• Who We Are
    • The Climate Trust
    • Climate Trust Capital
    • Achievements
    • Leadership And Board Of Directors
  • What We Do
    • Action
    • Impact
    • Case Studies
  • Financials
  • Media
    • Blog
    • News & Press
The Climate Trust | Improved forest management offset projects are complementary with harvesting and in the long run promote more productive forests to the long-term benefit of the forest products industry.

Improved forest management offset projects are complementary with harvesting and in the long run promote more productive forests to the long-term benefit of the forest products industry.

Forestry, Scorcher

Oregon’s cap and invest bill seems poised for passage. After much debate and many proposed amendments, the bill (HB 2020-94) has moved out of committee the expectation is that the bill will be approved by the end of the month. The more recent amended versions include a provision that when developing forest carbon protocols the State consider strategies to avoid a reduction in wood fiber supply attributable to forest offset projects. 

This section is predicated on the concern that forest carbon projects will lock up and prevent large swathes of forestland from ongoing harvesting to supply forests products mills. However, a closer look at how these protocols work and actual data from California, where cap and trade has been in effect since 2013, tell a different story. 

There are three different ways forestlands can generate carbon offsets. Reforestation, avoided conversion, and improved forest management (IFM). Planting trees is an activity that expands the fiber pool and shouldn’t be of concern. Avoided conversion of forests involves protecting land from conversion to another use such as real estate. Avoided conversion projects maintain existing fiber supplies. This leaves IFM; the most popular project type in California’s market and what figures to be the most attractive project type for Oregon landowners because of its applicability to Oregon land use.

Despite approximately 60 proposed and active IFM projects in California, that State’s fiber supply has held steady at around 1,500 million board feet per year from 2013-2017. These harvest levels are actually higher than 2009-2012 showing that an economic recession triggered by housing market meltdown has had a much more destabilizing effect on harvesting than a state mandated carbon market.

Beyond the actual numbers, these concerns seem to be rooted in a misunderstanding about how Improved Forest Management carbon offset projects actually work. Rather than imposing an either-or choice between offsets and wood products, the IFM protocol actually provides a financial incentive for a more balanced management approach. This more balanced approach is actually consistent with promoting greater volumes of fiber over the long term because forest rotations that optimize fiber volume also store more carbon.

This balanced approach is probably best demonstrated by Pacific Forest Trust’s Van Eck forest in California, which generates both fiber for nearby mills and California Carbon Offsets. Therefore, far from impinging upon Oregon’s fiber supply the implementation of a carbon market is something that could inject long term stability of fiber supplies for Oregon’s forest products mills. 

Tags
Adaptation
Aggregation
American Carbon Registry
Biochar
Blue Carbon
C-AGG
California Air Resources Board
California Carbon Info
Cap and Invest
carbon offset standards
Carbon Pricing
Carbon-Pulse
Clean Power Plan
Climate Action Reserve
Climate Bonds
Conservation Finance Network
Corporate Social Responsibility
CORSIA
Culture
Dairy Digester
Ecosystem Marketplace
Edible Portland
Energy Central
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Justice
EPAF
Farm Power Northwest
GreenBiz
IPCC
Job Announcement
Leadership
Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Milestone
Oregon Carbon Dioxide Standard
Oregon Clean Fuels Program
Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council
Oregon Global Warming Commission
Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy
Paris
Portland General Electric
REDD
Renewable Fuel Standard
Renewable Identification Numbers
Request For Proposal
RGGI
Rice
Risk Management
Scientific American
Social Cost of Carbon
Supply Chain
Sustainable Business Oregon
Triple Pundit
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Verified Carbon Standard
Western Climate Initiative
Recent Comments
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
Proud Member Partners in Diversity
  • DONATE
  • CAREERS
  • CONTACT

©2020 The Climate Trust. Crafted by ILLUSIO