Wednesday, July 8, 2009 6:08 PM CDT
Carbon credits for forest landowners becoming increasingly important
By AMY ROCHKES, For the JG-TC
With the development of voluntary carbon markets and consideration of federal climate change legislation in 2009, the issue of carbon credits for forest landowners is increasingly important.
A large segment of Farm Bureau’s members are private landowners who could earn carbon sequestration revenues by improving the management of their forests, replanting trees on previously cleared areas, storing carbon in long-lived wood products, or planting new trees on their property. Certain croplands and grasslands might also be eligible to earn carbon sequestration credits; although, forest lands have the potential to sequester more carbon.
Forests are major sources of carbon sequestration in the United States. According to a Congressional Research Service report, forests store about 45 percent of terrestrial carbon and were estimated to sequester 2.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year in the 1990’s, or about one-third of annual man-made carbon emissions from fossil fuel and land use changes. Additionally, wood products serve as storage for carbon. Although the forest and wood products industries play vital roles in maintaining the current carbon balance, they could see additional opportunities through green house gas (GHG) reduction plans.
The 111th Congress will debate climate change legislation over the next two years. This legislation may include an offsets title in order to minimize costs to consumers, generate additional income streams for the agricultural and forestry sector, and broaden the constituency of climate change supports. Entities required to reduce their GHG emissions could pay farmers and foresters to reduce GHG emissions through offset projects until reduction technology is commercially viable.
One study estimated that US forestry projects could sequester more than 100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide at a carbon price of $5 per ton or as much as 1,200 million metric tons carbon dioxide at $50 per ton carbon price.
In the U.S., the voluntary Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), offers several forestry offset programs. Project participants agree to long-term, legally-binding contracts based on rules promulgated by the CCX. Although these projects must be certified and verified by a third party aggregator, they are not universally acknowledged as real offsets.
Developing forestry projects are also popular sources of international offsets in the European Union’s Emission Trading Scheme and the United Nation’s Clean Development Mechanism.
Despite the vast carbon storage potential, domestic forestry carbon offsets are not universally supported. Opponents of these offsets argue that the emissions reduced, avoided or sequestered must be greater than “business as usual”, verifiable, real, measurable, enforceable; permanent and will not result in the activity and emission occurring elsewhere.
Afforestation is generally seen as the most “real” source of forestry offsets because these are new tree stands planted on lands that have been without trees for a number of years. Areas to be considered for planting new trees would often be marginal or existing pasture and cropland. However, these will never be permanent because trees eventually die.
Reforestation involves planting trees on lands where recent stands have been cleared due to harvesting or disasters. This is often criticized because opponents believe it would have happened anyway and is, therefore, not additional.
Opponents of offsets for carbon storage in commercial wood, timber, pulp products, and forest biomass, argue that it is difficult to verify carbon storage in these products and that the emissions resulting from harvesting and processing outweigh their sequestration potential.
Finally, forest management activities enhance soil carbon accumulation through improving the way forests grow. All of the above concerns are raised in forest management discussions.
The concerns listed above may limit the ability of the private forest landowners to participate in potential federal offset projects. Current forest owners and managers may not qualify for credits due to state forest management laws and replanting. Farmers may not be able to plant or replant trees on their property and quality for credits. Many of these concerns also apply to other classes of offsets, like soil management.
Amy Rochkes is manager of the Shelby County Farm Bureau.
Add your comments
Not already registered?
Then click Here.
Comment policy:
JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.
In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.
We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.
No comment may contain:
* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.
If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.
|
|
|
|
|
