Forest offsets partner climate‐change mitigation with conservation

Abstract

Are forest offsets an effective way to address climate change, and do they provide other benefits? In some climate‐change mitigation policies, industries and individuals can purchase offsets that compensate for their greenhouse‐gas emissions by reducing emissions elsewhere. However, offsets may undermine mitigation efforts, by potentially giving carbon credits for emissions reductions that would have occurred even without the offset program in place. We evaluate California's forest offset program – the first‐ever legally enforceable “compliance” offset program for existing forests – to determine whether offsets (1) provide additional emissions reductions that would not have occurred without the program (called “additionality”) and (2) yield other benefits. We found that California's forest offset program, comprising a small portion of the state's mitigation portfolio, does not inhibit overall emissions reductions. Further, the program advances stringent “additionality” of emissions reductions through multiple mechanisms. Finally, mitigation through forest offsets can yield a suite of important co‐benefits. Lessons from California's experience with forest offsets can help to inform other offset programs that are increasingly being developed around the world.

Meeting GHG reduction targets requires accounting for all forest sector emissions

“…NECB is a good estimate of ecosystem carbon uptake, e.g. for carbon offsets programs (Anderson et al 2017), and can be compared spatially with changing environmental conditions or disturbances, but is an incomplete calculation of the entire forest sector emissions. It does not include emissions from wood products caused by machinery, transport, manufacturing and losses-emissions that can equal up to 85% of the total versus 15% from fire, insects, and land use change (Williams et al 2016).…”

“…Both reports emphasize the need to increase atmospheric CO 2 removal strategies by forests in addition to sustaining current forest carbon uptake (Houghton and Nassikas 2018). Some states in the US have set targets for reducing GHGs that include forest climate mitigation options (Anderson et al 2017, Law et al 2018, yet consistent, rigorous accounting methods are required for evaluating options. Challenges include determining the extent that forests, harvest operations, and wood products affect GHG budgets and emissions accountability.…”

Forest carbon offsets include co‐benefits and co‐detriments

“…The question is whether Chevron should meet its obligations to reduce carbon pollution at its refinery site in Richmond, or purchase credits from a conservation nonprofit or other distant landowners who own large forest tracts and can shoulder the legal and long-term monitoring costs associated with offsets. Indeed, the average size of an offset project reviewed by Anderson et al (2017) was >8950 ha. Of course, there may be instances where the combined direct benefits and co-benefits associated with forest offset projects are a sensible trade-off with the co-detriments associated with local exposure to fossil-fuel pollution.…”

“…Consequently, carbon trading is commonly criticized as a way to "outsource pollution" (Farber 2012). Anderson et al (2017) admitted that the current limit might allow ongoing on-site emissions, but they emphasized that purchases so far constitute just 2% of credits. While 2% may seem unthreatening, Weisberg (2017) estimated that at the current rate, $4.86 billion will be spent on offsets in California from 2017 through 2030, which could yield immense local benefits if spent on Forest carbon offsets include co-benefits and co-detriments Anderson et al (2017) asserted that forest offsets can help mitigate climate change by increasing the carbon sequestered by forests, while simultaneously yielding some conservation co-benefits.…”

“…Anderson et al (2017) admitted that the current limit might allow ongoing on-site emissions, but they emphasized that purchases so far constitute just 2% of credits. While 2% may seem unthreatening, Weisberg (2017) estimated that at the current rate, $4.86 billion will be spent on offsets in California from 2017 through 2030, which could yield immense local benefits if spent on Forest carbon offsets include co-benefits and co-detriments Anderson et al (2017) asserted that forest offsets can help mitigate climate change by increasing the carbon sequestered by forests, while simultaneously yielding some conservation co-benefits. Missing from their review was any discussion of the equally important co-detriments of forest offsets that persist in towns like Richmond, California, where more than one-third of residents in neighborhoods surrounding the Chevron petroleum refinery (Figure 1) live two times below the Federal Poverty Level (Contra Costa Health Services 2014).…”