Likewise, the IPCC and several analyses point out that carbon farming cannot permanently offset global emissions; without substantial reductions in fossil fuels, there is a risk of dangerously delaying action and giving false hope to businesses and countries.

🔍 Why should tree compensation be limited to agriculture?

1. Agricultural emissions can be mitigated on-site: soil stabilization, reduction of emissions from fertilization, improvement of water and soil quality – all of which have direct benefits for farmers and regional communities. Such practices does not hide concrete industry or energy fields behind the trees.
2. Permanent vs. recoverable carbon: Soil and young forests are volatile – their carbon ceiling can be disrupted by weather fluctuations, disease or logging. In contrast, increasing soil carbon levels through agrohydrological practices is more permanent – but especially the opposite way to fossil emissions offsets.
3. Overall shorter time horizon: offsetting the burning of coal, oil or gas would require planting trees the size of North and Central America (cost ~11 trillion USD!) – totally unsustainable

⚠️ The risks of "carbon farming" - when the proposal harms the land and residents

Popular "carbon farming" practices, such as agroforestry or soil carbon sequestration, bring beautiful in postcards, but they often distort the ecological benefit. The challenge is:

• the replacement of biodiversity with monocultures,
• increased risk of soil erosion,
• possible "land-grab" – land grabbing by investors without the ownership rights of indigenous people and farmers,
• green lies – companies "clear their conscience" by purchasing credits without reducing their own emissions during production.

The EU is responding by banning misleading representations of "carbon-neutral products" based solely on offsets.

✅ How to do it correctly?

The European Parliament calls for a shift towards sustainable practical methods and soil protection:

• remove pressure on fossil fuel industries,
• support agroecological methods (crop rotation, non-sowing, organic fertilization, greenhouse growth),
• require that land credits:
  • they were additional,
  • verifiably monitored,
  • permanently bound (not just a few years),
  • did not interfere with food production a multiple land use.

🧭 What does this mean for Slovakia and Europe?

• Let's preserve agricultural land – to feed the world, not carbon markets.
• Let's limit tree planting to offsetting our own agricultural emissions, not on a quiet escapade of burning fossil fuels.
• Let's support soil charcoal through agroecological measures, not just a quantified offset market.
• Let's prepare a transparent system for monitoring and verifying carbon creditsto be trustworthy and they did not abuse the land.
• Let's avoid "greedwashing" – corporations must not use trees as an alibi to continue polluting.

Planting trees and soil carbon fixation can be a valuable tool – but only in a local context and with clear values of permanent soil, biodiversity and climate protectionCarbon trading should not be an excuse to continue burning oil, coal or gas. On the contrary, trees should be seen as the last – not the first – line of defense for soil and climate protection. Spring