That picture looks to have been a well planned planting. Well spaced etc. But that is only one part of the story it will look better in time and will store carbon a d homes for insects and birds but does not replace existing woodland with more biodiversity
It will store carbon eventually, but what was the carbon cost of the planting? Bear in mind the trees were more than likely grown in a peat containing compost. Read the blog, we can't call planting carbon offsetting if we don't know it's carbon cost.
I read your blog with interest but my point is on a small scale you can remove many of the problems you highlight. However I have yet to find a no carbon solution to heavy deer predation necessitating guards a d stakes for trees
I am not interested in carbon offset. What I pla t is additional trees, if you like a gift to my grandchildren. I mostly plant trees from locally harvested seed, and grown in my community nursery where peat is banned . But we can only grow about 2,900 a year.
I fully agree that the cost of installing the scheme should be evaluated and included. But that is not necessarily a bad thing. I plant trees, I grow from seed and plant locally as gift not carbon offset. I welcome information that would enable to do so better