An Optimal Control Model of Forest Carbon Sequestration

Sohngen, Brent; Mendelsohn, Robert

doi:10.1111/1467-8276.00133

Cited by 315 publications

(241 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

233

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Through the soft link of the economic model WITCH (Bosetti et al 2006;) and the forestry model GTM (Sohngen et al 1999;Sohngen and Sedjo 2000;Sohngen and Mendelsohn 2003;Daigneault, et al 2012) we analyse, in a dynamic framework, the demand for biomass from WITCH along with the supply of biomass from GTM. A BAU scenario is contrasted with three mitigation strategies that would lead to radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m 2 , 3.2 W/m 2 and 2.5 W/m 2 in 2100.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this section, we present the economic model WITCH (Bosetti et al 2006; and the forestry model GTM (Sohngen et al 1999;Sohngen and Sedjo 2000;Sohngen and Mendelsohn 2003;Daigneault et al 2012) that have been used for this analysis. We then describe the soft-link and the assumptions behind both models.…”

Section: Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…GTM has been soft linked with integrated assessment models before to calculate optimal sequestration programs (Sohngen et al 2003 andTavoni et al 2007). In this study, we soft link WITCH and GTM to study woody biomass.…”

Section: The Soft Linkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, their analyses lack a detailed description of the forestry sector which limits how accurately they capture woody biomass in their models. This paper addresses these shortcomings in the literature by combining a detailed global, dynamic model of forests (GTM) (Sohngen et al 1999;Sohngen and Sedjo 2000;Sohngen and Mendelsohn 2003;Daigneault et al 2012) with a sophisticated integrated assessment model of climate and energy (WITCH) (Bosetti et al 2006;). The combined model is then used to evaluate alternative mitigation strategies from modest to severe.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluating the Global Role of Woody Biomass as a Mitigation Strategy

Mendelsohn

2013

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As policy makers consider stringent targets for greenhouse gas emissions, integrated assessment models are increasingly relying on biomass energy as a critical energy source. However, it is not clear how much woody biomass to expect across time and across the planet. The integrated assessment models simply do not have enough detail about global forests and arable land to make careful forecasts of biomass supply over time. Integrating the complex dynamic demand for bioenergy from the IAMs with the complex dynamic structure of forests and forest supply is a daunting intertemporal task. This study examines the market for woody biomass by combining the integrated assessment model WITCH with the global dynamic forestry model GTM. Three carbon tax schedules are used to simulate different mitigation policies that lead to radiative forcing levels of 3.7, 3.2 and 2.5 W/m 2 and a baseline scenario with no mitigation policies. WITCH determines the demand for woody biomass and GTM determines the supply of woody biomass over time. Moving from a mild to stringent mitigation policy would increase the demand of woody biomass from 8.2 to 15.2 billion m 3 /yr while the international price of wood would increase 4 to 9 times relative to the baseline scenario by 2100. This would shrink the demand for industrial wood products from 80% to 90% with the biomass program. Forest area will expand by 70-95% leading to increased storage of 685-1,279 GtCO 2 in forest by 2100. Overall, the biomass program with the CCS technology plays a key contribution to overall GHG emission reductions in all scenarios contributing 20-27% of all mitigation for 2020-2100.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Soft Linkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluating the Global Role of Woody Biomass as a Mitigation Strategy

Mendelsohn

2013

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To accomplish this, we used the global land use model in Sohngen and Mendelsohn (2003). The 2003 version of the model was linked to the DICE (Dynamic Integrated Climate Economy) model (Nordhaus and Boyer 2000).…”

Section: Integration With Dynamic Forest and Land Use Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transaction costs for carbon sequestration projects in the tropical forest sector

Pearson

Brown

Sohngen³

et al. 2013

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is general consensus that carbon (C) sequestration projects in forests are a relatively low cost option for mitigating climate change, but most studies on the subject have assumed that transaction costs are negligible. The objectives of the study were to examine transaction costs for forest C sequestration projects and to determine the significance of the costs based on economic analyses. Here we examine four case studies of active C sequestration projects being implemented in tropical countries and developed for the C market. The results from the case studies were then used with a dynamic forest and land use economic model to investigate how transaction costs affect the efficiency and cost of forest C projects globally. In the case studies transaction costs ranged from 0.38 to 27 million US dollars ($0.09 to $7.71/t CO 2 ) or 0.3 to 270 % of anticipated income depending principally on the price of C and project size. The three largest cost categories were insurance (under the voluntary market; 41-89 % of total costs), monitoring (3-42 %) and regulatory approval (8-50 %). The global analysis indicated that most existing estimates of marginal costs of C sequestration are underestimated by up to 30 % because transaction costs were not included.

show abstract

Environmental and social impacts of carbon sequestration

Enríquez‐de‐Salamanca

2024

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change requires major mitigation efforts, mainly emission reduction. Carbon sequestration and avoided deforestation are complementary mitigation strategies that can promote nature conservation and local development but may also have undesirable impacts. We reviewed 246 articles citing impacts, risks, or concerns from carbon projects, and 78 others related to this topic. Most of the impacts cited focus on biodiversity, especially in afforestation projects, and on social effects related to avoided deforestation projects. Concerns were raised about project effectiveness, the permanence of carbon stored, and leakage. Recommendations include accounting for uncertainty, assessing both mitigation and contribution to climate change, defining permanence, creating contingency plans, promoting local projects, proposing alternative livelihoods, ensuring a fair distribution of benefits, combining timber production and carbon sequestration, ensuring sustainable development and minimizing leakage. A holistic approach that combines carbon sequestration, nature conservation, and poverty alleviation must be applied. The potential occurrence of negative impacts does not invalidate carbon projects but makes it advisable to conduct proper environmental impact assessments, considering direct and indirect impacts, minimizing the negative effects while maximizing the positive ones, and weighing the trade‐offs between them to guide decision‐making. Public participation and transparency are essential. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;00:1–27. © 2024 SETAC

show abstract

An Optimal Control Model of Forest Carbon Sequestration

Cited by 315 publications

References 17 publications

Evaluating the Global Role of Woody Biomass as a Mitigation Strategy

Evaluating the Global Role of Woody Biomass as a Mitigation Strategy

Transaction costs for carbon sequestration projects in the tropical forest sector

Environmental and social impacts of carbon sequestration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About