Forest management options for sequestering carbon in Mexico

Masera, Omar; Bellon, Mauricio R.; Segura, Gerardo

doi:10.1016/0961-9534(95)00028-3

Cited by 34 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most early cost estimates were in the range of $US 1-$US 50 per ton of carbon (tC), or $0.27-$13.64 per ton of tCO 2 . 13 For example, Dixon et al (1994) estimated the cost to range from $4 to $41 per tC ($1.09-$11.18/tCO 2 ) in Brazil, while Masera et al (1995) estimated it to be $10-$35/tC ($2.73-$9.55/tCO 2 ) in Mexico. Point estimates of carbon sequestration costs were and are widely used in developing country studies, with analyses have been carried out in China (Xu 1995), Brazil (Fearnside 1995), and India (TERI 1997;Poffenberger et al 2001), among others.…”

Section: Forest Activities That Generate Carbon Offsetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economics of Forest Ecosystem Carbon Sinks: A Review

Kooten

Sohngen

2007

IRERE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carbon terrestrial sinks are seen as a low-cost alternative to fuel switching and reduced fossil fuel use for lowering atmospheric CO 2 . In this study, we review issues related to the use of terrestrial forestry activities to create CO 2 offset credits. To gain a deeper understanding of the confusing empirical studies of forest projects to create carbon credits under Kyoto, we employ meta-regression analysis to analyze conditions under which forest activities generate CO 2 -emission reduction offsets at competitive "prices." In particular, we examine 68 studies of the costs of creating carbon offsets using forestry. Baseline estimates of costs of sequestering carbon are some US$3-$280 per tCO 2 , indicating that the costs of creating CO 2 -emission offset credits through forestry activities vary wildly. Intensive plantations in the tropics could potentially yield positive benefits to society, but in Europe similar projects could cost as much as $195/tCO 2 . Indeed, Europe is the highest cost region, with costs in the range of $50-$280 per tCO 2 . This might explain why Europe has generally opposed biological sinks as a substitute for emissions reductions, while countries rush to finance forestry sector clean development mechanism projects. In Canada and the U.S., carbon sequestration costs range from a low of about $2 to nearly $80 per tCO 2 . One conclusion is obvious: some forestry projects to sequester carbon are worthwhile undertaking, but certainly not all. * The authors wish to thank Tom Tietenberg, Henk Folmer, Peter Parks, Bengt Kriström, Zhou Wenchou, and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments and suggestions; Alison Eagle, Karen Crawford, Qian Chen, and Linda Voss for their research assistance; and BIOCAP/SSHRC and the SFM Network for funding support.

show abstract

Section: Forest Activities That Generate Carbon Offsetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economics of Forest Ecosystem Carbon Sinks: A Review

Kooten

Sohngen

2007

IRERE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Se encontraron 3,24 t/ha/año en la biomasa aérea en plantaciones de siete años de edad en Costa Rica (Leblanc et al, 2006) y 6,1 t/ha/año en plantaciones de nueve años en Filipinas (Pulhin et al, 2014). En comparación con la mayoría de los cultivos tropicales, la palma de aceite tiene un alto potencial para la captura de C, similar a las plantaciones forestales y agroforestales, las cuales alcanzan a almacenar de 40 a 130 toneladas de C, sin embargo, los bosques pueden almacenar hasta 170 t/ha, la selva puede almacenar de 90 a 165 t/ha y los acahuales hasta 280 t/ha (Adger et al, 1995;Masera et al, 1995;Torres y Guevara, 2002). Por lo tanto, los bosques, las selvas, los acahuales y las plantaciones agroforestales, son los únicos sistemas reportados que superan el potencial de captura de C de la palma de aceite.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Captura de carbono en la biomasa aérea de la palma de aceite en Chiapas, México

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chiapas, Mexico, occupies the first place in surface and production of oil palm, as an alternative to mitigate climate change, for the potential of perennial crops to fix in their biomass the carbon (C) that is released in the form of environmental CO2. The objective of this work was to measure the carbon captured in the aerial fraction of the oil palm plant (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.). The study was conducted from January 2016 to June 2017 in three producing regions; where to twenty-one plants of twelve years on average, the stipe biomass was determined using the truncated cone technique, while for the leaves the equivalence of 65% of the biomass of the stipe was used. With these data, a descriptive statistic was made to know the biomass values. The amount of C was determined by the Walkley and Black method modified by UV spectrophotometry. The accumulated biomass per plant was 1877.30 kg, representing 268.45 t/ha with an average density of 143 plants/ha. 49.35% and 44.15% were carbon in stipe and leaves, respectively; therefore, the quantity of this element was 877.64 kg of carbon per plant, which represented 125.5 t/ha. An allometric equation was generated estimating the biomass from the volume of the stipe (y = 243.86 + 990.61x), as well as for the amount of carbon from the biomass (y = 149.07 + 0.39x). Two allometric models were determined with the data obtained from oil palm cultivation, which is suggested to be evaluated in the field to determine the degree of reliability in the estimation of biomass and carbon stored under the agroclimatic conditions similar to those of the present study.

show abstract

“…While some researchers analyzed the potential costs of forestry CS programs at a global scale (Nordhaus, 1991;IPCC, 2000;Sohngen and Mendelsohn, 2001), others conducted their studies based on climate zones or continents (Dixon et al, 1991;Houghton et al, 1993). There are also several cost studies analyzing forestry CS costs for a nation or a province/state (van Kooten et al, 1992;Masera et al, 1995;Xu, 1995;Alig et al, 1997;Stavins, 1999).…”

Section: Cost Of Forestry Csmentioning

confidence: 97%