Up in smoke – California fires once again highlight dangers of forest offsets

[Andrew Lockley]

https://carbonmarketwatch.org/2020/10/22/up-in-smoke-california-fires-once-again-highlight-dangers-of-forest-offsets/amp/

 Up in smoke – California fires once again highlight dangers of forest offsets 

Kaisa Kaisa

6 days ago

Companies are increasingly adopting “climate-neutrality” targets, which often include relying on forests to compensate for pollution. After yet another such offset project was swallowed by flames in California, unresolved questions about forest and land offsets resurface.

It’s a simple tagline for green marketing campaigns: “Enjoy our product, it’s climate neutral”. While the tagline is simple, the reality behind it is much more complex – and dangerous.

Land-based offsets, such as those from re-forestation or forest protection projects, are problematic for several reasons, including the difficulty of identifying “what would have happened without the project” (i.e. setting a baseline) and ensuring that emissions are reduced and not simply shifted to another location (i.e. avoiding leakage). 

In this article, we focus on a third, particularly topical in light of the California wildfires, aspect: the risk that any emissions absorbed and stored by a tree could be released after a very short amount of time (the risk of “reversal” or “non-permanence”). 

Photo by Deep Rajwar from Pexels

Trees store carbon and use it to grow. When a tree dies, the carbon is released back into the atmosphere. For a polluting activity (by a company, country or an individual) to be carbon-neutral, in theory, the tree should store the carbon for at least as long as the emitted greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere. This can take several millennia, but it is often assumed, for simplicity, that carbon remains in the atmosphere for 100 years. 

Can “buffer pools” ensure climate benefits?

The most common system to attempt to guarantee the (climate) value of forestry offsets is to use a form of insurance called a “buffer pool”. Here, some credits created by a forestry project are set aside and cannot be sold. If trees from the project die, credits will be taken from the buffer pool, and cancelled. This means that nobody will ever be able to use them to compensate for their emissions because the credits have already been used to offset the release of carbon from trees. The objective is to create a form of mutual insurance as credits from all projects are “pooled” together[1].

So do buffers work to guarantee permanence? The simple answer is that nobody knows. Advocates of this strategy, implemented by all major voluntary programmes, point to the fact that there has always been enough of these credits to balance the few reversal events which have occurred until now. While this is true, the fact that buffer pools have worked until now says nothing about how they will function over the long term. The oldest forestry project from the largest programme on the voluntary market[2], Verra, was registered in 2009, only 11 years ago. Therefore, no buffer has yet existed for long enough to face a very significant amount of risk –  and the warming climate will increase those risks.

Stating today that buffers are effective, is like purchasing fire insurance for your house, and after 10 years declaring that the insurance is working because the house is still standing.

This brings us to two specific aspects of buffer pools: first, how many credits are set aside, and second, how long is the “insurance contract” for.

On the first point, the quantity of credits set aside varies according to several factors such as the type of project. It is often around the 20% mark. On the second issue, the credits are often stored for 10-40 years, with one programme aiming to guarantee insurance for 100 years.

Several questions arise from these provisions.

1. Are enough credits set aside?

Until now, buffer pools have been able to easily compensate for reversals. However, as recent analysis into the California wildfires showed, it is unclear how these buffers would function in the long term, in particular as climate impacts increase. Since no risk can be insured indefinitely, the question is whether it will work for long enough.

2. Does the buffer pool system guarantee permanence for long enough?

In most cases, it doesn’t. Setting up an insurance system for 10-40 years to compensate for emissions which will stay in the atmosphere for at least a 100 is just not enough. However, simply increasing the insurance period does not solve the problem, because at some point uncertainty starts to kick-in. For example, the one programme which aims to guarantee permanence over a 100 years – the Climate Action Reserve – requires project developers to monitor any potential reversals from their project for a hundred years after a given credit was issued. This means that the project developer is not only entering into a contract for himself, but also for at least 2-3 generations of workers/landowners after him. Despite some attempts to take this intergenerational risk into account, the credibility of such a contract is questionable, to say the least.

3. What happens at the end of the (buffer pool) insurance period?

Once the monitoring period is over, there is no more insurance. Programmes generally cancel the credits which had been set aside. This assumes, at best, that no reversal will take place that would be larger than the number of credits initially set aside. For example, if the project had set 20% of its credits aside, the implicit assumption is that no reversal will ever occur that would be larger than 20% of the total credits issued. This assumption is questionable in light of increasing climate impacts.

It’s still better than nothing – or?

Actually, it might not be. Protecting forests requires finance and should be a top climate policy priority. It is also clear that financing reductions today is better than reducing emissions in the future. But we cannot afford to invest in “cheap reductions” at the expense of developing long-term technologies and switching to more sustainable lifestyles

In fact, when a company finances a forestry offset project, it is not financing an emissions reduction/removal. It is financing an emission postponement, temporary storage of carbon. Claiming carbon neutrality is therefore inaccurate. Credits should at most be temporary and expire after a certain number of years, as was the case under the UN carbon market the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) for example.

Advocates of offsets promote them as a way for ambitious companies, which are already doing all they can to reduce their own emissions, to go the extra mile. But the reality is that we just don’t know whether this is the case today, or whether offsets are used as an excuse for inaction instead. 

Detailed reporting of absolute emissions and, separately, financial contributions to forestry projects, would be a much more transparent way of demonstrating climate action. This way, we would get rid of the murky concept of “climate neutral” at company level and be able to truly distinguish between those who reduce their emissions – and potentially also provide finance to protect and restore forests – from those who hide behind offsets.

If it is true that companies are investing in forestry projects out of a commitment to the climate, rather than for PR purposes, then it shouldn’t matter if they could no longer claim to be “carbon neutral”. On the contrary, they should embrace a more transparent system which makes their climate pledges more credible and keeps cutting pollution from the use of fossil fuels separate from protecting trees. 

Gilles Dufrasne

[1] Here we use the term “insurance” for simplicity. Note that in some cases, projects can subscribe to an actual insurance instead of participating in a buffer pool system. With an insurance, the developer (or another entity, whoever is responsible for guaranteeing permanence), does not set credits aside but will pay an insurer a fee, and the insurer will be charged with purchasing valid carbon credits to compensate for any reversal if a reversal occurs.

[2] A programme is an organisation which determines specific rules for how projects should be implemented, how emissions reductions should be measured, and how carbon credits should be issued. Here we consider that there are 4 main programmes on the voluntary market: Verra, Gold Standard, Climate Action reserve, and the American Carbon Registry. A vast majority of carbon credits on the voluntary markets are issued by the first two programmes.

[Greg Rau]

Perhaps worth repeating:

"In fact, when a company finances a forestry offset project, it is not financing an emissions reduction/removal. It is financing an emission postponement, temporary storage of carbon. Claiming carbon neutrality is therefore inaccurate. Credits should at most be temporary and expire after a certain number of years...." 

 

So, relative to the $ value of permanet avoidance or removal what is the formula for valuing forest offsets in the context of CO2 management?

Greg 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-064s-_hmtKMSRVf%2BAnV5hZSh3tMM0VHCczSme9r48FJmA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Anderson, Paul]

 

Greg,

 

Great question you asked:   “So, relative to the $ value of permanent avoidance or removal what is the formula for valuing forest offsets in the context of CO2 management?”

One response that shows real value is to lock up 40% of all of that forest carbon (or forest CO2equivalent) in biochar for many hundreds if not thousands of years.   (40% is the fixed / permanent carbon in biochar, being 80% of the 50% of biomass carbon that transforms into biochar via pyrolysis.)  

 

Keep the trees and the biomass refuse of crops growing, but avoid decay or burning to ash by using pyrolysis to make biochar to put into appropriate soils.   And that also gives thermal energy.

 

Biochar does NOT remove CO2.    It converts what the plants have removed into something that can be easily permanently sequestered.

 

Paul

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com

         Email:  psan...@ilstu.edu       Skype:   paultlud

         Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP    Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org 

Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy:  See  www.woodgas.com

Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)

         with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.

 

From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Greg Rau
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 5:28 PM
To: CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Up in smoke – California fires once again highlight dangers of forest offsets

 

[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to ab...@ilstu.edu]

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/686597403.55258.1603924079716%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Dan Galpern]

Hi Paul,

  By "lock up 40% of all of that forest carbon . . . in biochar" you appear to be proposing to liquidate all forests to create biochar. But of course forest offsets and afforestation to accelerate drawdown usually seek to preserve and restore forests ecosystems. Complex, heterogenous forest ecosystems especially provide important natural and human services, some irreplaceable, and as compared with monocrop timberlands they tend to be resilient to various assaults and able to recover well from wildfire, especially if left alone. So I think you likely have something else in mind, right? 

Dan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CH2PR03MB5334D3A5F6BE57FE0749E0FBDB140%40CH2PR03MB5334.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.

[Anderson, Paul]

Dan,

 

Yes.   I have in mind that there would be sensible management of the world’s biomass. 

 

1.  Protect the true nature reserves.   Save old growth forests, etc.  

 

2.  But if the biomass is already dead or is a fire hazard or is crop residue that is being burned now with great air pollution, then it should be actively considered for pyrolysis to become biochar AND  if possible to give useful heat if near a place that can use the  heat (replacing fossil fuels).

 

3.  And have some cultivation/harvesting of intentionally selected fast growing crops of short duration, especially if they also  provide seed or fruit or fiber of value, and we can pyrolyze the “residue”.    But for CDR purposes, we could grow it for the residue, and then the seed, etc. was just an extra benefit.

 

4.  Another one is to have char-making cookstoves that each provide one ton of CO2equivalent-as-charcoal per year per family.   Not much.   But there are 500 million such families already cooking with poor stoves that use twice as much wood or biomass fuel as do the TLUD stoves.   Help the poorest 40% of the world (they cook on wood and charcoal fires) and there would be 0.5 GIGATONS of long-term sequestration per year  with half the current fuel usage.   [This happens to be my specialty.]

 

Yes, we protect but also use the forests and other biomass (such as invasive species) to get true CDR that is possible now, today, no waiting for new technologies .

 

Thanks for asking.

 

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com

         Email:  psan...@ilstu.edu       Skype:   paultlud

         Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP    Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org 

Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy:  See  www.woodgas.com

Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)

         with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.

 

[Dan Galpern]

Thanks Paul. 

Your 2-4 seem right, and as for #1, there is ecological and CDR value in forest restoration well beyond true nature reserves -- including for landscapes that have been altered by wildfire where snags are left standing (as opposed to being subjected to logging operations that substantially disturb the forest floor). 

More specifically, I am not convinced that climate-induced greater wildfire risk has substantially undermined the findings of Griscom, et al, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29078344/, that reforestation, avoided forest conversion, and natural forest management retain substantial climate mitigation potential. 

Other CDR approaches beyond such so-called 'natural climate solutions' are surely needed, given our slowness to respond to the crisis, and living in Eugene, Oregon I am sensitive to the ravages of wildfire smoke -- having recently experienced 7+ straight days of worst-on-the-planet air quality owing to the Holiday Farm fire. 

Still, forests need to be tended, restored and even expanded -- unless important albedo efforts thereby would be compromised -- as we seek to reduce excess atmospheric CO2 and restore energy balance.

Dan

[Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas]

A note on pyrolysis involving the removal of forest organics. This is not recommended as 1) those organics are needed by forests soils, even if they are excessive from woody material die-off. Removing them robs the forest of carbon that should remain in the forest carbon loop, especially in times of increased forest stress from warming and drying, and 2) in a warmer climate soil evaporation is a critical aspect of forest regeneration. Organic surface debris act as a mulch to limit evaporation. Forests are already failing to regenerate after fire because of excessive evaporation induced by warming. This relationship can quite likely extend to forest kill from insects and disease. See Stevens-Rumann below.

Increasing fire intensity and burned area are not caused by excess forest debris. In our old climate yes, of course, but in our new climate, warming-caused evaporation and associated drier fuels, and warming-caused increased ignition, both dwarf fire response from increased forest floor fuel load. See Williams below. (CalFire has stated that fires are now burning 400 degrees F hotter - yikes!)

Relative to the health of our forests to regenerate and provide ecosystems services for carbon removal, protecting the built environment can and should proceed based upon established fire protection strategies.

And the bottom line: it will not likely be possible to save our forests in a meaningful way with any amount of preservation efforts unless we reduce current warming to below the explosive fire thresholds we have witnessed lately. Mother Nature has an almost unlimited capacity to become more extreme, and we have only seen a half degree C warming above the maximum natural variability limit of about 0.5 degrees C above normal in our old climate where our forests evolved.

Beyond California, did you all realize that two weeks ago in Colorado, the three biggest fires ever recorded there were all active?

Yeesh,

B

Post-fire regeneration, regrowth, forest recovery – One third of burned forests are not regenerating at all… "For sites burned at the end of the 20th century vs. the first decade of the 21st century, the proportion of sites meeting or exceeding pre-fire tree densities (e.g. recruitment threshold of 100%) decreased by nearly half (from 70 to 46%) and the percentage of sites experiencing no post-fire tree regeneration nearly doubled (from 19 to 32%)… This negative relationship demonstrates the potential increased vulnerability and lack of resilience on hotter and drier sites, or of dry forest species, to climate warming… Tree seedlings may establish in response to short-term anomalous wetter periods in the future, but our results highlight that such conditions have become significantly less common since 2000, and they are expected to be less likely in the future…  Further, persistent or long-lasting vegetation changes following wildfires have been observed worldwide."

Stevens-Rumann et al., Evidence for declining forest resilience to wildfires under climate, Ecology Letters, December 12, 2017. (paywall)
Press Release, University of Montana -
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-12/tuom-sfr121317.php

Climate Change Caused Wildfires: Columbia University, University of Idaho, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of Colorado Boulder... "During 1972–2018, California experienced a fivefold increase in annual burned area, mainly due to more than an eightfold increase in summer forest‐fire extent. Increased summer forest‐fire area very likely occurred due to increased atmospheric aridity caused by warming. Since the early 1970s, warm‐season days warmed by approximately 1.4 °C as part of a centennial warming trend, significantly increasing the atmospheric vapor pressure deficit (VPD). These trends are consistent with anthropogenic trends simulated by climate models. The response of summer forest‐fire area to VPD is exponential, meaning that warming has grown increasingly impactful. Robust interannual relationships between VPD and summer forest‐fire area strongly suggest that nearly all of the increase in summer forest‐fire area during 1972–2018 was driven by increased VPD. Climate change effects on summer wildfire were less evident in nonforested lands. In fall, wind events and delayed onset of winter precipitation are the dominant promoters of wildfire. While these variables did not change much over the past century, background warming and consequent fuel drying is increasingly enhancing the potential for large fall wildfires. Among the many processes important to California's diverse fire regimes, warming‐driven fuel drying is the clearest link between anthropogenic climate change and increased California wildfire activity to date."

Williams et al., Observed Impacts of Anthropogenic Climate Change on Wildfire in California, American Geophysical Union, Earths Future, August 4, 2019
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2019EF001210

400 degrees hotter... By David Wallace-Wells, NYMag, May 12, 2019.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/los-angeles-fire-season-will-never-end.html

Bruce Melton PE
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CH2PR03MB5334183A4C6D479979CFB7BEDB150%40CH2PR03MB5334.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.