IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i4p436-d539399.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Howland Forest, ME, USA: Multi-Gas Flux (CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O) Social Cost Product Underscores Limited Carbon Proxies

Author

Listed:
  • Bruno D. V. Marino

    (Executive Management, Planetary Emissions Management Inc., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA)

  • Nahuel Bautista

    (Executive Management, Planetary Emissions Management Inc., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA)

  • Brandt Rousseaux

    (Executive Management, Planetary Emissions Management Inc., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA)

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 CO 2 eddy covariance research with limited methodological comparisons. Non-CO 2 greenhouse gases (GHG) (e.g., CH 4 , N 2 O) 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 CO 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 O by eddy covariance and forest carbon estimation protocols at the Howland Forest, ME, the only site where these methods overlap. Limitations of proxy-based protocols, including the exclusion of sink terms for non-CO 2 GHGs, applied to the Howland project preclude multi-gas forest products. In contrast, commercial products based on direct measurement are established by applying molecule-specific social cost factors to emission reductions creating a new forest offset (GHG-SCF), integrating multiple gases into a single value of merit for forest management of global warming. Estimated annual revenue for GHG-SCF products, applicable to the realization of a Green New Deal, range from ~$120,000 USD covering the site area of ~557 acres in 2021 to ~$12,000,000 USD for extrapolation to 40,000 acres in 2040, assuming a 3% discount rate. In contrast, California Air Resources Board compliance carbon offsets determined by the Climate Action Reserve protocol show annual errors of up to 2256% relative to eddy covariance data from two adjacent towers across the project area. Incomplete carbon accounting, offset over-crediting and inadequate independent offset verification are consistent with error results. The GHG-SCF product contributes innovative science-to-commerce applications incentivizing restoration and conservation of forests worldwide to assist in the management of global warming.

Suggested Citation

  • Bruno D. V. Marino & Nahuel Bautista & Brandt Rousseaux, 2021. "Howland Forest, ME, USA: Multi-Gas Flux (CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O) Social Cost Product Underscores Limited Carbon Proxies," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:4:p:436-:d:539399
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/4/436/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/4/436/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alex L. Marten & Elizabeth A. Kopits & Charles W. Griffiths & Stephen C. Newbold & Ann Wolverton, 2015. "Incremental CH 4 and N 2 O mitigation benefits consistent with the US Government's SC-CO 2 estimates," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 272-298, March.
    2. Jonah Busch & Jens Engelmann & Susan C. Cook-Patton & Bronson W. Griscom & Timm Kroeger & Hugh Possingham & Priya Shyamsundar, 2019. "Potential for low-cost carbon dioxide removal through tropical reforestation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(6), pages 463-466, June.
    3. Thomas Daniels, 2010. "Integrating Forest Carbon Sequestration Into a Cap-and-Trade Program to Reduce Net CO Emissions," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(4), pages 463-475.
    4. Sébastien Costedoat & Esteve Corbera & Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Jordi Honey-Rosés & Kathy Baylis & Miguel Angel Castillo-Santiago, 2015. "How Effective Are Biodiversity Conservation Payments in Mexico?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-20, March.
    5. Nahuel Bautista & Bruno D. V. Marino & J. William Munger, 2021. "Science to Commerce: A Commercial-Scale Protocol for Carbon Trading Applied to a 28-Year Record of Forest Carbon Monitoring at the Harvard Forest," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-22, February.
    6. Cacho, Oscar J. & Lipper, Leslie & Moss, Jonathan, 2013. "Transaction costs of carbon offset projects: A comparative study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 232-243.
    7. Kerchner, Charles D. & Keeton, William S., 2015. "California's regulatory forest carbon market: Viability for northeast landowners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 70-81.
    8. Barbara Haya & Danny Cullenward & Aaron L. Strong & Emily Grubert & Robert Heilmayr & Deborah A. Sivas & Michael Wara, 2020. "Managing uncertainty in carbon offsets: insights from California’s standardized approach," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(9), pages 1112-1126, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Špirić, Jovanka & Salinas-Melgoza, Miguel Angel & Merlo-Reyes, Ana & Ramírez, M. Isabel, 2023. "Estimating the causal effect of forestry programs on forest recovery in a REDD+ priority area in Michoacán, Mexico," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    2. Gren, Ing-Marie & Zeleke, Abenezer Aklilu, 2016. "Policy design for forest carbon sequestration: A review of the literature," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 128-136.
    3. Gwenolé Le Velly & Alexandre Sauquet & Sergio Cortina-Villar, 2017. "PES Impact and Leakages over Several Cohorts: The Case of the PSA-H in Yucatan, Mexico," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 93(2), pages 230-257.
    4. Alix-Garcia, Jennifer M. & Sims, Katharine R.E. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2019. "Using referenda to improve targeting and decrease costs of conditional cash transfers," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 179-194.
    5. Yunfei An & Xunpeng Shi & Qunwei Wang & Jian Yu & Dequn Zhou & Xiaoyong Zhou, 2023. "China's manufacturing firms' willingness to pay for carbon abatement: A cost perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(8), pages 5477-5486, December.
    6. McCann, Laura, 2013. "Transaction costs and environmental policy design," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 253-262.
    7. Phan, Thu-Ha Dang & Brouwer, Roy & Hoang, Long Phi & Davidson, Marc David, 2017. "A comparative study of transaction costs of payments for forest ecosystem services in Vietnam," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 141-149.
    8. Edward B. Barbier & Joanne C. Burgess, 2021. "Sustainable Use of the Environment, Planetary Boundaries and Market Power," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-19, January.
    9. McGrath, Luke & Hynes, Stephen & McHale, John, 2019. "Augmenting the World Bank's estimates: Ireland's genuine savings through boom and bust," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Ke Zhang & Jing Qian & Zhenhua Zhang & Shijiao Fang, 2023. "The Impact of Carbon Trading Pilot Policy on Carbon Neutrality: Empirical Evidence from Chinese Cities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-23, March.
    11. Ross, Cody T., 2016. "Sliding-scale environmental service payments and non-financial incentives: Results of a survey of landowner interest in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 252-262.
    12. Michael K McCall & Noah Chutz & Margaret Skutsch, 2016. "Moving from Measuring, Reporting, Verification (MRV) of Forest Carbon to Community Mapping, Measuring, Monitoring (MMM): Perspectives from Mexico," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-22, June.
    13. Natalie Warzywoda & Paul Dargusch & Genia Hill, 2022. "How Meaningful Are Modest Carbon Emissions Reductions Targets? The Case of Sumitomo Electrical Group’s Short-Term Targets towards Longer-Term Net Zero," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-10, April.
    14. Parisa, Zack & Marland, Eric & Sohngen, Brent & Marland, Gregg & Jenkins, Jennifer, 2022. "The time value of carbon storage," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    15. Gabriela Simonet & Julie Subervie & Driss Ezzine-De-Blas & Marina Cromberg & Amy Duchelle, 2015. "Paying smallholders not to cut down the amazon forest: impact evaluation of a REDD+ pilot project," Working Papers 1514, Chaire Economie du climat.
    16. De Cara, Stéphane & Henry, Loïc & Jayet, Pierre-Alain, 2018. "Optimal coverage of an emission tax in the presence of monitoring, reporting, and verification costs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 71-93.
    17. Jean-Marc Blazy & Julie Subervie & Jacky Paul & François Causeret & Loic Guinde & Sarah Moulla & Alban Thomas & Jorge Sierra, 2020. "Ex ante assessment of the cost-effectiveness of Agri-Environmental Schemes promoting compost use to sequester carbon in soils in Guadeloupe," CEE-M Working Papers hal-02748634, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    18. Jun Zhou & Silas W. Bollen & Eric M. Roy & David Y. Hollinger & Ting Wang & John T. Lee & Daniel Obrist, 2023. "Comparing ecosystem gaseous elemental mercury fluxes over a deciduous and coniferous forest," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-9, December.
    19. Cauê Carrilho & Gabriela Demarchi & Amy Duchelle & Sven Wunder & Carla Morsello, 2022. "Permanence of avoided deforestation in a Transamazon REDD+ initiative (Pará, Brazil)," CEE-M Working Papers hal-03614704, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    20. Carrilho, Cauê D. & Demarchi, Gabriela & Duchelle, Amy E. & Wunder, Sven & Morsello, Carla, 2022. "Permanence of avoided deforestation in a Transamazon REDD+ project (Pará, Brazil)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:4:p:436-:d:539399. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.