Quantifying the Carbon Sequestration Costs for Pinus elliottii Afforestation Project of China Greenhouse Gases Voluntary Emission Reduction Program: A Case Study in Jiangxi Province

Abstract

Afforestation and reforestation (AR) is an important component of China’s Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Voluntary Emission Reduction Program, acting as a valuable nationwide carbon sink. Although a number of studies have explored the costs of creating a carbon sink, such an assessment is lacking for China’s GHG Voluntary Emissions Reduction Program. This study develops an economic carbon sink costs measurement model for the Pinus elliottii afforestation project, based on the land opportunity cost method, which incorporates carbon sink transaction costs and leakage costs. From this, an empirical analysis on the carbon sink costs and its sensitivity factors was conducted. The results show that, firstly, the carbon sequestration costs of afforestation projects are generally high, ranging from 44.2 Yuan/tCO2e to 425.4 Yuan/tCO2e with and without considering the benefits of wood, respectively. This is higher than the current average carbon sink price of 20 Yuan/tCO2e. Secondly, forestry carbon sink transaction costs have a positive impact on carbon sequestration costs, but the impact is weak. Thirdly, carbon sequestration costs are negatively affected by timber prices but positively influenced by increasing labor prices and discount rate, which is not conductive to the development of carbon sink afforestation projects. In order to strengthen role of forestry in combating climate change, the study holds that the government departments should take measures to reduce carbon sink transaction costs, establish and improve the forestry carbon sink compensation mechanism in the future, and encourage wood-processing companies to make technological innovations to produce and sell durable wood products. The project owners can explore multiple operating models to increase their revenue, including market and non-market benefits, when the carbon sink afforestation project has been launched according to relevant methodologies.

Carbon Sink Cost and Influence Factors Analysis in a National Afforestation Project under Different Investment Modes

“…Although the results of their research have a certain reference significance, they can hardly help to identify the occasions that different tree species and investment mode applied to reduce the cost. The current market price of carbon sink is 2.09-13.43 USD/t [6], which is much lower than calculated carbon sink costs in most cases, especially for PPP mode. This shows that PPP mode cannot effectively reduce carbon sink costs and attract enterprise investment at present in constructing NAPs of China.…”

“…Studies have indicated that forest trees generally absorb 1.83 tons of carbon dioxide and release 1.62 tons of oxygen per cubic meter of growth [5]. Compared with reducing greenhouse gas emissions, forest carbon sinks have obvious cost advantages [6]. At present, forests are regarded as not only an important ecosystem for our human beings, but also the major carbon sink pathway for mitigating climate change.…”

“…Guo et al [18] used a partial equilibrium model to estimate the impacts of carbon price on timber harvest volume and price in different time periods and on the change of forest carbon stock over time in Sweden. Cao et al [6] developed an economic carbon sink cost measurement model for the Pinus elliottii afforestation project. These studies estimated the forest carbon sink cost and analyzed the impacts of key factors based on the proposed model.…”

A novel optimization method of carbon reduction strategies implementation for industrial parks

“…According to published research findings, the typical values for variables a, b, and c in certain humid continental monsoon climate regions of southern China, as stated in Eq. 3.12, are as follows (Jia et al, 2010;Cao et al, 2020)…”

“…ΔC CCER,t ΔC TREE PROJ,t C TREE PROJ,t2 − C TREE PROJ,t1 t 2 − t 1 , t 1 ≤ t ≤ t 2 (3.9)Furthermore, C TREE PROJ,t can be calculated as the product of biomass, carbon content rate, and the molecular weight fraction of C element in CO 2 , can illustrated asCao et al, 2020: …”