IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i2p163-d494524.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Science to Commerce: A Commercial-Scale Protocol for Carbon Trading Applied to a 28-Year Record of Forest Carbon Monitoring at the Harvard Forest

Author

Listed:
  • Nahuel Bautista

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

  • Bruno D. V. Marino

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

  • J. William Munger

    (Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA)

Abstract

Forest carbon sequestration offset protocols have been employed for more than 20 years with limited success in slowing deforestation and increasing forest carbon trading volume. Direct measurement of forest carbon flux improves quantification for trading but has not been applied to forest carbon research projects with more than 600 site installations worldwide. In this study, we apply carbon accounting methods, scaling hours to decades to 28-years of scientific CO 2 eddy covariance data for the Harvard Forest (US-Ha1), located in central Massachusetts, USA and establishing commercial carbon trading protocols and applications for similar sites. We illustrate and explain transactions of high-frequency direct measurement for CO 2 net ecosystem exchange (NEE, gC m −2 year −1 ) that track and monetize ecosystem carbon dynamics in contrast to approaches that rely on forest mensuration and growth models. NEE, based on eddy covariance methodology, quantifies loss of CO 2 by ecosystem respiration accounted for as an unavoidable debit to net carbon sequestration. Retrospective analysis of the US-Ha1 NEE times series including carbon pricing, interval analysis, and ton-year exit accounting and revenue scenarios inform entrepreneur, investor, and landowner forest carbon commercialization strategies. CO 2 efflux accounts for ~45% of the US-Ha1 NEE, an error of ~466% if excluded; however, the decades-old coupled human and natural system remains a financially viable net carbon sink. We introduce isoflux NEE for t 13 C 16 O 2 and t 12 C 18 O 16 O to directly partition and quantify daytime ecosystem respiration and photosynthesis, creating new soil carbon commerce applications and derivative products in contrast to undifferentiated bulk soil carbon pool approaches. Eddy covariance NEE methods harmonize and standardize carbon commerce across diverse forest applications including, a New England, USA regional eddy covariance network, the Paris Agreement, and related climate mitigation platforms.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:2:p:163-:d:494524
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/2/163/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/2/163/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard G. Newell & William A. Pizer & Daniel Raimi, 2013. "Carbon Markets 15 Years after Kyoto: Lessons Learned, New Challenges," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 123-146, Winter.
    2. Philip Fearnside & Daniel Lashof & Pedro Moura-Costa, 2000. "Accounting for time in Mitigating Global Warming through land-use change and forestry," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 239-270, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Rohan Best & Paul J. Burke & Frank Jotzo, 2020. "Carbon Pricing Efficacy: Cross-Country Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 69-94, September.
    5. R. Wehr & J. W. Munger & J. B. McManus & D. D. Nelson & M. S. Zahniser & E. A. Davidson & S. C. Wofsy & S. R. Saleska, 2016. "Seasonality of temperate forest photosynthesis and daytime respiration," Nature, Nature, vol. 534(7609), pages 680-683, June.
    6. Dragicevic, Arnaud & Lobianco, Antonello & Leblois, Antoine, 2016. "Forest planning and productivity-risk trade-off through the Markowitz mean-variance model," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 25-34.
    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. Jiawen Liu & Yue Liu & Jiayi Wang & Xinyue Chen & Liyuan Deng, 2025. "Valuing Carbon Assets for Sustainability: A Dual-Approach Assessment of China’s Certified Emission Reductions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-20, May.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    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. 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).
    2. Johan Lilliestam & Anthony Patt & Germán Bersalli, 2022. "On the quality of emission reductions: observed effects of carbon pricing on investments, innovation, and operational shifts. A response to van den Bergh and Savin (2021)," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 83(3), pages 733-758, November.
    3. Wildberg, Johannes & Möhring, Bernhard, 2019. "Empirical analysis of the economic effect of tree species diversity based on the results of a forest accountancy data network," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    4. H. Damon Matthews & Kirsten Zickfeld & Alexander Koch & Amy Luers, 2023. "Accounting for the climate benefit of temporary carbon storage in nature," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-10, December.
    5. Oscar J. Cacho & Robyn L. Hean & Russell M. Wise, 2003. "Carbon‐accounting methods and reforestation incentives," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(2), pages 153-179, June.
    6. Matthew Ranson & Robert N. Stavins, 2016. "Linkage of greenhouse gas emissions trading systems: learning from experience," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 284-300, April.
    7. Peifang Yang & Daniel T. Kaffine, 2016. "Community-Based Tradable Permits for Localized Pollution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 773-788, December.
    8. Stranlund, John K. & Murphy, James J. & Spraggon, John M. & Zirogiannis, Nikolaos, 2019. "Tying enforcement to prices in emissions markets: An experimental evaluation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    9. Frédéric Branger & Oskar Lecuyer & Philippe Quirion, 2015. "The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme: should we throw the flagship out with the bathwater?," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 9-16, January.
    10. Cong, Ren & Lo, Alex Y., 2017. "Emission trading and carbon market performance in Shenzhen, China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 414-425.
    11. Fearnside, Philip M., 2001. "Saving tropical forests as a global warming countermeasure: an issue that divides the environmental movement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 167-184, November.
    12. Melathopoulos, Andony P. & Stoner, Alexander M., 2015. "Critique and transformation: On the hypothetical nature of ecosystem service value and its neo-Marxist, liberal and pragmatist criticisms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 173-181.
    13. Liao, Ling & Diaz-Rainey, Ivan & Kuruppuarachchi, Duminda, 2025. "The interplay of carbon offset, renewable energy certificate and electricity markets in Australia," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    14. Michael A. Mehling & Gilbert E. Metcalf & Robert N. Stavins, 2025. "Linking Heterogeneous Climate Policies (Consistent with the Paris Agreement)," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Economics of Environment, Climate Change, and Wine Selected Papers of Robert N Stavins Volume 3 (2011–2023), chapter 24, pages 613-676, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. Frédéric Branger & Oskar Lecuyer & Philippe Quirion, 2013. "The European Union Emissions Trading System : should we throw the flagship out with the bathwater ?," Working Papers hal-00866408, HAL.
    16. Kohli, Deepti & Sinha, Pankaj, 2014. "A Review Paper on Carbon Trading," MPRA Paper 69455, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 30 Jan 2016.
    17. Stranlund, John K. & Murphy, James J. & Spraggon, John M., 2014. "Price controls and banking in emissions trading: An experimental evaluation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 71-86.
    18. Miko Kirschbaum, 2006. "Temporary Carbon Sequestration Cannot Prevent Climate Change," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 11(5), pages 1151-1164, September.
    19. Iversen, Sara V. & MacDonald, Michael A. & van der Velden, Naomi & van Soesbergen, Arnout & Convery, Ian & Mansfield, Lois & Holt, Claire D.S., 2024. "Using the Ecosystem Services assessment tool TESSA to balance the multiple landscape demands of increasing woodlands in a UK national park," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    20. Nikula Harri, 2020. "Instrument choice in the case of multiple externalities," Working Papers 2028, Tampere University, Faculty of Management and Business, Economics.

    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:2:p:163-:d:494524. 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.