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 California air resources board forest carbon protocol invalidates offsets

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno D V Marino ◽  
Martina Mincheva ◽  
Aaron Doucett
Keyword(s):  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Geographic Location ◽  
Net Ecosystem Exchange ◽  
Simulation Models ◽  
Forest Degradation ◽  
Scientific Basis ◽  
Forest Carbon ◽  
Carbon Accounting ◽  
Balance Performance ◽  
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 and offsets, 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 protocol annual offsets, resulting from forest mensuration and growth simulation models, are compared with a population of forest field sites for which annual net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of carbon was measured directly as flux by CO2 eddy covariance, a meteorologically based method integrating forest carbon pools. We characterize differences between the protocols by testing the null hypothesis that the CARB-CAR commercial annual offset data fall within the boundaries of directly measured forest carbon NEE; gC m-2yr-1 are compared for both datasets. Irrespective of geographic location and project type, the CARB-CAR population annual mean value is significantly different from the NEE population mean at the 95% confidence interval, rejecting the null hypothesis. The CARB-CAR population exhibits standard deviation ~5x that of the NEE natural ranges; the variance exceeds the 5% compliance limit for invalidation of CARB-CAR offsets. Exclusion of the soil carbon pool typical for CARB-CAR net carbon budgets pose insuperable carbon accounting uncertainty for offsets that extend to vendor platforms and policies including the United Nations Program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and the Paris Agreement. NEE methodology for commercial forest carbon offsets ensures in situ molecular specificity, verification of claims for net carbon balance, performance-based pricing and harmonization of carbon protocols for voluntary and compliance markets worldwide, in contrast to continuing uncertainty posed by traditional estimation-based forest carbon protocols.

scholarly journals California air resources board forest carbon protocol invalidates offsets

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno D V Marino ◽  
Martina Mincheva ◽  
Aaron Doucett
Keyword(s):  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Geographic Location ◽  
Net Ecosystem Exchange ◽  
Simulation Models ◽  
Forest Degradation ◽  
Scientific Basis ◽  
Forest Carbon ◽  
Carbon Accounting ◽  
Balance Performance ◽  
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 and offsets, 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 protocol annual offsets, resulting from forest mensuration and growth simulation models, are compared with a population of forest field sites for which annual net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of carbon was measured directly as flux by CO2 eddy covariance, a meteorologically based method integrating forest carbon pools. We characterize differences between the protocols by testing the null hypothesis that the CARB-CAR commercial annual offset data fall within the boundaries of directly measured forest carbon NEE; gC m-2yr-1 are compared for both datasets. Irrespective of geographic location and project type, the CARB-CAR population annual mean value is significantly different from the NEE population mean at the 95% confidence interval, rejecting the null hypothesis. The CARB-CAR population exhibits standard deviation ~5x that of the NEE natural ranges; the variance exceeds the 5% compliance limit for invalidation of CARB-CAR offsets. Exclusion of the soil carbon pool typical for CARB-CAR net carbon budgets pose insuperable carbon accounting uncertainty for offsets that extend to vendor platforms and policies including the United Nations Program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and the Paris Agreement. NEE methodology for commercial forest carbon offsets ensures in situ molecular specificity, verification of claims for net carbon balance, performance-based pricing and harmonization of carbon protocols for voluntary and compliance markets worldwide, in contrast to continuing uncertainty posed by traditional estimation-based forest carbon protocols.

scholarly journals Commercial Forest Carbon Protocol Over-Credit Bias Delimited by Zero-Threshold Carbon Accounting

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno D.V. Marino ◽  
Nahuel Bautista
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Sequestration ◽  
Ecosystem Respiration ◽  
Net Ecosystem Exchange ◽  
Co2 Exchange ◽  
Forest Carbon ◽  
Carbon Accounting ◽  
Forest Carbon Storage ◽  
Median Error ◽  
Forest Carbon Sequestration ◽  
Commercial Forest

Despite the use of commercial forest carbon protocols (CFCPs) for more than two decades, claiming ~566 MMtCO2e and a market value of ~USD $15.7 billion, comparative analysis of CFCP methodology and offset results is limited. In this study, five widely used biometric-based CFCPs were characterized, and common characteristics and differences were identified. CFCP claims of net forest carbon sequestration are compared with results of directly measured CO2 by eddy covariance, a meteorological method integrating gross vertical fluxes of forest and soil carbon, and the only alternative non-biometric source of net forest carbon sequestration data available. We show here that CFCPs share a structural feature delimiting forest carbon values by zero-threshold carbon accounting (gC m-2 ≤ 0), a pattern opposite to natural emissions of forest CO2 exchange based on direct measurement and a fundamental biological constraint on net forest carbon storage (i.e., soil efflux, ecosystem respiration). Exclusion of forest CO2 sources to the atmosphere precludes net carbon accounting, resulting in unavoidable over-crediting of CFCP offsets. CFCP carbon results are significantly different from global forest CO2 net ecosystem exchange population results (FluxNet2015 gC m-2) at the 95% to 99.99% confidence levels, inferring an annual median error of ~247% (gC m-2), also consistent with over-crediting. Direct CO2 measurement provides an alternative method for commercial forest carbon products, has the potential to harmonize global markets, and catalyze the role of forests in managing climate change through nature-based solutions.

scholarly journals Commercial Forest Carbon Protocol Over-credit Bias Delimited by Zero-threshold Carbon Accounting

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno D.V. Marino ◽  
Nahuel Bautista
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Sequestration ◽  
Ecosystem Respiration ◽  
Net Ecosystem Exchange ◽  
Co2 Exchange ◽  
Forest Carbon ◽  
Carbon Accounting ◽  
Forest Carbon Storage ◽  
Median Error ◽  
Forest Carbon Sequestration ◽  
Commercial Forest

Despite the use of commercial forest carbon protocols (CFCPs) for more than two decades, claiming ~566 MMtCO2e and a market value of ~USD $15.7 billion, comparative analysis of CFCP methodology and offset results is limited. In this study, five widely used biometric-based CFCPs are characterized, and common characteristics and differences are identified. CFCP claims of net forest carbon sequestration are compared with results of directly measured CO2 by eddy covariance, a meteorological method integrating gross vertical fluxes of forest and soil carbon, and the only alternative non-biometric source of net forest carbon sequestration data available. We show here that CFCPs share a structural feature delimiting forest carbon values by zero-threshold carbon accounting (gC m-2 ≤ 0), a pattern opposite to natural emissions of forest CO2 exchange based on direct measurement and a fundamental biological constraint on net forest carbon storage (i.e., soil efflux, ecosystem respiration). Exclusion of forest CO2 sources to the atmosphere precludes net carbon accounting, resulting in unavoidable over-crediting of CFCP project offsets. CFCP carbon results are significantly different from global forest CO2 net ecosystem exchange population results (FluxNet2015 gC m-2) at the 95% to 99.99% confidence levels, inferring an annual median error of ~247% (gC m-2), consistent with over-crediting. Direct CO2 measurement provides an urgently needed alternative method for commercial forest carbon products that has the potential to harmonize global markets and catalyze the role of forests in managing climate change through nature-based solutions.

scholarly journals Howland Forest, ME, USA: Multi-Gas Flux (CO2, CH4, N2O) Social Cost Product Underscores Limited Carbon Proxies

Land ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 436
Author(s):  
Bruno D. V. Marino ◽  
Nahuel Bautista ◽  
Brandt Rousseaux
Keyword(s):  
Global Warming ◽  
Eddy Covariance ◽  
Direct Measurement ◽  
Social Cost ◽  
Forest Products ◽  
Forest Carbon ◽  
Carbon Offsets ◽  
Carbon Accounting ◽  
Climate Action ◽  
Forest Carbon Sequestration

Forest carbon sequestration is a widely accepted natural climate solution. However, methods to determine net carbon offsets are based on commercial carbon proxies or CO2 eddy covariance research with limited methodological comparisons. Non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHG) (e.g., CH4, N2O) receive less attention in the context of forests, in part, due to carbon denominated proxies and to the cost for three-gas eddy covariance platforms. Here we describe and analyze results for direct measurement of CO2, CH4, and N2O by eddy covariance and forest carbon estimation protocols at the Howland Forest, ME, the only site where these methods overlap. Limitations of proxy-based protocols, including the exclusion of sink terms for non-CO2 GHGs, applied to the Howland project preclude multi-gas forest products. In contrast, commercial products based on direct measurement are established by applying molecule-specific social cost factors to emission reductions creating a new forest offset (GHG-SCF), integrating multiple gases into a single value of merit for forest management of global warming. Estimated annual revenue for GHG-SCF products, applicable to the realization of a Green New Deal, range from ~$120,000 USD covering the site area of ~557 acres in 2021 to ~$12,000,000 USD for extrapolation to 40,000 acres in 2040, assuming a 3% discount rate. In contrast, California Air Resources Board compliance carbon offsets determined by the Climate Action Reserve protocol show annual errors of up to 2256% relative to eddy covariance data from two adjacent towers across the project area. Incomplete carbon accounting, offset over-crediting and inadequate independent offset verification are consistent with error results. The GHG-SCF product contributes innovative science-to-commerce applications incentivizing restoration and conservation of forests worldwide to assist in the management of global warming.

The biopolitics of carbon accounting in Indonesia’s forests

2019 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 174-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry J Boer
Keyword(s):  
Global Climate ◽  
Forest Degradation ◽  
Forest Carbon ◽  
Carbon Accounting ◽  
Accounting System ◽  
Ecological Processes ◽  
Life And Death ◽  
Numeric Representation ◽  
Spatial Logics ◽  
Substantial Effort

Across developing countries substantial effort and resources have been dedicated to setting up systems for the measurement, recording and verification of greenhouse gas emissions in the forestry and land-use sectors – a key initiative of the global climate programme Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. This paper approaches these systems through the lens of conservation biopolitics, identifying the calculative processes and spatial logics that attempt to regulate the life and death of the forest. It uses an example of the Indonesian National Carbon Accounting System to explore how a biopolitical apparatus of constant data accumulation and presentation integrates an infinitely complex set of ecological processes across highly differentiated spatial landscapes, and organises these into governable carbon domains. The Indonesian National Carbon Accounting System provides a visual and numeric representation of the various policy and socio-economic processes that drive and limit carbon emissions, and identifies where this occurs in the landscape. By understanding these forest–carbon–human dynamics, programmes can be designed that change how populations access, use and potentially restore the life of the forest. For state and non-state interests alike, the System was viewed as a critical tool for both developing and evaluating the performance of multiple forest carbon initiatives. It also offers a surveillance apparatus to regulate the carbon market and to discipline the actions of various agents that utilise forests and land. Critically, the biopolitical utility of these systems have been undermined by waning commitment within Indonesia to overhaul forest governance towards carbon outcomes.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document