[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-01-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Forest Carbon Sequestration: Some Issues for Forest Investments

Author

Listed:
  • Sedjo, Roger

    (Resources for the Future)

Abstract
A major problem being faced by human society is that the global temperature is believed to be rising due to human activity that releases carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, i.e., global warming. The major culprit is thought to be fossil fuel burning, which is releasing increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The problem of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide can be addressed a number of ways. One of these is forestry and forest management. This paper examines a number of current issues related to mitigating the global warming problem through forestry. First, the overall carbon cycle is described, and the potential impact of forests on the buildup of atmospheric carbon is examined. A major focus is the means by which forests and forest management can contribute to the sequestration of carbon. The potential role of forests and forestry in sequestrating carbon to reduce the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is now well recognized. A number of alternative approaches to utilizing forestry and forest management for carbon sequestration are examined. These include forest protection; the management of forests for carbon for joint products, i.e., the management of forests to generate both carbon and timber as products; the establishment of plantation forests dedicated to carbon sequestration; and increased production of wood products. Replacing other materials with wood will sequester carbon while reducing energy requirements, thereby reducing carbon emissions. Studies examining the costs of carbon sequestration using forestry are also discussed. The recent Kyoto Protocol (K.P.) explicitly recognizes certain forestry activities as “certifiable” for sequestration credits. But some definitions and aspects of carbon sequestration through forestry were left incomplete or inadequately defined by the Protocol. Furthermore, the KP has changed due to the recent withdrawal of the US for the Protocol (although not from the Kyoto Process). Nevertheless, further clarification is necessary to understand the full potential and set of opportunities from forestry both within the framework of the Protocol and more generally. Alternative types of vehicles for sequestration credits are discussed below,m both within and outside the context of the KP , and their advantages and disadvantages in terms of periods covered and liability are also examined. Finally, some ongoing real-world activities utilizing forestry specifically to sequester carbon are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Sedjo, Roger, 2001. "Forest Carbon Sequestration: Some Issues for Forest Investments," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-34, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-01-34
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-01-34.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sedjo, Roger A. & Sohngen, Brent, 2000. "Forestry Sequestration of CO2 and Markets for Timber," Discussion Papers 10778, Resources for the Future.
    2. Sedjo, Roger A., 1999. "Potential for Carbon Forest Plantations in Marginal Timber Forests: The Case of Patagonia, Argentina," Discussion Papers 10661, Resources for the Future.
    3. Robert N. Stavins, 1999. "The Costs of Carbon Sequestration: A Revealed-Preference Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(4), pages 994-1009, September.
    4. Peter J. Parks & Ian W. Hardie, 1995. "Least-Cost Forest Carbon Reserves: Cost-Effective Subsidies to Convert Marginal Agricultural Land to Forests," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(1), pages 122-136.
    5. Douglas J. Miller, 1999. "An Econometric Analysis of the Costs of Sequestering Carbon in Forests," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(4), pages 812-824.
    6. G. Cornelis van Kooten & Clark S. Binkley & Gregg Delcourt, 1995. "Effect of Carbon Taxes and Subsidies on Optimal Forest Rotation Age and Supply of Carbon Services," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(2), pages 365-374.
    7. Sedjo, Roger, 1999. "Potential for Carbon Forest Plantation in Marginal Timber Forests: The Case of Patagonia, Argentina," RFF Working Paper Series dp-99-27, Resources for the Future.
    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. Zengin, Hayati & Ünal, Murat Engin, 2019. "Analyzing the effect of carbon prices on wood production and harvest scheduling in a managed forest in Turkey," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 28-35.
    2. Parajuli, Rajan & Chang, Sun Joseph, 2012. "Carbon sequestration and uneven-aged management of loblolly pine stands in the Southern USA: A joint optimization approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 65-71.
    3. Heli Lu & Guifang Liu, 2015. "Opportunity Costs of Carbon Emissions Stemming from Changes in Land Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Guo, Jinggang & Gong, Peichen, 2017. "The potential and cost of increasing forest carbon sequestration in Sweden," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 78-86.
    5. Cacho, Oscar J. & Marshall, Graham R. & Milne, Mary, 2003. "Smallholder agroforestry projects: Potential for carbon sequestration and poverty alleviation," ESA Working Papers 289093, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA).
    6. Chladna, Zuzana, 2007. "Determination of optimal rotation period under stochastic wood and carbon prices," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 1031-1045, May.

    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. Sedjo, Roger A., 2001. "Forest Carbon Sequestration: Some Issues for Forest Investments," Discussion Papers 10571, Resources for the Future.
    2. Jung, Martina, 2003. "The Role of Forestry Sinks in the CDM - Analysing the Effects of Policy Decisions on the Carbon Market," Discussion Paper Series 26293, Hamburg Institute of International Economics.
    3. Benitez, Pablo C. & Obersteiner, Michael, 2006. "Site identification for carbon sequestration in Latin America: A grid-based economic approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(6), pages 636-651, August.
    4. Choi, Suk-Won & Sohngen, Brent & Alig, Ralph J., 2001. "Land-Use Change And Carbon Sequestration In The Forests Of Ohio, Indiana, And Illinois: Sensitivity To Population And Model Choice," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20564, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Hennessy, David A. & Saak, Alexander E., 2003. "State-Contingent Demand for Herbicide-Tolerance Seed Trait," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(1), pages 1-14, April.
    6. Im, Eun Ho & Adams, Darius M. & Latta, Gregory S., 2007. "Potential impacts of carbon taxes on carbon flux in western Oregon private forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 1006-1017, May.
    7. Benitez, Pablo C. & McCallum, Ian & Obersteiner, Michael & Yamagata, Yoshiki, 2007. "Global potential for carbon sequestration: Geographical distribution, country risk and policy implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 572-583, January.
    8. Rong Li & Brent Sohngen & Xiaohui Tian, 2022. "Efficiency of forest carbon policies at intensive and extensive margins," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(4), pages 1243-1267, August.
    9. 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.
    10. Favero, Alice & Mendelsohn, Robert & Sohngen, Brent, 2016. "Carbon Storage and Bioenergy: Using Forests for Climate Mitigation," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 232215, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    11. Kim, Man-Keun & McCarl, Bruce A. & Murray, Brian C., 2008. "Permanence discounting for land-based carbon sequestration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 763-769, February.
    12. Feng, Hongli, 2005. "The dynamics of carbon sequestration and alternative carbon accounting, with an application to the upper Mississippi River Basin," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 23-35, July.
    13. Matthews, Stephen & O'Connor, Raymond & Plantinga, Andrew J., 2002. "Quantifying the impacts on biodiversity of policies for carbon sequestration in forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 71-87, January.
    14. Taeyoung Kim & Christian Langpap, 2015. "Incentives for Carbon Sequestration Using Forest Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 491-520, November.
    15. Schneider, Uwe A. & McCarl, Bruce A. & Schmid, Erwin, 2007. "Agricultural sector analysis on greenhouse gas mitigation in US agriculture and forestry," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 128-140, May.
    16. van Kooten, G. Cornelis & Laaksonen-Craig, Susanna & Wang, Yichuan, 2007. "Costs of Creating Carbon Offset Credits via Forestry Activities: A Meta-Regression Analysis," Working Papers 37039, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    17. Yemshanov, Denys & McCarney, Geoffrey R. & Hauer, Grant & Luckert, M.K. (Marty) & Unterschultz, Jim & McKenney, Daniel W., 2015. "A real options-net present value approach to assessing land use change: A case study of afforestation in Canada," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 327-336.
    18. van 't Veld, Klaas & Plantinga, Andrew, 2005. "Carbon sequestration or abatement? The effect of rising carbon prices on the optimal portfolio of greenhouse-gas mitigation strategies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 59-81, July.
    19. Chadourne, Matthew H. & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Roberts, Roland K., 2011. "Ridge, Slope, and Hillside Protection Taskforce Projects in Knox County, Tennessee: Costs and Benefits of Reforestation of Target Areas," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103846, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Sullivan, Jay & Aggett, Jonathan & Amacher, Greg & Burger, James, 2005. "Financial viability of reforesting reclaimed surface mined lands, the burden of site conversion costs, and carbon payments as reforestation incentives," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 247-258, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    forests; carbon; sinks; sequestration; forest management; Kyoto Protocol;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q10 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - General
    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
    • Q21 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Demand and Supply; Prices
    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-01-34. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    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.