A meta-regression analysis of forest carbon offset costs

Abstract

The main focus of efforts to mitigate climate change is on the avoidance of fossil fuel emissions. However, the Kyoto Protocol rules permit the use of forestry activities that create carbon offset credits. These could obviate the need for lifestyle-changing reductions in fossil fuel use. Therefore, it is necessary for policy purpose to determine the cost effectiveness of creating forest sink carbon credits. In this study, meta-regression analyses with 1047 observations from 68 studies are used to determine factors that affect carbon sequestration costs. Results indicate that forest plantations and use of harvested biomass for energy make forestry activities more attractive. It also turns out that forestry activities are competitive with emissions reduction in tropical regions and, perhaps, boreal regions but certainly not in Europe. Finally, the regression estimates are used to project the potential costs of carbon uptake for various forest management scenarios -costs range from 0 to over 200 US$/t CO2.Résumé : Le principal objectif des efforts visant à atténuer les changements climatiques consiste à éviter les émissions de combustibles fossiles. Cependant, les règles de le protocole de Kyoto permettent d'utiliser les activités forestières qui gén-èrent des crédits pour compenser les émissions de carbone, ce qui pourrait éviter de devoir réduire l'utilisation de combustibles fossiles qui entraînerait un changement de style de vie. Par conséquent, pour établir des politiques il est nécessaire de déterminer le rapport coût-efficacité de la création de crédits en utilisant la forêt comme puits de carbone. Dans cette étude, des analyses de méta-régression avec 1047 observations provenant de 68 études sont utilisées pour déterminer les facteurs qui influencent les coûts de séquestration du carbone. Les résultats indiquent que les plantations forestières et l'utilisation de la biomasse qui est récoltée pour produire de l'énergie rendent les activités forestières plus attrayantes. De plus, les activités forestières sont compétitives avec la réduction des émissions dans les régions tropicales et possiblement dans les régions boréales, mais certainement pas en Europe. Finalement, les estimations des régressions sont utilisées pour prédire le coût potentiel de la séquestration du carbone associé à différents scénarios d'aménagement forestier; les coûts varient de 0 à 200 $US par tonne de CO 2 .[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Renewable Energy from Forest Residues—How Greenhouse Gas Emission Offsets Can Make Fossil Fuel Substitution More Attractive

“…Our calculations of available GHG offset quantities and prices from fossil fuel substitution by residue biomass for bioenergy purposes generally agree with other estimates [14] and are comparable to the costs of other carbon offset options, such as carbon sequestration through forest conservation, tree planting, and agroforestry activities [65,66]. Note that our estimates of the amounts of GHG offsets from forest residues are conservative when compared with the literature due to the substitution-specific scope of this analysis.…”

Quantifying the impact of forest management on the carbon balance of the forest-wood product chain: A case study applied to even-aged oak stands in France

“…In spite of the difficulties related to carbon accountability (van Kooten et al, 2009), the Kyoto Protocol's official mechanisms and the voluntary carbon market that originates from private initiatives both represent efforts to create incentives for carbon sequestration in biomass (Balderas Torres et al, 2010). However, so far, the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol has only led to partial carbon accounting of forest ecosystems with many shortcomings, as reported by Shvidenko et al (2010).…”

On the economics of boreal Scots pine management under climate change

“…These marginal costs are rather low compared to the non-ETS sector marginal costs of €44·tCO2 -1 that were available at the time this paper was written (Ekholm 2010). Furthermore, the marginal costs are low compared to those reported in the meta-analysis by van Kooten et al (2009), where estimates for forest management adaptation are as high as $46-$209 (€34-€155)·tCO2 -1 . The fact that we find considerable carbon storage occurring at marginal costs as low as €6·tCO2 -1 , is a result of the simultaneous optimization of all relevant stand management variables using a highly-detailed economic-ecological model.…”

“…Furthermore, storing additional carbon in Finnish Scots pine stands appears to be a cost-efficient option for realizing the Finnish carbon abatement targets. In addition, the marginal costs of carbon storage are low compared to earlier forestry studies (Richards and Stokes 2004;van Kooten et al 2009). Finally, we investigate the economic rationale of afforestation in addition to stand-level carbon storage.…”