IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0230424.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Potential greenhouse gas reductions from Natural Climate Solutions in Oregon, USA

Author

Listed:
  • Rose A Graves
  • Ryan D Haugo
  • Andrés Holz
  • Max Nielsen-Pincus
  • Aaron Jones
  • Bryce Kellogg
  • Cathy Macdonald
  • Kenneth Popper
  • Michael Schindel

Abstract

Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are causing global climate change and decreasing the stability of the climate system. Long-term solutions to climate change will require reduction in GHG emissions as well as the removal of large quantities of GHGs from the atmosphere. Natural climate solutions (NCS), i.e., changes in land management, ecosystem restoration, and avoided conversion of habitats, have substantial potential to meet global and national greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets and contribute to the global drawdown of GHGs. However, the relative role of NCS to contribute to GHG reduction at subnational scales is not well known. We examined the potential for 12 NCS activities on natural and working lands in Oregon, USA to reduce GHG emissions in the context of the state’s climate mitigation goals. We evaluated three alternative scenarios wherein NCS implementation increased across the applicable private or public land base, depending on the activity, and estimated the annual GHG reduction in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) attributable to NCS from 2020 to 2050. We found that NCS within Oregon could contribute annual GHG emission reductions of 2.7 to 8.3 MMT CO2e by 2035 and 2.9 to 9.8 MMT CO2e by 2050. Changes in forest-based activities including deferred timber harvest, riparian reforestation, and replanting after wildfires contributed most to potential GHG reductions (76 to 94% of the overall annual reductions), followed by changes to agricultural management through no-till, cover crops, and nitrogen management (3 to 15% of overall annual reductions). GHG reduction benefits are relatively high per unit area for avoided conversion of forests (125–400 MT CO2e ha-1). However, the existing land use policy in Oregon limits the current geographic extent of active conversion of natural lands and thus, avoided conversions results in modest overall potential GHG reduction benefits (i.e., less than 5% of the overall annual reductions). Tidal wetland restoration, which has high per unit area carbon sequestration benefits (8.8 MT CO2e ha-1 yr-1), also has limited possible geographic extent resulting in low potential (

Suggested Citation

  • Rose A Graves & Ryan D Haugo & Andrés Holz & Max Nielsen-Pincus & Aaron Jones & Bryce Kellogg & Cathy Macdonald & Kenneth Popper & Michael Schindel, 2020. "Potential greenhouse gas reductions from Natural Climate Solutions in Oregon, USA," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-30, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0230424
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230424
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0230424
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0230424&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0230424?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sonja Klinsky, 2013. "Bottom-up policy lessons emerging from the Western Climate Initiative's development challenges," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 143-169, March.
    2. Latta, Gregory S. & Adams, Darius M. & Bell, Kathleen P. & Kline, Jeffrey D., 2016. "Evaluating land-use and private forest management responses to a potential forest carbon offset sales program in western Oregon (USA)," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 1-8.
    3. Havstad, Kris M. & Peters, Debra P.C. & Skaggs, Rhonda & Brown, Joel & Bestelmeyer, Brandon & Fredrickson, Ed & Herrick, Jeffrey & Wright, Jack, 2007. "Ecological services to and from rangelands of the United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 261-268, December.
    4. Kline, Jeffrey D. & Alig, Ralph J. & Johnson, Rebecca L., 2000. "Forest owner incentives to protect riparian habitat," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 29-43, April.
    5. Khanal, Puskar N. & Grebner, Donald L. & Straka, Thomas J. & Adams, Damian C., 2019. "Obstacles to participation in carbon sequestration for nonindustrial private forest landowners in the southern United States: A diffusion of innovations perspective," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 95-101.
    6. Michael Obersteiner & Johannes Bednar & Fabian Wagner & Thomas Gasser & Philippe Ciais & Nicklas Forsell & Stefan Frank & Petr Havlik & Hugo Valin & Ivan A. Janssens & Josep Peñuelas & Guido Schmidt-T, 2018. "How to spend a dwindling greenhouse gas budget," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 7-10, January.
      • Michael Obersteiner & Johannes Bednar & Fabian Wagner & Thomas Gasser & Philippe Ciais & Nicklas Forsell & Stefan Frank & Petr Havlík & Hugo Valin & Ivan Janssens & Josep Penuelas & Guido Schmidt-Trau, 2018. "How to spend a dwindling greenhouse gas budget," Post-Print hal-02895061, HAL.
    7. Ribaudo, Marc & Delgado, Jorge & Hansen, LeRoy T. & Livingston, Michael J. & Mosheim, Roberto & Williamson, James M., 2011. "Nitrogen in Agricultural Systems: Implications for Conservation Policy," Economic Research Report 118022, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    8. Kristina J. Anderson-Teixeira & Peter K. Snyder & Tracy E. Twine & Santiago V. Cuadra & Marcos H. Costa & Evan H. DeLucia, 2012. "Climate-regulation services of natural and agricultural ecoregions of the Americas," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(3), pages 177-181, March.
    9. Thomas Hale, 2016. "“All Hands on Deck”: The Paris Agreement and Nonstate Climate Action," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(3), pages 12-22, August.
    10. Latta, Gregory & Adams, Darius M. & Alig, Ralph J. & White, Eric, 2011. "Simulated effects of mandatory versus voluntary participation in private forest carbon offset markets in the United States," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 127-141, April.
    11. Derek W. Thompson & Eric N. Hansen, 2012. "Institutional Pressures and an Evolving Forest Carbon Market," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(6), pages 351-369, September.
    12. Ruth, Matthias & Gabriel, Steven A. & Palmer, Karen L. & Burtraw, Dallas & Paul, Anthony & Chen, Yihsu & Hobbs, Benjamin F. & Irani, Daraius & Michael, Jeffrey & Ross, Kim M. & Conklin, Russell & Mill, 2008. "Economic and energy impacts from participation in the regional greenhouse gas initiative: A case study of the State of Maryland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 2279-2289, June.
    13. Angel Hsu & Niklas Höhne & Takeshi Kuramochi & Mark Roelfsema & Amy Weinfurter & Yihao Xie & Katharina Lütkehermöller & Sander Chan & Jan Corfee-Morlot & Philip Drost & Pedro Faria & Ann Gardiner & Da, 2019. "A research roadmap for quantifying non-state and subnational climate mitigation action," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 11-17, January.
    14. Brent Sohngen & Sandra Brown, 2008. "Extending timber rotations: carbon and cost implications," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(5), pages 435-451, September.
    15. Zaher, U. & Stöckle, C. & Painter, K. & Higgins, S., 2013. "Life cycle assessment of the potential carbon credit from no- and reduced-tillage winter wheat-based cropping systems in Eastern Washington State," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 73-78.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas Buchholz & John Gunn & Bruce Springsteen & Gregg Marland & Max Moritz & David Saah, 2022. "Probability-based accounting for carbon in forests to consider wildfire and other stochastic events: synchronizing science, policy, and carbon offsets," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 1-21, January.
    2. Vidya Anderson & Matej Zgela & William A. Gough, 2023. "Building Urban Resilience with Nature-Based Solutions: A Multi-Scale Case Study of the Atmospheric Cleansing Potential of Green Infrastructure in Southern Ontario, Canada," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-17, September.
    3. Gordon N. Merrick, 2021. "A Lens for Analysis of Payment for Ecosystem Services Systems: Transitioning the Working Lands Economic Sector from Extractive Industry to Regenerative System," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    4. Graves, Rose A. & Nielsen-Pincus, Max & Haugo, Ryan D. & Holz, Andrés, 2022. "Forest carbon incentive programs for non-industrial private forests in Oregon (USA): Impacts of program design on willingness to enroll and landscape-scale program outcomes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).

    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. Lauren Gifford, 2020. "“You can’t value what you can’t measure”: a critical look at forest carbon accounting," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 161(2), pages 291-306, July.
    2. Graves, Rose A. & Nielsen-Pincus, Max & Haugo, Ryan D. & Holz, Andrés, 2022. "Forest carbon incentive programs for non-industrial private forests in Oregon (USA): Impacts of program design on willingness to enroll and landscape-scale program outcomes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    3. Benjamin M. Abraham, 2021. "Ideology and non-state climate action: partnering and design of REDD+ projects," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 669-690, December.
    4. Nepal, Prakash & Ince, Peter J. & Skog, Kenneth E. & Chang, Sun J., 2013. "Forest carbon benefits, costs and leakage effects of carbon reserve scenarios in the United States," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 286-306.
    5. Katherine Romanak & Mathias Fridahl & Tim Dixon, 2021. "Attitudes on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as a Mitigation Technology within the UNFCCC," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, January.
    6. Kline, Jeffrey D. & Houston, Laurie L. & Gray, Andrew N. & Monleon, Vicente, 2021. "Evaluating empirical evidence for housing development effects on the management of remaining private-owned forest in the U.S," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    7. Philipp Pattberg & Cille Kaiser & Oscar Widerberg & Johannes Stripple, 2022. "20 Years of global climate change governance research: taking stock and moving forward," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 295-315, June.
    8. Joshua W. Busby & Johannes Urpelainen, 2020. "Following the Leaders? How to Restore Progress in Global Climate Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(4), pages 99-121, Autumn.
    9. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Lee, Juhee & Roberts, Roland & Yu, Edward T. & Armsworth, Paul R., 2018. "Impact of market conditions on the effectiveness of payments for forest-based carbon sequestration," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 33-42.
    10. Miguel RIVIERE & Sylvain CAURLA, 2018. "Integrating non-timber objectives into bio-economic models of the forest sector: a review of recent innovations and current shortcomings," Working Papers of BETA 2018-26, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    11. Haim, David & White, Eric M. & Alig, Ralph J., 2014. "Permanence of agricultural afforestation for carbon sequestration under stylized carbon markets in the U.S," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 12-21.
    12. Joshua Philipp Elsässer & Thomas Hickmann & Sikina Jinnah & Sebastian Oberthür & Thijs Graaf, 2022. "Institutional interplay in global environmental governance: lessons learned and future research," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 373-391, June.
    13. Pouta, Eija & Myyra, Sami & Hanninen, Harri, 2009. "Heterogeneous farmland owners: two approaches for objective based classification," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 50787, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Taylor, Michael H. & Rollins, Kimberly, 2012. "Using Ecological Models to Coordinate Valuation of Ecological Change on Western Rangelands for ex post Application to Policy Analysis," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9.
    15. Monge, Juan J. & Bryant, Henry L. & Gan, Jianbang & Richardson, James W., 2016. "Land use and general equilibrium implications of a forest-based carbon sequestration policy in the United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 102-120.
    16. Soh, Moonwon & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yu, Edward & Boyer, Christopher & English, Burton, 2018. "Targeting Payments for Ecosystem Services Given Ecological and Economic Objectives," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266502, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    17. L. Gharis & J. Roise & J. McCarter, 2015. "A compromise programming model for developing the cost of including carbon pools and flux into forest management," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 232(1), pages 115-133, September.
    18. Jianhong Mu & Anne Wein & Bruce McCarl, 2015. "Land use and management change under climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies: a U.S. case study," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 20(7), pages 1041-1054, October.
    19. Matthew Houser, 2022. "Does adopting a nitrogen best management practice reduce nitrogen fertilizer rates?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 79-94, March.
    20. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Martiskainen, Mari, 2020. "Hot transformations: Governing rapid and deep household heating transitions in China, Denmark, Finland and the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0230424. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.