Advertisement

Forest management for mitigation of CO2 emissions: How much mitigation and who gets the credits?

  • G. Marland
  • B. Schlamadinger
  • L. Canella
Article

Abstract

Forestry projects can mitigate the net flux of carbon (C) to the atmosphere in four ways: (1) C is stored in forest biomass—trees, litter and soil, (2) C is stored in durable wood products, (3) biomass fuels displace consumption of fossil fuels, and (4) wood products often require less fossil-fuel energy for their production and use than do alternate products that provide the same service. We use a mathematical model of C stocks and flows (GORCAM) to illustrate the inter-relationships among these impacts on the C cycle and the changing C balance over time. The model suggests that sustainable management for the harvest of forest products will yield more net C offset than will forest protection when forest productivity is high, forest products are produced and used efficiently, and longer time periods are considered. Yet it is very difficult to attribute all of the C offsets to the forestry projects. It is, at least in concept, straightforward to measure, verify, and attribute the C stored in the forests and in wood products. It is more challenging to measure the amount of fossil fuel saved directly because of the use of biomass fuels and to give proper attribution to a mitigation project. The amount of fossil fuel saved indirectly because biomass provides materials and services that are used in place of other materials and services may be very difficult to estimate and impossible to allocate to any project. Nonetheless, over the long run, these two aspects of fossil fuel saved may be the largest impacts of forestry projects on the global C cycle.

Keywords

Forestry carbon balance wood products energy substitution materials substitution 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Dewar, R.C.: 1991, ‘Analytical Model of Carbon Storage in the Trees, Soils and Wood Products of Managed Forests’,Tree Physiology 8, 239–258.Google Scholar
  2. Dixon, R.K., Brown, S., Houghton, R.A., Solomon, A.M., Trexler, M.C., and Wisniewski, J.: 1994, Carbon Pools and Flux of Global Forest Ecosystems’,Science 263, 185–190.Google Scholar
  3. Hall, D.O., Mynick, H.E., and Williams, R.H.: 1991, ‘Alternative Roles for Biomass in Coping with Greenhouse Warming’,Science and Global Security,2, 113–151.Google Scholar
  4. Harmon, M.E., Ferrell, W.K., and Franklin, J.F.: 1990, ‘Effects on Carbon Storage of Conversion of Old-Growth Forests to Young Forests,’Science 247, 699–701.Google Scholar
  5. Heath, L.S., Birdsey, R.A., Row, C., and Plantinga, A.J.: 1996. ‘Carbon Pools and Fluxes in U.S. Forest Products’, in M.J. Apps and D.T. Price (eds.),Forest Ecosystems, Forest Management, and the Global Carbon Cycle, NATO ASI Series, Vol I 40, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 271–278.Google Scholar
  6. Houghton, R.A., Unruh, J.D., and Lefebvre, P.A.: 1993, ‘Current Land Cover in the Tropics and its Potential for Sequestering Carbon’,Global Biogeochemical Cycles,7, 305–320.Google Scholar
  7. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1995. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (3 vols.). United Nations Environment Programme, The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, The International Energy Agency, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, London.Google Scholar
  8. Marland, G., and Marland, S.: 1992, ‘Should We Store Carbon in Trees?’,Water, Air, and Soil Pollution,64, 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Marland, G., Schlamadinger, B., and Leiby, P.: 1997, ‘Forest/Biomass Based Mitigation Strategies: Does the Timing of Carbon Reductions Matter?’ in press.Google Scholar
  10. Matthews, R.: 1996, ‘The Influence of Carbon Budget Methodology on Assessment of the Impacts of Forest Management on the Carbon Balance’, in M.J. Apps and D.T. Price (eds.)Forest Ecosystems, Forest Management, and the Global Carbon Cycle, NATO ASI Series, Vol I 40, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 233–243.Google Scholar
  11. Nabuurs, G.J., and Mohren, G.M.J.: 1993,Carbon Fixation Through Forestation Activities: a Study of the Carbon Sequestering Potential of Selected Forest Types, Commissioned by the Foundation Face, IBN Research Report 93/4, Face/Institute for Forestry and Nature Research, Arnhem/Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  12. Nilsson, S., and Schopfhauser, W.: 1995, ‘The Carbon-Sequestration Potential of a Global Afforestation Program’,Climatic Change,30, 267–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sampson, R.N., and Hair, D. (eds): 1992,Forests and Global Change, Volume I: Opportunities for Increasing Forest Cover, American Forests, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  14. Schlamadinger, B., and Marland, G.: 1996, ‘The Role of Forest and Bioenergy Strategies in the Global Carbon Cycle’,Biomass and Bioenergy,10, 275–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schlamadinger, B., Canella, L., Marland, G., and Spitzer, J.: 1997, ‘Bioenergy Strategies and the Global Carbon Cycle’,Sciences Geologiques, in press.Google Scholar
  16. United Nations: 1992, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations General Assemble, Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change, 8 May, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. U.S.Department of Energy: 1994, Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases under Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (3 volumes). DOE/PO-0028, United States Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  18. U.S. National Academy of Sciences: 1992, ‘Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation and the Science Base’, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Marland
    • 1
  • B. Schlamadinger
    • 2
  • L. Canella
    • 2
  1. 1.Oak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  2. 2.Joanneum ResearchGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations