As we all look to do our part to tackle the climate crisis, many companies have moved to incorporate carbon offset and carbon reduction plans into their business models. Increasingly, these are taking the form of reforestation and forest protection initiatives. When companies commit to preserving or planting a certain number of trees as a part of these programs, it is with the assumption that doing so works to counter the environmental damage caused by their commercial activity. Their activities emit carbon, and if enough trees are planted and begin to remove that carbon, conventional thinking holds that this process will ‘undo’ a certain  amount of the environmental damage they may have caused. All of which is wonderful, in theory. The pursuit of green initiatives by companies is necessary if we are to tackle the immense challenges we face from climate change, and carbon offset programs should be encouraged and applauded as a form of corporate responsibility.  

That being said, not all carbon offset programs are created equal. The introduction and  growing public popularity of these green initiatives has led to what experts call  “greenwashing”, which involves companies making unconfirmed claims about the environmental impact of their operations, products, and/or policies. In the case of using  reforestation or forest preservation as a carbon offset plan, “greenwashing” usually refers to the public being offered false or misleading information about the effect of the plan on the environment and the extent to which it will offset the carbon emissions of the company  involved. Because this is such an important issue, one that affects us all, we think it’s critical to  distinguish between what CAN be done to measurably reduce carbon emissions through reforestation efforts, and the reforestation and forest preservation actions that are mere  environmental window dressing with little to no effect on the issue they claim to address.  

The first of such “greenwashing” plans involves companies planting a tree and then automatically selling that tree as a carbon offset. This is often seen following a fire event, where reforestation efforts are promoted as carbon offset. Planting trees is generally a great thing, if the party doing it is mindful of certain key environmental and indigenous considerations. However, it is important to note that it is in only very limited situations that tree planting can be categorized as a legitimate carbon offset. A forest will naturally regenerate itself over time without the help of humans. Claiming a new tree as a carbon offset is only legitimate if a tree is planted where one would not have grown naturally on its own. In most instances of reforestation post-fire, though likely to have other net environmental  benefits, is not a legitimate opportunity for a carbon credit unless it has been demonstrated that the reforested area could not have regenerated naturally. If trees were going to grow there regardless, then the additional human-led reforestation efforts did not create any net carbon reductions.  

It is vitally important that reforestation companies selling carbon offsets in these instances be transparent about the sites they have reforested. What were the conditions of the site prior to the start of their project? Was natural regeneration occurring, or was there potential for natural regeneration? Though this may seem like hair splitting, these are very important considerations. The impact of every corporate carbon reduction target depends on the legitimacy of any carbon offsets it has purchased, which in turn effects our global ability to reach our climate goals and avert disaster. The quality and transparency of the carbon offsets matters because there are nuanced differences that determine whether the tree planted adds to net carbon draw down or not.  

Instances of “greenwashing” can also be seen in the forest protection industry, where forestry carbon offsets are sold in the form of “protected land”. There is a growing industry based on the purchasing of forested land to be protected as a carbon offset. As tree lovers we believe any act protecting trees is admirable, and the preservation of forested land is highly desirable and necessary for the protection of natural habitats and to curb deforestation generally.  

However, to qualify as a carbon offset, the trees on the protected lands would have to have  been in direct and immediate danger of being harvested (i.e., cut down) or the land developed for some other purpose (i.e., for farmland or residential development). If the trees were not in any danger, then selling them as a carbon offset is misleading since there is no additional carbon draw down being offered by such a program. The existing trees are simply being left alone to do what they do, and no net increase in carbon reduction has occurred. Companies selling protected land as carbon offsets must again offer transparency about the risks faced by the trees on that land if we are to preserve the legitimacy of forest protection as carbon offsets while continuing to meet the goals of green corporate initiatives.  

We believe things can be done differently and are striving to be a different kind of reforestation company. All the above considerations were used to formulate our innovative business model and environmental plans, which sets us apart from other industry actors. In keeping with our focus on transparency, any carbon offset project that we participate in will be done with full carbon transparency, which will help to reinforce the importance of legitimate and impactful carbon offset initiatives, while limiting the impacts of  “greenwashing”. All data, imagery, and direct on-site evaluations where we determine the site’s ability to naturally regenerate, including our direct seeding data and post-treatment monitoring, will be made publicly available on our website. By doing so, Ki is accountable not only to the companies buying the carbon offset projects, but to the local communities directly affected by the reforestation and the Canadian public at large who are suffering the effects of climate change. We will also hold these projects to the scientific standards required for them to be considered legitimate carbon offset initiatives, providing all parties involved the assurance that their environmental plans are making the desired difference. In short, any trees planted by Ki being sold as carbon offsets will be planted where no tree would have grown otherwise! 

The climate crisis before us is much too large not to welcome the kind of skepticism and accountability necessary to ensure the common goals of our green initiatives, including valid carbon offset projects, are met. Ki not only believes our industry is morally obligated to answer these hard questions, but it’s also required to effectively tackle the challenges ahead. We have the know-how to help our clients meet those challenges head on.  

For further information on this article, please contact Trevor Grant.