Comparison of registry methodologies for reporting carbon benefits for afforestation projects in the United States

Extending rotation age for carbon sequestration: A cross-protocol comparison of North American forest offsets

“…DOE was used as the reference methodology for carbon accounting, as it includes all carbon pools and accounts for no buffer, leakage, or uncertainty deductions, and therefore provides an implicit benchmark. This approach is consistent with that used by Galik et al (2009) andPearson et al (2008) in similar analyses. In doing so, we find large differences between accounting methodologies across every forest type (Fig.…”

“…As most forest-offset programs have been compiled and put into action in a relatively short time frame there has been minimal detailed analysis on the practical applications of these accounting methodologies. Both Galik et al (2009) and Pearson et al (2008) have shown that methodological differences can translate into significant variation in the amount of sequestration that can be claimed from a given project, but their findings are largely limited to similar sites or at most similar forest types within the study region. To address this crucial research gap, the analysis presented here compares creditable carbon sequestration potential stemming from rotation age extension across a full complement of 46 common North American forest types under three forest-offset methodologies:…”

Understanding the Factors Influencing Nonindustrial Private Forest Landowner Interest in Supplying Ecosystem Services in Cumberland Plateau, Tennessee

“…Nevertheless, those who were planning to bequeath forests to their descendants were also less willing to manage for carbon sequestration. A casual observation behind this result is that the carbon-offset programs generally require a long-term commitment, such as the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) program [59,60], which is not well suited to changes in ownership.…”

Carbon accounting: a systematic literature review

“…In the second treelike structure, the citation graph leads to Alig et al (1997) who concentrate on forest C sequestration programs. Analyzing the articles belonging to this cluster shows that they mainly focus on accounting for greenhouse gas offsets from land use change and forestry (for example, Murray et al, 2004;Galik et al, 2008;Pearson et al, 2008). The national scale is at the center of the third cluster.…”