Let’s Define Forestry Carbon Offset Standards

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009

A recent article on the Cleantech blog website (www.cleantechblog.com) by David Niebauer provides a thorough discussion of the forestry element of the coming carbon credit market. Let me summarize.

There seems to be little doubt that with the new administration, carbon offsets will soon become mandatory. That issue can be discussed in a different forum, but our interest lies in the standards by which forestry projects will be evaluated, measured and priced, including afforestation and reforestation.

Additionality For a project to be additional, the funds generated by the sale of carbon credits must be critical to the project’s viability rather than simply a means for the developer to enhance financial returns.

Verification Use of third parties to validate, monitor and register carbon credits. The process adds cost both initially, then also as a charge per ton of $.30 to $.50.

Socio-economic and Environmental Benefits Does the project provide jobs, recreation, biodiversity, aesthetics and improved land use? Forestry projects score high marks in this category in comparison to some offset projects like landfill methane capture.

Permanence A measure of risk, since forests can be destroyed (fire, tree rotting) which must be accounted for using credit set-asides or even insurance.

Another post will discuss the pricing of credits and the impact the recent collapse in the European market may have on this, but one aspect of our emerging commitment to stop global warming.

As always, I welcome your comments.

Posted in Carbon Offsets, Certification, Forestation | No Comments »

I’m greener than you are?

Wednesday, February 4th, 2009

There is a somewhat disturbing undercurrent in the carbon offsets arena.  Seems that trees and forests don’t rate as viable carbon offset methods.  Excuse me?

For those new to carbon offsets, it involves the valuation of activities which reduce greenhouse gasses which, when verified, are sold to individuals and companies who seek to offset their carbon footprint.

Carbon offsets range from capturing the methane emitted by the decomposition that occurs at landfills (methane is a 20X more harmful greenhouse gas than CO2) to wind farms (the theory that electricity created from wind reduces the need to have it created by, say, coal.)

TerraPass, a San Francisco-based offset company, doesn’t offer any forestry options for its customers seeking offsets.  One reason offered is that it takes too long to recognize the benefit, and they fund offsets that occur now.  Fair enough, if that’s your model.

But they go on to describe an inherent risk, in that eventually trees can die.  Others would argue that  reforestation provides the lowest cost means to achieve  carbon sequestration, and it can be accurately measured.

No one is debating the aesthetic benefit of forests [author smiles…].

Third party verification provides a valuable benefit to sellers and buyers of forestation project credits.  In addition to limiting the duration to perhaps 40 years, after which time the sequestration neutralizes as old trees die and new ones grow, percentages of the project can be set aside as a risk-recognized method for damage or destruction, such as in the case of fire.

A previous blog listed some calculations on carbon sequestration by trees, but Russell Simon, communications manager with Carbonfund.org, said it well when discussing the difference between avoiding greenhouse gas escape as with methane capture at landfills, and removing carbon from the atmosphere:  “Sequestration is the only kind of project out there that takes CO2 that’s already been released and does something with it.”

‘Say it well’ yourself by leaving a comment.

Tags: Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Sequestration, environment, green movement, landfill
Posted in Carbon Offsets, Certification, Forestation | 8 Comments »

UL combating Greenwashing

Thursday, January 29th, 2009

Green Biz published an article describing the entrance of UL into the Green Certification area as a “key growth strategy” for their business intended to combat greenwashing.

I have many years of electronics industry experience in a previous life, so I offer my perspective on UL. You provide them with your test results with an exorbitant fee (because it is an electronics industry requirement) and you are Certified! Rubber stamped based upon their previously-defined qualification criteria.

How would that model translate to the dynamic and extremely diverse eco-business climate? Would standards be flexible enough for innovation?

Another model is to bring together interested and knowledgeable constituents, both public and private, without the bias of a profit motive, to develop standards using already-accepted methodologies.

An example of this is the process used by various committees of the CCX (Chicago Climate Exchange) to establish “protocols” for use by verifiers when an entity wants to sell carbon credits on the exchange. With significant investment sums at stake, they seek to establish a trustworthy valuation mechanism necessary for the proper functioning of markets.

In my opinion, a similar approach would be a more valuable, transparent, and flexible method to evaluate eco-friendly claims.  This is an important issue in the eco-business community, and I would like to hear from you whether you agree with my premise, or disagree, believing UL can provide a valuable contribution.  If not them, who?

Posted in Business, CCX, Certification, Greenwashing | 4 Comments »