Stop hypocrisy in PR tree planting among firms

Planting a million trees and massively publicising it when a huge chunk of your investment goes to fossil fuel projects is hypocritical. [iStockphoto]

I was privileged to be part of an event in Nyanza last January, albeit remotely, for which I donated tree seedlings. By September, only 10 of the over 200 seedlings planted in a school compound still stood.

The rest withered or were destroyed by livestock. I was later told locals, despite celebrating at the event, had no clue why they should grow trees, and how climate change affects them. I shared the guilt of planting trees in front of cameras and not ensuring they grew. I hope the surviving 10 mature someday.

As the year ends, corporate social responsibility through benevolence and planting of trees happens, with firms genuinely out to boost climate action. Climate change is here, with adverse effects on agricultural productivity and food security.

A piece co-authored by COP-28 president designate Sultan Al Jaber, WHO Director-General and its Special Envoy for Climate Change and Health, estimates that one in every four deaths globally is linked to "preventable environmental causes". Climate change, they reiterate, worsens the risks, yet it "cannot be prevented with a vaccine, or treated with an antibiotic".

Planting trees is therefore great, especially in forests, to minimise deforestation and degradation. It helps conserve biodiversity, which is important for ecosystem health and resilience. Trees improve soil quality (except for a few), and increase carbon storage in the ground. Scientists have shown how one mature tree's removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in a year can enable a human to breathe for two years.

And so even if only a few trees planted at those much publicised events grow, firms must be awarded 'A' for effort. However, these discrepancies must also be highlighted. While a firm may have recorded planting 100,000 seedlings, these trees remain on paper (phantom forests) if they don't grow.

Such a firm celebrating trees that would never grow to mitigate effects of climate change would therefore be lying. Firms must be transparent enough to periodically say what species they planted, where they are, how many survived, and therefore how much tree cover the exercise added.

Still, there should be a different approach to this whole mitigation effort, combining tree planting with increased fuel efficiency for vehicular and other machines used. If anything, trees, on their own, will only slow climate change, but not entirely reverse it.

Another evil is gaining PR showing environmental responsible firms planting trees, in a ploy to divert attention from their harmful activities (greenwashing). Planting a million trees and massively publicising it when a huge chunk of your investment goes to fossil fuel projects is hypocritical.

Banks are likely culprits here, but they are not different from manufacturers that pollute water, soil or air, exposing communities to health and security risks, or land dispossession.

We must adopt sustainable practices in farming, lighting, transport, and industrial processes without worsening inequalities or injustices. Planting trees is not the only way to mitigate climate change. We must push for implementation of relevant laws, and end deforestation, since trees release huge volumes of carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere when cut or burnt. Yes, we need wood for almost everything in life.

Alternatives for firms may also include donating funds for science-backed organisations that plant trees, use technology to remove carbon from the atmosphere or champion transition to renewable energy. From my January experience, it is also clear that communities need capacity building on climate change, which firms can fund. Let's be transparent and remember planting trees is not a licence to emit GHG.

-The writer is a climate justice advocate. [e-mail]