New study says planting trees alone to offset effects of fossil fuels is not enough

New study says planting trees alone to offset effects of fossil fuels is not enough
1 / 2
Britain's King Charles III looks on as Queen Camilla waters a tree during a ceremonial tree planting at the official residence of the governor general of Canada, Rideau Hall, in Ottawa, on May 26, 2025. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 20 June 2025
Follow

New study says planting trees alone to offset effects of fossil fuels is not enough

New study says planting trees alone to offset effects of fossil fuels is not enough
  • Many respected climate scientists and institutions say removing carbon emissions — not just reducing them — is essential to tackling climate change

Planting trees has plenty of benefits, but this popular carbon-removal method alone can’t possibly counteract the planet-warming emissions caused by the world’s largest fossil-fuel companies. To do that, trees would have to cover the entire land mass of North and Central America, according to a study out Thursday.

Many respected climate scientists and institutions say removing carbon emissions — not just reducing them — is essential to tackling climate change. And trees remove carbon simply by “breathing.” But crunching the numbers, researchers found that the trees’ collective ability to remove carbon through photosynthesis can’t stand up to the potential emissions from the fossil fuel reserves of the 200 largest oil, gas and coal fuel companies — there’s not enough available land on Earth to feasibly accomplish that.

And even if there were, if those 200 companies had to pay for planting all those trees, it would cost $10.8 trillion, more than their entire combined market valuation of $7.01 trillion. The researchers also determined that the companies would be in the red if they were responsible for the social costs of the carbon in their reserves, which scientists compute around $185 per metric ton of carbon dioxide.

“The general public maybe understand offsetting to be a sort of magic eraser, and that’s just not where we’re at,” said Nina Friggens, a research fellow at the University of Exeter who co-authored the paper published in Communications Earth & Environment, a Nature Portfolio journal.




A car drives between trees in a small park in Frankfurt, Germany, April 8, 2024. (AP Photo/File)

Carbon offsetting essentially means investing in tree planting or other environmental projects to attempt to compensate for carbon emissions. Trees are one of the cheapest ways to do this because they naturally suck up planet-warming carbon. Fossil fuel corporations, along with other companies and institutions, have promoted tree-planting as key part of carbon offset programs in recent years.

For example, TotalEnergies, a global energy company, said in a statement that it is “investing heavily in carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nature-based solutions (NBS) projects.”

To do their calculations, the researchers looked at the 200 largest holders of fossil fuel reserves — the fuel that companies promise shareholders they can extract in the future — and calculated how much carbon dioxide would be released if this fuel is burned. The researchers also focused solely on tree planting because the expense and technological development needed for other forms of carbon capture are still mostly cost-prohibitive.

Forestry expert Éliane Ubalijoro, who was not involved with the research, called the study “elegant.”

It “gives people a sense of proportion around carbon,” said Ubalijoro, CEO of CIFOR-ICRAF, an international forestry research center.




An aerial view shows saplings line one of many fields where several hundred thousand trees are being planted to reforest the area which will be dubbed "La Foret de Maubuisson" (Maubuisson Forest) in Mery-sur-Oise, France, on April 29, 2025. (AFP)

But she cautioned against oversimplifying the equation by looking only at carbon capture, noting that tree planting done right can foster food security and biodiversity and protect communities from natural disasters.

The paper effectively makes the point that it's financially impossible to offset enough carbon to compensate for future fossil fuel burning, said Daphne Yin, director of land policy at Carbon180, where her team advocates for US policy support for land-based carbon removal. And the idea that companies would be required to account for the downstream emissions from the fossil fuel they extract is a “fantasy,” she said.

The idea of planting trees is appealing to the public and to politicians because it’s tangible — people can literally see the carbon being incorporated into branches and leaves as a tree grows, Friggens said. But she says other methods shouldn't be overlooked — microbes underground store carbon too, but they can't be seen.

And it's a physically and mathematically inescapable fact, illustrated in part by this study, that there's no getting around it — we have to stop emitting carbon, said Jonathan Foley, the executive director of Project Drawdown, who also was not part of the study. Carbon emissions are like an overflowing bathtub, he says: Before you start cleaning up, you have to turn off the water.

“Trees are the sponges and the mops we use to clean up the mess," he said. "But if the taps are still running and the water’s pouring out over the edges of your bathtub, destroying your bathroom and your home, maybe you’ve got to learn to turn off the taps too.”

 


Pentagon ends deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles

California National Guard are positioned at the Federal Building, June 10, 2025, in downtown Los Angeles. (AP)
California National Guard are positioned at the Federal Building, June 10, 2025, in downtown Los Angeles. (AP)
Updated 7 sec ago
Follow

Pentagon ends deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles

California National Guard are positioned at the Federal Building, June 10, 2025, in downtown Los Angeles. (AP)
  • A day later, police officers used flash bangs and shot projectiles as they pushed protesters through Little Tokyo, where bystanders and restaurant workers rushed to get out of their way

LOS ANGELES: The Pentagon said Tuesday it is ending the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles, accounting for nearly half of the soldiers sent to the city to deal with protests over the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Roughly 4,000 National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines have been in the city since early June. It wasn’t immediately clear what prompted the 60-day deployment to end suddenly, nor was it immediately clear how long the rest of the troops would stay in the region.

In late June, the top military commander in charge of troops deployed to LA had asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for 200 of them to be returned to wildfire fighting duty amid warnings from Newsom that the Guard was understaffed as California entered peak wildfire season.

The end of the deployment comes a week after federal authorities and National Guard troops arrived at MacArthur Park with guns and horses in an operation that ended abruptly. Although the US Department of Homeland Security wouldn’t explain the purpose of the operation or whether anyone had been arrested, local officials said it seemed designed to sow fear.

“Thanks to our troops who stepped up to answer the call, the lawlessness in Los Angeles is subsiding,” Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement in announcing the decision.

On June 8, thousands of protesters took to the streets in response to Trump’s deployment of the Guard, blocking off a major freeway as law enforcement used tear gas, rubber bullets and flash bangs to control the crowd. Photos captured several Waymo robotaxis set on fire.

A day later, police officers used flash bangs and shot projectiles as they pushed protesters through Little Tokyo, where bystanders and restaurant workers rushed to get out of their way.

Mayor Karen Bass set a curfew in place for about a week that she said had successfully protected businesses and helped restore order. Demonstrations in the city and the region in recent weeks have been largely small impromptu protests around arrests.

Bass applauded the troops’ departure.

“This happened because the people of Los Angeles stood united and stood strong. We organized peaceful protests, we came together at rallies, we took the Trump administration to court — all of this led to today’s retreat,” she said in a statement, adding that “We will not stop making our voices heard until this ends, not just here in LA, but throughout our country.”

On Tuesday afternoon, there was no visible military presence outside the federal complex downtown that had been the center of early protests and where National Guard troops first stood guard before the Marines were assigned to protect federal buildings. Hundreds of the soldiers have been accompanying agents on immigration operations.

President Donald Trump ordered the deployment against the wishes of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who sued to stop it.

Newsom sued to block Trump’s command of the California National Guard, arguing that Trump violated the law when he deployed the troops despite his opposition. He also argued that the National Guard troops were likely violating the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits troops from conducting civilian law enforcement on US soil.

Newsom won an early victory in the case after a federal judge ruled the Guard deployment was illegal and exceeded Trump’s authority. But an appeals court tossed that order, and control of the troops remained with the federal government. The federal court is set to hear arguments next month on whether the troops are violating the Posse Comitatus Act.

The deployment of National Guard troops was for 60 days, though Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had the discretion to shorten or extend it “to flexibly respond to the evolving situation on the ground,” the Trump administration’s lawyers wrote in a June 23 filing in the legal case.

Following the Pentagon’s decision Tuesday, Newsom said in a statement that the National Guard’s deployment to Los Angeles County has pulled troops away from their families and civilian work “to serve as political pawns for the President.”

He added that the remaining troops “continue without a mission, without direction and without any hopes of returning to help their communities.”

“We call on Trump and the Department of Defense to end this theater and send everyone home now,” he said.

 

 


Trump unveils investments to power AI boom

Trump unveils investments to power AI boom
Updated 16 July 2025
Follow

Trump unveils investments to power AI boom

Trump unveils investments to power AI boom

PITTSBURGH: US President Donald Trump went to Pennsylvania on Tuesday to announce $92 billion in energy and infrastructure deals intended to meet big tech’s soaring demand for electricity to fuel the AI boom.

Trump made the announcement at the inaugural Pennsylvania Energy and Innovation Summit at Carnegie Mellon University, with much of the talk about beating China in the global AI race.

“Today’s commitments are ensuring that the future is going to be designed, built and made right here in Pennsylvania and right here in Pittsburgh, and I have to say, right here in the United States of America,” Trump said at the event.

The tech world has fully embraced generative AI as the next wave of technology, but fears are growing that its massive electricity needs cannot be met by current infrastructure, particularly in the United States.

Generative AI requires enormous computing power, mainly to run the energy-hungry processors from Nvidia, the California-based company that has become the world’s most valuable company by market capitalization.

Officials expect that by 2028, tech companies will need as much as five gigawatts of power for AI — enough electricity to power roughly five million homes.

Top executives from Palantir, Anthropic, Exxon and Chevron attended the event.

The funding will cover new data centers, power generation, grid infrastructure, AI training, and apprenticeship programs.

Among investments, Google committed $25 billion to build AI-ready data centers in Pennsylvania and surrounding regions.

“We support President Trump’s clear and urgent direction that our nation invest in AI... so that America can continue to lead in AI,” said Ruth Porat, Google’s president and chief investment officer.

The search engine giant also announced a partnership with Brookfield Asset Management to modernize two hydropower facilities in Pennsylvania, representing 670 MW of capacity on the regional grid.

Investment group Blackstone pledged more than $25 billion to fund new data centers and energy infrastructure.

US Senator David McCormick, from Pennsylvania, said the investments “are of enormous consequence to Pennsylvania, but they are also crucial to the future of the nation.”

His comments reflect the growing sentiment in Washington that the United States must not lose ground to China in the race to develop AI.

“We are way ahead of China and the plants are starting up, the construction is starting up,” Trump said.

The US president launched the “Stargate” project in January, aimed at investing up to $500 billion in US AI infrastructure — primarily in response to growing competition with China.

Japanese tech investor SoftBank, ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, and Oracle are investing $100 billion in the initial phase.

Trump has also reversed many policies adopted by the previous Biden administration that imposed checks on developing powerful AI algorithms and limits on exports of advanced technology to certain allied countries.

He is expected to outline his own blueprint for AI advancement later this month.


UK union leaders say Met police charges against Palestine activists an attack on right to protest

UK union leaders say Met police charges against Palestine activists an attack on right to protest
Updated 15 July 2025
Follow

UK union leaders say Met police charges against Palestine activists an attack on right to protest

UK union leaders say Met police charges against Palestine activists an attack on right to protest
  • In January, the Metropolitan Police arrested over 70 people in a pro-Palestine protest, including several prominent activists
  • Union leaders called for the Met to drop charges against former NEU executive member, general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

LONDON: Over 20 prominent union leaders in the UK have raised concerns about the erosion of the right to peaceful protest in the country and about the Metropolitan Police’s handling of pro-Palestinian marches.

The 22 trade union leaders criticized in a joint statement on Tuesday the Met’s decision to charge former union members who were arrested during a London protest in solidarity with Palestine.

The Met arrested over 70 people in a pro-Palestine protest on Jan. 18 in London. Among those detained were Alex Kenny, a former executive member of the National Education Union; Sophie Bolt, the general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; Ben Jamal, the director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign; and Chris Nineham, the vice-chair of the Stop the War Coalition.

The union leaders referred to the arrests and charges against Kenny and Bolt as a threat to the right to protest.

“Alex Kenny is a long-standing, and widely respected, trade union activist who has organised peaceful demonstrations in London for decades,” they said in a statement.

“We believe these charges are an attack on our right to protest. The right to protest is fundamental to trade unions and the wider movement. The freedoms to organise, of assembly and of speech matter; we must defend them,” they added.

They called for the Met to drop charges against Kenny, Bolt, Nineham, and Jamal.

The signatories include Paul Nowak from the Trades Union Congress, Christina McAnea from Unison, Daniel Kebede from the NEU, Matt Wrack from the Teachers’ Union, Dave Ward of the Communication Workers Union, Mick Whelan of the train drivers’ union ASLEF, and Eddie Dempsey from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers.

They said the decision to charge Kenny and Bolt follows the prosecution of Nineham and Jamal.

Amnesty International, along with dozens of legal experts, expressed concerns over the Met’s handling of the pro-Palestine protest in January, with some describing the arrests as “a disproportionate, unwarranted and dangerous assault on the right to assembly and protest.”

At the protest, former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and former shadow chancellor John McDonnell were interviewed under caution and released pending further investigations. MPs and peers have also called on Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to review protest legislation introduced by the former Conservative government.


Europeans open to buying US arms for Ukraine under Trump plan but need details 

Europeans open to buying US arms for Ukraine under Trump plan but need details 
Updated 15 July 2025
Follow

Europeans open to buying US arms for Ukraine under Trump plan but need details 

Europeans open to buying US arms for Ukraine under Trump plan but need details 
  • “Of course we can’t do it on our own, we need others to partner up,” Rasmussen told reporters
  • European ministers said they would now need to examine how new purchases of US weapons could be paid for

BRUSSELS: Several European countries said on Tuesday they were willing to buy US arms for Ukraine under a scheme announced by US President Donald Trump, although arrangements still needed to be worked out.

Trump said on Monday that Washington will supply Patriot air defense systems, missiles and other weaponry to Ukraine for its war against Russia’s invasion and that the arms would be paid for by other NATO countries.

But much remains undisclosed, including the amounts and precise types of weapons to be provided, how quickly they would be supplied and how they would be paid for.

US officials have suggested that European countries will be willing to give up some of their own stocks of weapons for Ukraine and then buy replacements from the United States. But some of the countries involved say they still don’t even know what is being asked of them.

Such a move would get weapons to Ukraine more quickly but would leave donor countries’ defenses more exposed until new systems are ready.

“We are ready to participate. Of course we can’t do it on our own, we need others to partner up – but we have a readiness,” Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen told reporters in Brussels on Tuesday ahead of a meeting of European Union ministers.

Speaking alongside Trump at the White House on Monday, NATO chief Mark Rutte said that Germany, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Canada want to be part of the new initiative.

Many of those countries have been among the biggest military aid donors to Ukraine, either overall or per capita.

Asked whether Denmark could give US arms from its own stocks as part of the scheme, Rasmussen said: “We don’t have these kind of systems – the Patriot systems – so if we should lean in, and we are absolutely ready to do so, it will be (with) money and we have to work out the details.”

European ministers said they would now need to examine how new purchases of US weapons could be paid for. In many cases, that seems likely to involve countries teaming up to buy US weapons systems.

“Now we need to see how together we can go in and finance, among other things, Patriots, which they plan to send to Ukraine,” Sweden’s Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard told Swedish radio.

In Brussels, Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp said his country is looking into the plan “with a positive inclination”.

Asked about the scheme, Norwegian Defense Minister Tore Sandvik told Reuters that Oslo was “in close dialogue with Ukraine” on military aid and “air defense remains a high priority for Ukraine and for the Norwegian military support”.

“Norway has contributed to significant amounts of air defense for Ukraine, including co-financing the donation of a Patriot system and missiles,” he said.

The Finnish Defense Ministry said Helsinki “will continue to provide material support to Ukraine”.

“The details of the US initiative ... are not yet known and we are interested to hear more about them before we can take more concrete lines on this issue,” it said.


Air India crash: Pilot groups push back against human error narrative

Air India crash: Pilot groups push back against human error narrative
Updated 15 July 2025
Follow

Air India crash: Pilot groups push back against human error narrative

Air India crash: Pilot groups push back against human error narrative
  • Initial probe finds aircraft’s engine fuel switches were turned off, but does not specify by whom
  • Pilots reject report as ‘inconclusive,’ say it leads media and public to ‘jump to conclusions’

NEW DELHI: Associations of Indian pilots are rejecting claims that last month’s Air India plane crash that killed 260 people was due to human error, after a preliminary investigation sparked speculation implicating the flight crew.

The London-bound Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner crashed less than a minute after taking off from Ahmedabad airport in the western Indian state of Gujarat on June 12.

A report released over the weekend by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau said that seconds after take-off, both of the plane’s fuel-control switches moved to the position stopping fuel from the engines.

It did not specify who turned off the switches, only citing the cockpit voice recording, in which “one of the pilots is heard asking the other why he cut off,” while “the other pilot responded that he did not do so.”

The Indian Commercial Pilots Association and the Airline Pilots’ Association of India have issued statements after the release of the initial findings — and the first media and online reactions to it — rejecting speculative narratives and presumptions over the guilt of the pilots.

Capt. Kishore Chinta, an ALPA member and accident investigator, told Arab News that both associations have “raised red flags on the selective release of information” by the AAIB, which has “left the scope of ambiguity for people to jump to conclusions” and for the media to spin narratives.

0 seconds of 1 minute, 8 secondsVolume 0%
Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
00:00
01:08
01:08
 

“We are left defending those pilots who are not there to defend themselves,” he said. “The Western media has been painting them as if they actually committed suicide-murder.”

The London-bound flight was carrying 242 people — 230 passengers, two pilots and 10 crew members. Only one person, sitting in an emergency exit seat, survived the crash. Another 18 people were killed on the ground as the aircraft fell on a B. J. Medical College and hostel for students and resident doctors of the Ahmedabad Civil Hospital.

Investigators at the crash site recovered both components of the black box — the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder, days after the crash. The Ministry of Civil Aviation said at the time that the final report was expected within three months.

The early release of preliminary findings has shaken the Indian aviation community, for which it was unacceptable that experienced pilots who have flown thousands of hours would have turned off the fuel supply.

“Definitely a malfunction caused the disaster — poor maintenance or a hardware/software glitch,” said Sandeep Jain, an Indian aviator based in the US.

“Dead pilots are always the easiest target. They don’t bite back. No litigation, no shareholder value erosion.”

The Federation of Indian Pilots is planning to raise the consequences of the preliminary report with the government.

“We will be taking it up with the government no doubt. We will not let it go quietly. The report should not be open-ended,” Capt. C.S. Randhawa, the federation’s president, told Arab News.

“It is inconclusive. So many things are not answered properly. The report does not say that the pilots have moved the fuel control switches, that is why it is inconclusive, and it is leading to speculations.”