[ad_1]
The world needs to plant forests the size of North America to offset the planet-warming emissions from the 200 largest oil and gas companies, new research has found.
A study published Thursday in the Journal Communications Earth & Environment analyzed the economic and ecological benefits of planting trees as a way to balance potential carbon emissions from the expected combustion of oil reserves held by the fossil fuel industry. Many experts consider trees to be one of the best ways to balance CO2, as plants absorb and store the carbon that enter the atmosphere and heats the planet.
However, researchers from England and France have discovered that the process of planting trees, known as planting plants, faces insurmountable land use and financial challenges.
Nina Frigens, a researcher in plant soil ecology at the University of Exeter and one of the authors of the study, said: “The photographs look increasingly extremely essential.”
The world’s largest fossil fuel company has around 200 billion tonnes of carbon in its reserves, and research shows that it produces up to 74.2 billion tonnes of CO2 when burned. This is well beyond the budget needed to limit global warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1.5 degrees Celsius. This is an internationally agreed goal aimed at preventing the worst impacts of climate change.
Fossil fuel burning represents about 90% of the planet’s warming emissions. Most experts and governments agree that quick action is necessary, including a combination of offsetting emissions and reducing them completely.
However, as the paper points out, “fossil fuel companies currently face little incentives to reduce the extraction and use of fossil fuels, and regulatory measures to limit these activities are slow to come into effect.”
The Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery can be seen from Kenmalloy Harbor Regional Park in Harbor City on February 16, 2025.
(Juliana Yamada/Los Angeles Times)
The researchers set out to calculate whether planting land area would be required to compensate for these emissions by 2050.
“It would replace all infrastructure, agriculture and existing habitat,” Frigens said. “That’s not at all suggesting that we would do that, just to explain the magnitude of the problem.”
The economic viability of such projects for oil and gas companies is less realistic. Most estimates suggest that planting is the “cheapest” means of offsetting carbon emissions. The International Economic Co-operation and Development Agency estimates that it will cost more than $14 per tonne of carbon offsets.
At that rate, the offset for planting costs around $200 trillion, or around 11% of global GDP, according to the study.
In comparison, research shows that the price of direct air capture is the price of new technology that draws CO2 from the air and stores it in underground or industrial products – about $910 per tonne, making companies $673.7 trillion, or about 700% of the world’s GDP.
That said, researchers say that even a more affordable approach to planting will result in almost every fossil fuel company losing its value. They call this a “negative net environment assessment.”
Another company, assistant professor of environmental economics at the ESSEC Business School in Paris and author of the study, stated:
The researchers acknowledged that this study has limitations as it relies on a wide range of assumptions, including that all existing fossil fuel reserves are sold and burned. Furthermore, focusing on planting does not explain other central approaches to tackling climate change, such as preventing deforestation and restoring existing forests.
Still, the findings occur as the world moves further from its climate goals. Last year was the hottest recorded on the planet, with a global average surface temperature of about 1.46 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial baseline, approaching the 1.5 degrees threshold more than ever.
Additionally, the Trump administration has escaped the US from decarbonisation efforts, including cancelling funds for dozens of decarbonisation projects in recent weeks and bolstering efforts to increase oil and gas production.
In January, President Trump also withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement. This is a treaty signed by about 200 countries that will result in a target of 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Researchers said their findings should not suggest planting, and carbon offsetting was useless. “It could work. It could bring valuable climate benefits, cultural benefits, social benefits, biodiversity benefits,” Frigens said.
NAEF said carbon offsetting remains an important tool, but it cannot be used to compensate for all emissions. “While offsetting can be useful in margins, significant changes will not be offset. It will be a reduction in carbon emissions,” he said.
He says the main message from the paper is, “Oil and gas should remain on the ground.”
[ad_2]Source link
