Do Trees Actually Cause Climate Change?

There’s probably nothing more symbolic of the green movement than a tall, leafy tree. Along with protecting our forests, planting a tree to offset one’s carbon footprint has now become de rigueur in fighting climate change.
However, in the recent New York Times op-ed, “To Save the Planet, Don’t Plant Trees,” Yale professor Nadine Unger smacks several holes in conventional green wisdom. And to no one’s surprise, it’s causing some backlash in the scientific community.
Unger’s article boils down to three (controversial) points about trees and forests:
1. Trees give off harmful pollution. “Trees emit reactive volatile gases that contribute to air pollution and are hazardous to human health…As these compounds mix with fossil-fuel pollution from cars and industry, an even more harmful cocktail of airborne toxic chemicals is created.”
2. Planting forests in colder places might cause the planet to bake. “The dark color of trees means that they absorb more of the sun’s energy and raise the planet’s surface temperature….Planting trees in the tropics would lead to cooling, but in colder regions, it would cause warming.”
3. Stopping deforestation is not the best way to mitigate global warming. “The science says that spending precious dollars for climate change mitigation on forestry is high-risk: We don’t know that it would cool the planet, and we have good reason to fear it might have precisely the opposite effect. More funding for forestry might seem like a tempting easy win for the world leaders at the United Nations, but it’s a bad bet.”
If your head is spinning, you’re not alone. After the article came out, a slew of top scientists came out to strongly rebuke Unger’s article.
MORE: 3 Reasons Why Sunday’s Historic Climate March Could Be the Start of Something Huge
“Nadine Unger argues that reducing deforestation and planting trees won’t help fix climate change but will rather make it worse,” Steve Schwartzman, Director of Tropical Forest Policy writes. “One might ask how the 2,000-plus scientists and experts on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) got this one wrong — they found tropical deforestation a major source that must be reduced to control climate change – but in fact it’s Unger who’s way out on a limb here.”
And in another response called “Dr. Unger’s Four Scientific Fouls,” Michael Wolosin of Climate Advisers picks apart each of Unger’s points and concludes, “Normally, this type of scientific debate would take place in specialist journals with lengthy peer review processes to ensure accuracy. And for good reason – it is a process that keeps scientists from jumping to conclusions that aren’t implied by their work, and that should not be cited as fact by others.”
There’s also this piece that was signed by 30 scientists, including six members of the National Academy and four members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Unger has since defended herself where she lists all of the sources that she points to in the Times op-ed. She also points out, “The primary key to solving the global climate problem is the transformation of our energy system into one that does not use the sky as a waste dump for our greenhouse gas pollution.”
Well, it appears Unger does have a point there. Simply put, we can’t treat our planet like a trash can. As we’ve previously reported, there are multiple ways to preventing climate change, including leaving our precious forests alone. But really, according to near scientific consensus, the best way to stop climate change is by cutting carbon pollution through conserving energy and curbing our reliance on fossil fuels.
Hopefully this is something we can all agree on.
DON’T MISS: The Top 5 Ways to Fight Global Warming

Eating That Doughnut Could Cause Rhinos and Tigers to Go Extinct

How much does a doughnut really cost? The person behind the register might know, but you should actually ask critically endangered Sumatran rhinos, tigers or orangutans for the price instead.
Many doughnut companies fry these deliciously fatty treats in unsustainable palm oil, which is cheap to ship and produce but is absolutely no good for the planet. Besides emitting tons of greenhouse gases, the burning of forests for palm oil plantations are a leading cause of deforestation, air pollution and destruction of wildlife and natural habitats in southeast Asia.
But it doesn’t have to be like this. Palm oil can be made without destroying forests or killing animals, and that’s why major doughnut companies are filling their environmentally irresponsible hole (pun intended) with a new sustainable strategy.
MORE: Eco-Friendly Products Often Aren’t as Popular, But This Successful Startup Found a Winning, Green Formula
Dunkin’ Brands (the parent company of Dunkin’ Donuts and Baskin-Robbins) announced it will now only buy palm oil from companies that protect forests and community rights for it U.S. stores. A day after Dunkin’s announcement, Krispy Kreme went a step further by committing to a 2016 deadline of sustainable palm oil across its global operation.
The move has been applauded by some environmentalists. Laurel Sutherlin of the Rainforest Action Network praised Dunkin’ Brands when they first announced their green initiatives a year ago, but she adds to NPR, “There’s still an issue that ‘sustainable’ means many different things to many different people.” Sutherlin means that there’s a proverbial gray area with the word “sustainable,” similar to how some “free-range” chickens might only have a shoebox to run around in or some “all natural” foods are made with artificial preservatives. In other words, how do these doughnut companies exactly know that their palm oil sources are entirely scrupulous?
Additionally, are these efforts even big enough to address a global environmental crisis? Calen May Tobin of the Union of Concerned Scientists calls Dunkin’s move a “half-measure” because it “needs to address the 59 other countries in which it operates, too.”
ALSO: 6 Common Environmental Culprits That Need Regulation
To Krispy Kreme and Dunkin’ Brand’s credit, they’ve promised to commit to the following principles, according to Forest Heroes:
– No Deforestation: Suppliers must protect forests, endangered species habitat, lands with high carbon stock, and peatland of any depth.
– No Exploitation: Suppliers are required to protect human and worker rights, and obtain Free, Prior, and Informed Consent from communities for all development on their lands.
-Traceability: The companies are working with suppliers to trace all palm oil back to the preliminary plantation sources
What these doughnut companies seem to demonstrate is that the environment needs to be taken seriously. Other major brands and corporations would be wise to follow their lead because this very common vegetable oil isn’t just used for food. Palm oil is also found in 40 to 50 percent of household products including toothpaste, shampoo, cosmetics, cleaning products, detergents and more.
There’s always room for improvement when it comes to protecting our fragile ecosystem, but let’s hope these are steps in the right direction, and not just a greenwashing scheme to sell more doughnuts. The tigers, rhinos and orangutans definitely wouldn’t want that.
DON’T MISS: Recycle Your Phone, Save the Gorillas

What Do You Get When You Combine Wheat, Woody Harrelson and Environmental Awareness?

Actor Woody Harrelson is serious about environmental activism. That’s why he co-founded Prairie Paper Ventures 15 years ago to help prove that super-white paper is possible without destroying trees. His paper is made with wheat and crop leftovers, stuff that wasn’t being used for anything else. While tree-free paper has been around for years, it had a reputation for being dingy in color and for jamming up printers. Not anymore. Prairie has figured out how to make tree-free paper that is just as white and works just as well in printers as tree-fiber paper. And, they’re selling it at Staples in Canada for about the same as you’d pay for your usual ream–$8.00. With more businesses making sure that their bottom line is sustainable as well as profitable, Prairie’s example is one to follow of meeting emerging customer needs. “Just know that two boxes of this paper saves one tree, so you can make a very real difference,” Harrelson says.

Is This the Tree That Revitalizes Oregon’s Lumber Industry?

Oregon is known for its lumber, which supports a multitude of other industries in the United States, from the production of paper pulp to couches. Unsustainable tree harvesting would mean the eventual end of what is, for Oregon, an extremely vital trade. An innovative logger, GreenWood Resources, is attempting to revitalize the foresting industry with its fast-growing hybrid poplars, which reach maturity in about 10 years. Poplar monoculture may not be environmentally optimal, but this certainly represents a step toward maintaining the viability of foresting in Oregon. Sustainable Business Oregon has a photo gallery of GreenWood’s operation.