{"id":36295,"date":"2025-06-21T15:37:26","date_gmt":"2025-06-21T13:37:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/?p=36295"},"modified":"2025-06-21T15:39:28","modified_gmt":"2025-06-21T13:39:28","slug":"offsetting-global-fossil-fuel-reserves-by-planting-trees-is-impossible","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/2025\/06\/21\/offsetting-global-fossil-fuel-reserves-by-planting-trees-is-impossible\/","title":{"rendered":"Offsetting global fossil fuel reserves by planting trees is impossible"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Current global warming requires urgent action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Although offsetting emissions is often proposed as a solution, especially by fossil fuel companies, new <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/s43247-025-02394-y.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">studies<\/span><\/a> <!--more-->show that its financial and spatial limits are significant. This analysis, focusing on the 200 largest holders of fossil fuel reserves, reveals that fully offsetting their potential emissions is extremely costly and would require vast areas of the Earth.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The staggering scale of the problem<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The reserves of the 200 largest fossil fuel companies contain 182 Gt of carbon, which would release 673 Gt of CO2e if burned. This value <strong>significantly exceeds the remaining carbon budget of 400 Gt CO2e<\/strong>, needed to limit warming to 1.5\u00b0C by 2050. To achieve this target, around 60 % of oil and gas and 90 % of coal would need to remain unextracted. However, fossil fuel companies currently have little incentive to reduce extraction because their reserves are listed as assets on their balance sheets, indicating an expectation of future use.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Financial obstacles to compensation<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Study examines financial viability of offsetting emissions using the concept <strong>&quot;Net Environmental Valuation (NEV)&quot;<\/strong>, which represents the value of a company after deducting the cost of offsetting its future emissions (specifically Scope 3 emissions, which are most relevant for these companies). Offsetting emissions through carbon markets or Direct Air Capture (DAC) has been found to be <strong>prohibitively expensive<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Afforestation:<\/strong> Although afforestation is the cheapest compensation technology with a reference price of around <strong>$16 per ton of CO2e<\/strong>, even at this price it would <strong>64 of the largest fossil fuel companies had a negative net environmental value<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>European Emissions Market (ETS):<\/strong> At an average price on the European ETS market (approx. <strong>83 USD per tonne of CO2e in 2022<\/strong>) would <strong>95 % companies had a negative net environmental value<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Direct Air Capture (DAC):<\/strong> The current cost of DAC is around <strong>$1000 per ton of CO2e<\/strong>, which would lead to <strong>negative net environmental value for all companies surveyed<\/strong>Even if the DAC price were to fall to $150 per ton of CO2e, the net environmental value of firms would remain negative.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>In total, offsetting emissions from the current inventories of the 200 largest fossil fuel companies would cost <strong>$10.8 trillion (afforestation), $59.29 trillion (ETS carbon market) or $673.7 trillion (DAC)<\/strong>The last amount represents <strong>701 % of global GDP<\/strong>, meaning it would require seven years of global human economic output just to compensate.<\/p>\n<p>From the point of view <strong>Social Cost of Carbon (SCC)<\/strong>, which estimate the cost of the impacts of an additional tonne of carbon emissions (approximately <strong>$190 per ton of CO2<\/strong>), the operation of these companies is <strong>economically unsustainable<\/strong>because the environmental damage exceeds the economic value of their assets.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Spatial limits of afforestation<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Offsetting fossil fuel emissions through afforestation also faces significant spatial constraints. To offset the emissions from the inventories of the 200 largest fossil fuel companies, an area of <strong>larger than North and Central America<\/strong>, which would require the displacement of communities, farmland, and existing habitats. If one were to attempt to offset humanity&#039;s historical emissions from fossil fuels and cement, <strong>all agricultural land would have to be replaced by forests<\/strong>, which would cover all of North America, Western Europe, and three-quarters of Africa.<\/p>\n<p>It is important to note that these calculations are theoretical \u201cthought experiments\u201d to understand the scale of the problem and do not represent realistic recommendations. They neglect the ecological, cultural and economic values of forestless areas and the fact that some areas are not suitable for afforestation (for example, deserts, mountains or lakes).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ecological and socio-economic constraints<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In addition to financial and spatial constraints, afforestation also faces ecological challenges. Planting trees requires sufficient water and nutrients, and massive afforestation can reduce groundwater levels and river flows. In areas with limited nutrients, carbon sequestration can be limited. Afforestation on peatlands or tundra can even lead to <strong>loss of already stored carbon<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>The carbon stored in trees is additionally <strong>temporary and vulnerable<\/strong> to extreme weather events such as droughts, fires, hurricanes, diseases and pests. Afforestation can also exacerbate negative climate impacts, for example by increasing the risk of fires or reducing surface albedo in some northern regions, leading to increased warming.<\/p>\n<p>Last but not least, extensive afforestation to offset emissions represents <strong>food safety risk<\/strong>, because it reduces the availability of land for agriculture and can lead to rising food prices and reduced availability.<\/p>\n<p>The study clearly shows that <strong>there is no way around reducing emissions<\/strong>. Technologies like DAC are too expensive to be a financially viable solution for offsetting fossil fuel emissions. Afforestation, while cheaper, faces insurmountable challenges in terms of land use and ecological constraints, especially in a world with a growing population and demand for agricultural land. From an economic perspective, it is <strong>cheaper to stop fossil fuel extraction than to burn them and then offset emissions<\/strong>, if the social costs of carbon are taken into account. Protecting and restoring forests is important, but it cannot replace large-scale emission reductions. <em><strong>Spring<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p>The study is published in the journal\u00a0<em>Nature<\/em><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><strong>Glossary of key terms<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Afforestation:<\/strong> The deliberate establishment of new forests on land that currently has no tree cover and was not previously forested. It is distinguished from natural regeneration or agroforestry.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Agroforestry:<\/strong> A land use system that involves growing trees and agricultural crops together or raising livestock on the same land.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Albedo:<\/strong> The degree of reflectivity of a surface. Lower albedo means that the surface absorbs more solar radiation, leading to warming.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Carbon Offsetting:<\/strong> Investments in projects that reduce or remove an equivalent amount of greenhouse gas emissions to offset emissions created elsewhere.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Carbon Budget:<\/strong> The total amount of net carbon emissions allowed for a given level of warming. In the context of the study, this is 400 gigatons of CO2 by 2050 to limit warming to 1.5\u00b0C.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Carbon capture and storage (CCS):<\/strong> A technology that captures carbon dioxide from sources such as power plants or industrial processes and permanently stores it underground.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Direct Air Capture (DAC):<\/strong> Technology that removes CO2 directly from the ambient air.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Ecosystem services:<\/strong> The many benefits that humans derive from ecosystems, such as water purification, crop pollination, and climate regulation.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Evapotranspiration:<\/strong> The process by which water is transferred from the soil to the atmosphere by evaporation from the soil and transpiration from plants.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Externalities:<\/strong> Costs or benefits that arise as a result of an economic activity but are not borne directly by the producer or consumer (e.g. carbon pollution is a negative externality).<\/li>\n<li><strong>European Emissions Trading System (EU ETS):<\/strong> The world&#039;s largest cap and trade system, limiting total greenhouse gas emissions for over 11,000 installations in the EU and allowing for the trading of emissions allowances.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Fossil Free Funds:<\/strong> An organization that provides data on investments in fossil fuel companies and their stocks.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Global Carbon Project:<\/strong> An initiative that provides comprehensive and transparent estimates of the global carbon budget.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):<\/strong> The leading international body for assessing climate change, issuing comprehensive assessments of the state of scientific knowledge on climate change.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Market Capitalization:<\/strong> The total value of all outstanding shares of a company.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Natural Regeneration:<\/strong> Forest restoration through natural processes (e.g. seed dispersal) without human intervention.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Natural Climate Solutions (NCS):<\/strong> Measures to protect, restore and improve land management to increase carbon sequestration and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Net Environmental Valuation (NEV):<\/strong> A notional valuation of a company, calculated by subtracting the cost of offsetting future CO2 emissions from the company&#039;s market capitalization. It is used to understand the extent to which fossil fuel companies can bear environmental externalities.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Pedogenesis:<\/strong> The process of soil formation.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Peatlands:<\/strong> A type of wetland rich in organic matter that stores huge amounts of carbon.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Proven Reserves (1P):<\/strong> Oil, natural gas or coal reserves that are commercially recoverable with a high (90% probability) under current economic and operating conditions.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Scope 1 Emissions:<\/strong> Direct greenhouse gas emissions from owned or controlled sources (e.g., fuel combustion in own vehicles or manufacturing processes).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Scope 2 Emissions:<\/strong> Indirect greenhouse gas emissions from the production of purchased energy (e.g. electricity, steam, heat or cooling).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Scope 3 Emissions:<\/strong> All other indirect emissions in a company&#039;s value chain that result from its activities but come from sources that the company does not own or control (e.g. emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels sold).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Social Cost of Carbon (SCC):<\/strong> The estimated marginal cost (in monetary units) of future damage caused by an additional ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere in a given year.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Stranded Assets:<\/strong> Assets that have suffered premature or unexpected depreciation, impairment or conversion into liabilities. In the context of fossil fuels, these are reserves that cannot be extracted due to climate policies.<\/li>\n<\/ul>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Current global warming demands urgent action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. While offsetting emissions is often proposed as a solution, especially by fossil fuel companies, new studies<\/p>","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36295","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-znizovanie_co2_cdr_ccs_ccu_dac"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36295","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=36295"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36295\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36295"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36295"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36295"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}