, say, replacing coal-fired power plants with wind farms or saving endangered forests.
To fight climate change, we obviously need both: Removal AND avoidance of CO2.
However, avoiding emissions is arguably more efficient than removing them later. Think of a plastic bottle: it’s much easier—and smarter—to recycle it right away than to fish it out of the ocean later on. Better yet, skip using the bottle altogether.
In 2019, an analysis in the journal Nature concluded that a hectare of deforestation pumps 355 metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air, while reforesting the same area absorbs just 6.7 metric tons per year. That means we’ll have to reforest 50 hectares for every hectare of forest we lose in a given year (or wait 50 years for that hectare to recover).
But here’s the paradox: In spite of avoidance being more efficient, the public increasingly prefers carbon removals over avoidance. A “removal” carbon credit easily costs 10 times more than an “avoidance” credit.
Why is this the case? One explanation is that planting trees or sucking carbon out of the atmosphere is more tangible, more visible, and more “real” than avoiding emissions. Crediting something that “would have happened, if I had not prevented it” feels more obscure and harder to prove.
Paradoxically, this means that a forest has to be cut down first for people to believe that the deforestation threat was real.
How to solve the Avoidance paradox?
This article is also published on carbonparadox.org. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
