Corporate Carbon Offset Company Accidentally Starts Devastating Wildfire (vice.com) 57
Dutch reforestation company Land Life started what has become a 35,000 acre forest fire in Spain earlier this week. From a report: The fire started in Bubierca, a province of Zaragoza, the capital of autonomous community Aragon, when a Land Life contractor planting trees accidentally set off sparks that ignited nearby plant life. "The fire started while one of our contractors was using a retro-spider excavator to prepare the soil to plant trees later this winter," Land Life said in a statement on Thursday. "The operators alerted the emergency services. The emergency teams are working non-stop to control the fire and have fortunately established the fire perimeter. Nonetheless, we are devastated by the latest estimate that the damage will be around 14,000 hectares, or roughly 35,000 acres."
"While a contractor was working on forest restoration in the area, a spark from one of the excavators started the fire," the company wrote in an earlier press release. Land Life is a carbon offsetting firm, which means that it plants trees to, in theory, make up for the carbon emissions of polluting industries. It's not clear how many acres Land Life has actually planted trees in -- one blog post suggested the company aimed to plant around 20,000 acres between 2020-2021. This forest fire has not likely wiped out the lion's share of Land Life's work, but it is also not the first forest fire caused by Land Life -- on June 20, it sparked another inferno that wiped out 20 hectares.
"While a contractor was working on forest restoration in the area, a spark from one of the excavators started the fire," the company wrote in an earlier press release. Land Life is a carbon offsetting firm, which means that it plants trees to, in theory, make up for the carbon emissions of polluting industries. It's not clear how many acres Land Life has actually planted trees in -- one blog post suggested the company aimed to plant around 20,000 acres between 2020-2021. This forest fire has not likely wiped out the lion's share of Land Life's work, but it is also not the first forest fire caused by Land Life -- on June 20, it sparked another inferno that wiped out 20 hectares.
Meh, shit happens. Wait what? (Score:5, Insightful)
They've done this twice, so they need to review their safety protocols, have fire suppression onsite and put damn spark arrestors on their heavy equipment!
Re: (Score:3)
They should hire some of Spain's many unemployed to plant trees the old fashioned way.
Accidentally all the gains (Score:1)
So how much carbon credit did they send up in flames?
If the offset company isn't actually offsetting anything, maybe it's time to dissolve it and get some competent people in.
Re:Meh, shit happens. Wait what? (Score:4, Insightful)
The best we can do is deliberately set fires when they'll be most easily recovered from.
Re: (Score:2)
Does that include the ass that throws a still-burning cigarette butt out of their car window into a dry, windy forest environment? Just asking if it should be included on the list. Lightning has a place there, but this one... Need to ask. ;) /h--I think.
Re: (Score:3)
Our Kirtland's Warbler only nest in young Jack Pine forests, and the Jack pines only release their seed after a forest fire, so we have annual controlled burns; which weren't always as controlled as they wanted. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/... [msu.edu]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of these offset programs are just scams so maybe they should just stop altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of these offset programs are just scams so maybe they should just stop altogether.
he says in a thread talking about equipment which was in the process of being used to plant trees. How fucking tonedeaf are you.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't preclude it from being a scam. It's not like they necessarily don't do anything at all, it can be just fuckery with accounting or planting where it's not appropriate etc.
Re: (Score:2)
They've done this twice, so they need to review their safety protocols, have fire suppression onsite and put damn spark arrestors on their heavy equipment!
Is this asking for donations for newer, safer equipment that they can't afford? Just askin'.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
they could be like Al Gore, who always buys carbon credits from his own environmental company whenever he flies his fleet of private jets, and to cover the massive output of his many tens of thousands sq-ft mansions
Al Gore? You mean the guy who has done more to raise awareness of environmental issues with his video than anyone else? Is that the Al Gore you're criticising? I think he can afford a bit of carbon leeway. What have you done other than waste energy posting on Slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, what have you done with your life that makes you better than the hypocrite? I see you still haven't given up wasting energy on Slashdot. I guess we're all glad you can't afford a personal jet, god knows what you'd do with, probably just have it fly around empty for the lulz.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No. Do you know how to read? I feel like you don't understand what I'm saying, no surprise either, you're not showing any ability to produce a rational thought.
"A retro-spider excavator" (Score:3)
Does that make anybody else think of this? [thatmomentin.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, that film was a waste of talent. "What is this Oootah?" and "Let the party begin!" were the only two memorable lines.
Trees plant themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
Paying someone to do it on fallow land is
A. Make-work
B. Green indulgences
C. A tax dodge
D. All of the above
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Paying someone to do it on fallow land is
A. Make-work
B. Green indulgences
C. A tax dodge
D. All of the above
Why am I not surprise that the person claiming deforestation isn't a thing, that trees just happily plant themselves and that we shouldn't be putting any effort into restoring forests is a RightwingNutjob.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Trees plant themselves (Score:2)
If you intend to turn that land into a manicured park or plan on harvesting specific varieties of trees for lumber or resale as saplings, sure.
If you're just checking boxes for carbon credits...let's just remember that some people want you to pay them carbon credits for *not* chopping down trees already growing on their land that they probably had no intention to chop down to begin with.
Carbon sequestration (Score:2)
Wildfires don't actually cause an increase in net CO2 over a longer time period (years), they just release it all at once. Trees are just temporary carbon sequestration, and all that captured carbon gets released when the trees die and decompose. This is why you can't just solve global warming by planting a million trees...It might reduce the atmospheric CO2 temporarily, but itl'l eventually be re-released.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Except trees tend to self-perpetuate. One million trees could turn in to 5 million trees in 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just kicking the can down the road and actually letting the problem grow. If the goal is to remove CO2 that's been unnaturally reintroduced to the carbon cycle by our burning of fossil fuels, then we need something that will again sequester it for generations. An example of one such proposal is to embed it in deep-sea sediment.
Re: (Score:2)
trees tend to self-perpetuate. One million trees could turn in to 5 million trees in 20 years.
If we had 20 years to wait, that would still not be enough trees to fix the excess carbon.
Re: (Score:2)
Except trees tend to self-perpetuate. One million trees could turn in to 5 million trees in 20 years.
A tree does, a forest doesn't. One million becomes 5 million and then stays at 5 million unless as trees are unable to self-perpetuate when the space is fully saturated.
The answer between the OP's extreme and yours lies in the middle. The centre of forests largely become CO2 neutral, the edges can often expand. But the principle is still correct, trees suck up a massive ton of CO2 but only initially it does eventually plateau.
That said there are many other benefits to planting trees including soil health, e
Re: (Score:2)
You probably can if you cut the trees and use em to build things, then plant even more trees, rinse, repeat.
Specially if you replace plastics with wood where possible and have a double whammy on the emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
Trees are just temporary carbon sequestration, and all that captured carbon gets released when the trees die and decompose.
Not only that, but if the trees, branches, leaves, etc. decompose under water, the carbon they extracted from the atmosphere as CO2 is returned to it as Methane - a MUCH more powerful greenhouse gas for the 12 years or so it lasts in the atmosphere, on the average, until it degrades back to CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, I didn't know that before now. It sounds like it's a combination of microorganisms living inside trees when they're in wetlands, and a photochemical reaction in their leaves (but not sure why that's impacted by being in wetlands): https://e360.yale.edu/features... [yale.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Trees sequester carbon in soil as well as in themselves, so it's false to say that trees only provide temporary carbon sequestration, even with cycles of wildfires. It is true however that the bulk of the mass is above ground.
E-cigarettes, boys, ... (Score:2)
Well... of course... (Score:4, Insightful)
How can you reforestate without first deforestating? I mean, those trees don't just grow in thin air, they need some space...
Re: (Score:2)
How can you reforestate without first deforestating? I mean, those trees don't just grow in thin air, they need some space...
They grow in smoke.. thick air. I have proof.
Re: (Score:2)
How can you reforestate without first deforestating?
Implying that we haven't been deforesting for centuries? Or do you think they were using an excavator to rip up the soil in the middle of a dense forest? Here's a thought: Maybe you should research more and shouldn't spout bullshit. The world would be a better place and we wouldn't produce CO2 wasting energy reading your proclamation of self ignorance.
A tip for the future. Next time you think you're so much smarter than everyone else, chances are you don't have a clue about what is going on.
Turns out... (Score:2)
Turns out that money isn't the only thing they're burning.
This company makes is sound hard to plant trees. (Score:2)
Yes I get it, keeping the trees healthy and protected from wildlife is hard. But they can't even plant the things before messing it up.
Re: (Score:2)
They need drones, excavators, and whatever else except a shovel and a truckload of saplings.
Yeah you're right, let's just plan to plant 20000 hectares in one year using shovels and saplings. Do you have 10000 slaves spare? Next you'll tell me you think that farming is done by people dragging a plough behind a horse.
But they can't even plant the things before messing it up.
A forest fire hardly messes things up. Trees largely survive, existing plants which have taken root regrow, and shit man did you know there are actual trees out there which can only germinate during a fire.
The calamity here is the potential risk to life and livelihoods of people, not th
I have to wonder (Score:2)
If Land Life is planting trees in such dry areas, then don't they have to water the new trees to be sure they can overcome transplant shock and not die? And if they have that water on hand, couldn't they apply some to the brush surrounding the work area to help prevent such accidents? And shouldn't they have learned enough from the first small fire to take steps to prevent it from happening again?
Re: (Score:2)
If Land Life is planting trees in such dry areas, then don't they have to water the new trees to be sure they can overcome transplant shock and not die?
Not really. If you're putting in larger trees then you might have to water them in, but you don't have to keep watering them. You don't need equipment to install small trees, humans with shovels can do that just fine. QED they probably didn't have that much water on hand.
And shouldn't they have learned enough from the first small fire to take steps to prevent it from happening again?
Yes. It usually boils down to "don't operate machinery between 10 and 2 or when it is hot, dry, and windy". The Spanish typically take a nap then, but this project is run by the Dutch :)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, I thought it un-advisable to plant seedlings in a drought condition at temperatures above 35 C.
These are not really trees that are being planted, nor saplings, but bare root seedlings which need consistent moisture.
But the Dutch are leaders in horticulture.
Re: (Score:3)
They were preparing the soil for winter planting using a Spider excavator [pinterest.com]; I'm assuming Spain like most places is a lot wetter in the winter.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming Spain like most places is a lot wetter in the winter.
If by 'a lot wetter' you mean 'it rains for a couple of weeks in autumn and spring, and morning dew doesn't evaporate as fast', then yes.
Otherwise, winters are extremely cold and dry everywhere except the north coast.
Re: (Score:2)
If by 'a lot wetter' you mean 'it rains for a couple of weeks in autumn and spring, and morning dew doesn't evaporate as fast', then yes.
Otherwise, winters are extremely cold and dry everywhere except the north coast.
Actually I was thinking as compared to the mid-summer draught in a country just north of the Sahara Desert.
Excavator sparks? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You dig rocks with steel implements and you'll get sparks. Even humans with picks and shovels do the same; if you've ever dug in dry, rocky soil, especially when the sun sets, you'd know. Large machinery makes this a bigger problem because the driver is too far away from the sparks to notice any resulting ignitions.
Don't blame us... (Score:2)
Dead wood (Score:2)
Algae (Score:3)