scholarly journals Forest carbon offsets include co‐benefits and co‐detriments

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 143-144
Author(s):  
Sarah Hastings ◽  
Danelle Laflower ◽  
Jonathan R Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Forest Carbon ◽  
Carbon Offsets ◽  
Forest Carbon Offsets

scholarly journals California air resources board forest carbon protocol invalidates offsets

PeerJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. e7606 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno D.V. Marino ◽  
Martina Mincheva ◽  
Aaron Doucett
Keyword(s):  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Model Simulation ◽  
Ecosystem Respiration ◽  
Forest Degradation ◽  
Forest Carbon ◽  
Carbon Offsets ◽  
Carbon Accounting ◽  
Population Mean ◽  
Forest Carbon Offsets ◽  
Commercial Forest

The commercial asset value of sequestered forest carbon is based on protocols employed globally; however, their scientific basis has not been validated. We review and analyze commercial forest carbon protocols, claimed to have reduced net greenhouse gas emissions, issued by the California Air Resources Board and validated by the Climate Action Reserve (CARB-CAR). CARB-CAR forest carbon offsets, based on forest mensuration and model simulation, are compared to a global database of directly measured forest carbon sequestration, or net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of forest CO2. NEE is a meteorologically based method integrating CO2 fluxes between the atmosphere, forest and soils and is independent of the CARB-CAR methodology. Annual carbon accounting results for CAR681 are compared with NEE for the Ameriflux site, Howland Forest Maine, USA, (Ho-1), the only site where both methods were applied contemporaneously, invalidating CARB-CAR protocol offsets. We then test the null hypothesis that CARB-CAR project population data fall within global NEE population values for natural and managed forests measured in the field; net annual gC m−2yr−1 are compared for both protocols. Irrespective of geography, biome and project type, the CARB-CAR population mean is significantly different from the NEE population mean at the 95% confidence interval, rejecting the null hypothesis. The CARB-CAR population exhibits standard deviation ∼5× that of known interannual NEE ranges, is overcrediting biased, incapable of detecting forest transition to net positive CO2 emissions, and exceeds the 5% CARB compliance limit for invalidation. Exclusion of CO2 efflux via soil and ecosystem respiration precludes a valid net carbon accounting result for CARB-CAR and related protocols, consistent with our findings. Protocol invalidation risk extends to vendors and policy platforms such as the United Nations Program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) and the Paris Agreement. We suggest that CARB-CAR and related protocols include NEE methodology for commercial forest carbon offsets to standardize methods, ensure in situ molecular specificity, verify claims of carbon emission reduction and harmonize carbon protocols for voluntary and compliance markets worldwide.

scholarly journals Systematic over-crediting in California’s forest carbon offsets program

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grayson Badgley ◽  
Jeremy Freeman ◽  
Joseph J. Hamman ◽  
Barbara Haya ◽  
Anna T. Trugman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Selection ◽  
Direct Evidence ◽  
Carbon Stocks ◽  
Forest Carbon ◽  
Carbon Offsets ◽  
Inventory Data ◽  
Market Prices ◽  
Net Zero ◽  
Forest Carbon Offsets ◽  
Policy Objectives

AbstractCarbon offsets are widely used by individuals, corporations, and governments to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions on the assumption that offsets reflect equivalent climate benefits achieved elsewhere. These climate-equivalence claims depend on offsets providing “additional” climate benefits beyond what would have happened, counterfactually, without the offsets project. Here, we evaluate the design of California’s prominent forest carbon offsets program and demonstrate that its climate-equivalence claims fall far short on the basis of directly observable evidence. By design, California’s program awards large volumes of offset credits to forest projects with carbon stocks that exceed regional averages. This paradigm allows for adverse selection, which could occur if project developers preferentially select forests that are ecologically distinct from unrepresentative regional averages. By digitizing and analyzing comprehensive offset project records alongside detailed forest inventory data, we provide direct evidence that comparing projects against coarse regional carbon averages has led to systematic over-crediting of 30.0 million tCO2e (90% CI: 20.5 to 38.6 million tCO2e) or 29.4% of the credits we analyzed (90% CI: 20.1 to 37.8%). These excess credits are worth an estimated $410 million (90% CI: $280 to $528 million) at recent market prices. Rather than improve forest management to store additional carbon, California’s offsets program creates incentives to generate offset credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.Significance StatementForest carbon offsets are increasingly prominent in corporate and government “net zero” emission strategies, but face growing criticism about their efficacy. California’s forest offsets program is frequently promoted as a high-quality approach that improves on the failures of earlier efforts. Our analysis demonstrates, however, that substantial ecological and statistical shortcomings in the design of California’s forest offset protocol generate offset credits that do not reflect real climate benefits. Looking globally, our results illustrate how protocol designs with easily exploitable rules can undermine policy objectives and highlight the need for stronger governance in carbon offset markets.

Emergence and influence of a new policy regime: The case of forest carbon offsets in British Columbia

2017 ◽  
Vol 60 ◽  
pp. 169-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guillaume Peterson St-Laurent ◽  
Shannon Hagerman ◽  
George Hoberg
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Forest Carbon ◽  
Carbon Offsets ◽  
Policy Regime ◽  
Forest Carbon Offsets

scholarly journals Forest Carbon Offsets Revisited: Shedding Light on Darkwoods

2015 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 370-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerrit Cornelis van Kooten ◽  
Timothy N. Bogle ◽  
Frans P. de Vries
Keyword(s):  
Forest Carbon ◽  
Carbon Offsets ◽  
Forest Carbon Offsets

The Economics of Forest Carbon Offsets

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 227-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Cornelis van Kooten ◽  
Craig M.T. Johnston
Keyword(s):  
Forest Carbon ◽  
Carbon Offsets ◽  
Forest Carbon Offsets

scholarly journals Accounting for risk in valuing forest carbon offsets

2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew D Hurteau ◽  
Bruce A Hungate ◽  
George W Koch
Keyword(s):  
Forest Carbon ◽  
Carbon Offsets ◽  
Forest Carbon Offsets
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document