Wood and trees

This from the Indy Letters page about the role of trees in the carbon cycle bears a thought:

How forests store greenhouse gas

Steve Connor's article "Forests losing the ability to absorb man-made carbon" (1 November) illustrates one of the most common misconceptions surrounding absorption of atmospheric carbon by trees: the misapprehension that forests are net absorbers of CO2.

A mature forest is incredibly useful to us as a store of carbon since any carbon that is fixed within the mass of a living tree is carbon that is not contributing to global warming. However, an existing forest can never help us in our plight unless it is spreading to cover more land. A mature forest (like a mature individual tree) is essentially "carbon neutral": it is absorbing only as much as it is releasing.

Unfortunately, there is not one significant area of mature forest on our planet that is increasing in size. We only get a net benefit when we plant new trees and thereby create new forest. We are in desperate need of more trees and the really sad thing is that this article will lead to fewer new trees being planted.

So... my banging on about not knocking down forests is valid, but not enough. Equally, I retain some significant doubts on many (not all) 'offset schemes' which, as I glibly put it, 'whack a fir in t' firmament - hey, an missed acronym: 'WAFIF'.

In fact, this kind of connects to my notion that using FSC-certified products might actually help over recycling by encouraging replanting. Or does it, as the net area does not expand... oh, my spinning head!

Indy - How timber can store carbon

Bums on seats. Heads in hands?

Greenpeace tears into retail 'eco-villains'

I can't be sure (there have been a lot recently in different guises), but this would be the fourth 'survey' of green goodness/badosity this week.

And what are we, the public to make of this?

At this rate we'll need to go to about 20 different outlets to get the best option of each shopping list need.

In the old days that would have been the shops in the street. However this would seem to indicate a 'green-crawl' to do the weekly shopping.

And whilst in some ways understandable, does not replying warrant an 'F'? I am unsure that not subjecting oneself to a body's 'cooperate or else' 'survey' paints the surveyor in the best light either.

I fear a battle looms, and the consumer and planet again will be the main losers.

Guardian - Sainsbury's aims to regain green ground from rivals - I'm sure they mean to 'be' the most 'yadayadagreen' retailer, not 'seen to be'...;) That would be, well, it just wouldn't wash.