2021
DOI: 10.3390/land10040436
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Howland Forest, ME, USA: Multi-Gas Flux (CO2, CH4, N2O) Social Cost Product Underscores Limited Carbon Proxies

Abstract: Forest carbon sequestration is a widely accepted natural climate solution. However, methods to determine net carbon offsets are based on commercial carbon proxies or CO2 eddy covariance research with limited methodological comparisons. Non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHG) (e.g., CH4, N2O) receive less attention in the context of forests, in part, due to carbon denominated proxies and to the cost for three-gas eddy covariance platforms. Here we describe and analyze results for direct measurement of CO2, CH4, and N2O … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…CFCPs appear to represent a variant of methods commonly employed to document and manage timber resources [65], however, a complex and expensive regulatory system is not required for timber management. This study emphasizes that complete carbon accounting is required to track and commercially monetize net forest carbon sequestration, regardless of protocol and specifications, and that improvements and alternatives to CFCPs should be considered and be subject to scientific peer-review [20].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…CFCPs appear to represent a variant of methods commonly employed to document and manage timber resources [65], however, a complex and expensive regulatory system is not required for timber management. This study emphasizes that complete carbon accounting is required to track and commercially monetize net forest carbon sequestration, regardless of protocol and specifications, and that improvements and alternatives to CFCPs should be considered and be subject to scientific peer-review [20].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Taken together with the statistical results suggesting that CFCP and NEE are likely drawn from different populations, the data confirm that CFCP structures and calculations delimit positive emissions to the atmosphere on an annual and daily carbon accounting basis. The unaccounted positive emissions represented by ecosystem respiration (Reco comprised of heterotrophic and autotrophic respiration) triggers automatic debits to the net forest carbon project offset ledger resulting in overcrediting of offsets [7], [20], [49]. Consequently, CFCP project offsets, unless proven otherwise, should be adjusted downward, or voided as the basis for valid material transactions, as previously reported [7], [9], [62]. )…”
Section: Table 1 Comparison Of Cfcp Features (Annotations Provided In Appendix 1)mentioning
confidence: 90%
See 3 more Smart Citations