Carbon budget of Ontario's managed forests and harvested wood products, 2001–2100

Chen, Jiaxin; Colombo, S. J.; Ter‐Mikaelian, Michael T.; Heath, Linda S.

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.01.007

Cited by 36 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To count the complete carbon budget, we should compute each part of it. Chen et al (2010) pointed out that process modeling and empirical modeling were the two main approaches used for forest carbon accounting. In this study, we computed carbon budget of each part by different methods or models.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For industrial carbon cycle, scientists analyzed its carbon cycle, and then computed HWP carbon storage and carbon emission from manufacturing, use and disposal processes (Skog and Nicholson, 1998;Apps et al, 1999;Lim et al, 1999;Schmid et al, 2006;Seidl et al, 2007). For the complete forest carbon cycle, scientists analyzed biological and industrial carbon cycle, and then accounted and combined their carbon budget together (Backeus et al, 2005;White et al, 2005;Woodbury et al, 2007;Hennigar et al, 2008;Chen et al, 2010). Based on over 100 papers, Hennigar et al (2008) divided these researches into five types: stand and forestlevel inventories, models of C sequestration and timber production, simulation of some effects of forest C sequestration, forest products C accounting, and forest products life-cycle and fate analyses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Complete forest carbon cycle and budget in China, 1999–2008

Lun

2012

Forest Ecology and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complete forest carbon cycle and budget in China, 1999–2008

Lun

2012

Forest Ecology and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Forest carbon dynamics related to timber harvesting for wood pellet production are assessed using the FORCARB-ON model (Chen et al, 2010). FORCARB-ON is a forest carbon model developed to assess carbon stocks under different management scenarios and has been used previously in assessing forest carbon impacts of bioenergy systems Ter-Mikaelian et al, 2012;Colombo et al, 2012).…”

Section: Forest Carbon Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Forest carbon accounting methods and the consequences of forest bioenergy for national greenhouse gas emissions inventories

McKechnie

Colombo

MacLean

2014

Environmental Science & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While bioenergy plays a key role in strategies for increasing renewable energy deployment, studies assessing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from forest bioenergy systems have identified a potential trade-off of the system with forest carbon stocks. Of particular importance to national GHG inventories is how trade-offs between forest carbon stocks and bioenergy production are accounted for within the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector under current and future international climate change mitigation agreements. Through a case study of electricity produced using wood pellets from harvested forest stands in Ontario, Canada, this study assesses the implications of forest carbon accounting approaches on net emissions attributable to pellets produced for domestic use or export. Particular emphasis is placed on the Forest Management Reference Level (FMRL) method, as it will be employed by most Annex I nations in the next Kyoto Protocol Commitment Period. While bioenergy production is found to reduce forest carbon sequestration, under the FMRL approach this trade-off may not be accounted for and thus not incur an accountable AFOLU-related emission, provided that total forest harvest remains at or below that defined under the FMRL baseline. In contrast, accounting for forest carbon trade-offs associated with harvest for bioenergy results in an increase in net GHG emissions (AFOLU and life cycle emissions) lasting 37 or 90 years (if displacing coal or natural gas combined cycle generation, respectively). AFOLU emissions calculated using the Gross-Net approach are dominated by legacy effects of past management and natural disturbance, indicating near-term net forest carbon increase but longer-term reduction in forest carbon stocks. Export of wood pellets to EU markets does not greatly affect the total life cycle GHG emissions of wood pellets. However, pellet exporting countries risk creating a considerable GHG emissions burden, as they are responsible for AFOLU and bioenergy production emissions but do not receive credit for pellets displacing fossil fuel-related GHG emissions. Countries producing bioenergy from forest biomass, whether for domestic use or for export, should carefully consider potential implications of alternate forest carbon accounting methods to ensure that potential bioenergy pathways can contribute to GHG emissions reduction targets.

show abstract

“…Sustainable forest management is intended to ensure that an acceptable balance is achieved among these choices. There are examples of forest management achieving both sustainability and increasing C storage, while allowing logging (GarciaGonzalo et al 2007, Neilson et al 2007, Chen et al 2010. Issues in land ownership and cost-allocations-to-benefits faced by forest-based communities can affect implementation of C offset projects (Michaelowa 2007, Pinkerton et al 2008.…”

Section: Factors In Decision-making For Forest Carbon Management and mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…to climate change mitigation must be based on an understanding of the size and mobility of forest C stocks. Forest C is present in live tree biomass, dead organic matter above ground and the forest floor, and forest soils (Kurz et al 2008), and, after harvest, in wood products and eventually in landfills (Chen et al 2010). Significant uncertainty exists about the size of forest C pools, including that in the above-ground boles of live trees.…”

Section: Factors In Decision-making For Forest Carbon Management and mentioning

confidence: 99%

Forest carbon management and carbon trading: A review of Canadian forest options for climate change mitigation

GoldenDenise¹,

ColomboStephen²

2011

The Forestry Chronicle

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forests have significant potential to mitigate climate change. Canada has 30% of the world's boreal forests. The ratification of the Kyoto Protocol commoditized carbon (C) on an international scale. To achieve Canada's emission reduction targets and mitigate climate change, the potential of forest C offset projects and forest C trading is being evaluated. Carbon trading and forest C management have economic and policy implications and potential trade-offs in other forest management objectives. We discuss how forest C management and trading can contribute to global efforts for atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions reduction through either utilization and/or conservation strategies.Key words: Canada, boreal forest, carbon management, carbon trading, climate change mitigation, forest carbon, forest conservation, forest management RÉSUMÉLes forêts sont tout à fait capables d'atténuer les changements climatiques. Le Canada détient 30% des forêts boréales de la planète. La ratification du Protocole de Kyoto a transformé le carbone (C) en un produit de base se transigeant partout dans le monde. Le potentiel des projets de crédits de C forestier et d' échange de C forestier destinés à permettre au Canada d'atteindre ses objectifs de réduction des émissions et d'atténuation des changements climatiques, fait l' objet d'une évalua-tion. Les échanges de C et la gestion du C forestier entraînent des répercussions économiques et politiques ainsi que des interactions potentielles avec d'autres objectifs d'aménagement forestier. Nous discutons comment la gestion du C forestier et ses échanges peuvent contribuer aux efforts globaux de réduction des gaz à effet de serre dans l'atmosphère en fonction de stratégies d'utilisation ou de conservation. Canada-wide, the forestland component of the LULUCF sector was a net sink of 77.5 Mt in 1990 (forest LULUCF removals greater than forest LULUCF emissions) but a source during 2002 to 2007 (emissions greater than removals). The recent trend of forests in the LULUCF sector being a source is due to natural disturbances, accentuated in recent years by the large-scale mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) outbreak in British Columbia and Alberta (Kurz et al. 2008), but also attributable to forest fires and wood removed from forests by harvest.The inclusion of removals by the LULUCF sector recognizes that biological C sinks store C absorbed by plants and that human activity (i.e., forestry and agriculture practices) can affect the size of these sinks. However, while the KP recognises the importance of forests as C sinks (Binkley et al. 2002), the potential to claim forests as a climate change mitigation measure, instead of efforts for reductions at emission sources (e.g., coal-fired electricity generation), was so contentious that comprehensive forestry-based mitigation activities were capped and limited in the early stages of KP negotiations (Purdon 2009). In addition, default KP accounting rules treat C in harvested wood as being completely released into the atmospher...

show abstract

Carbon budget of Ontario's managed forests and harvested wood products, 2001–2100

Cited by 36 publications

References 67 publications

Complete forest carbon cycle and budget in China, 1999–2008

Complete forest carbon cycle and budget in China, 1999–2008

Forest carbon accounting methods and the consequences of forest bioenergy for national greenhouse gas emissions inventories

Forest carbon management and carbon trading: A review of Canadian forest options for climate change mitigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About