The 100-Year Method for Forecasting Carbon Sequestration in Forest Products in Use

Article

Abstract

In recent years, much attention has been focused on carbon accounting for harvested wood products in national greenhouse gas inventories. The methods used for national accounting, however, are not suited to corporate or value chain accounting. This is largely due to the practical difficulties that companies face in assembling the historical production data and other information required by national accounting methods. In addition, national accounting methods produce results that are heavily influenced by historical data and past practices. As a result, these methods provide little insight into opportunities for improvement.

In this paper, options are considered for corporate and value chain accounting of carbon in forest products in use. One method is identified that avoids many of the difficulties associated with national accounting methods. The method estimates the amount of carbon in products expected to remain in use for at least 100 years and, therefore, the method is called the 100-year method.

A review of forest product time-in-use distributions being used in several countries to develop national carbon inventories reveals that many of them were not designed to produce realistic estimates of the amount of product remaining in use for 100 years. U.S. housing data are used to demonstrate, however, that the time-in-use information used to develop the U.S. national inventory can be used in the 100-year method without over estimating 100-year carbon sequestration in U.S. housing.

Keywords

carbon accounting carbon sequestration forest products industry greenhouse gas emissions harvested wood products housing lifetimes lumber pulp and paper wood panels 

References

  1. Apps, M.J., Kurz, W.A., Beukema, S.J. and Bhatti, J.S.: 1999, ‘Carbon budget of the Canadian forest product sector’, Environmental Science & Policy 2, 25–41. Elsevier Science Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borjesson, P. and Gustavsson, L.: 2000, ‘Greenhouse gas balances in building construction: wood versus concrete from life-cycle and forest land-use perspectives’, Energy Policy 28, 575–588. Elsevier Science Ltd. Netherlands 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, S., Lim, B. and Schlamadinger, B.: 1998, Evaluating approaches for estimating net emissions of carbon dioxide from forest harvesting and wood products. Meeting report of the IPCC/OECD/IEA Programme on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.Google Scholar
  4. Dakar, Senegal. 5-7 May, 1998. IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme Technical Support Unit. Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan, 1998. Also available on the Internet http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/. February 3, 2005.
  5. California Climate Action Registry (CCAR): 2004, Forest Sector ProtocolReporting Biological Carbon Stocks and GHG Emissions from Forest Entities. California Climate Action Registry, Los Angeles, CA. October 2004. Also available on the internet at http://www.climateregistry.org/. February 2, 2005.
  6. Eggers, T.: 2002, The impacts of manufacturing and utilization of wood products on the European carbon budget. European Forest Institute Internal Report 9. 2002. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, FI. 2002. Also available on the internet at http://www.efi.fi. February 3, 2005.
  7. European Forest Institute (EFI): 2002, The impacts of manufacturing and utilisation of wood products on the European carbon budget. European Forest Institute Internal Report 9, 2002; Joensuu, Finland. Available on the Internet at http://www.efi.fi/publications/Internal\Reports/IR\09.pdf. October 22, 2004.
  8. Flugsrud, K., Hoem, B., Kvingedal, E. and Rypdal, K.: 2001, Estimating the net emission of CO2 from harvested wood products: A comparison between different approaches. Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, Oslo. October 2001. Also available on the internet at http://www.sft.no/. February 3, 2005.
  9. Ford-Robertson, J.: 2003, Implications of harvested wood products accounting. MAF Technical Paper No. 2003/5. New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Wellington, NZ. June 2003. Also available on the internet at www.maf.govt.nz. February 3, 2005.Google Scholar
  10. Georgia-Pacific Corporation: 2004, Protocol for the inventory of greenhouse gases in Georgia-Pacific Corporation. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Atlanta 2004. Available on the Internet at http://www.gp.com/enviro/strategy/protocol.pdf. October 22, 2004.
  11. Glover, J., White, D.O. and Langrish, T.A.G.: 2002, ‘Wood versus concrete and steel in house construction’, Journal of Forestry. Society of American Foresters. Bethesda, MD. December 2002.Google Scholar
  12. Gundimeda, H.: 2001, ‘A framework for assessing carbon flow in Indian wood products’, Environment, Development and Sustainability 3, 229–251. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands. 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hashimoto, S., Nose, M., Obara, T. and Moriguchi, Y.: 2002, ‘Wood products: potential carbon sequestration and impact on net carbon emissions of industrialized countries’, Environmental Science & Policy 5, 183–193. Elsevier Science Ltd., Amsterdam, NL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hashimoto, S. and Moriguchi, Y.: 2004, Data Book: Material and Carbon Flow of Harvested Wood in Japan. National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Ibaraki Japan. 2004. Also available on the internet at http://www.nies.go.jp/. February 3, 2005.
  15. Heath, L., Birdsey, R.A., Row, C. and Plantinga, A.J.: 1996, Carbon pools and fluxes in U.S. forest products. Forest Ecosystems, Forest Management and the Global Carbon Cycle. NATO ASI Series Vol. I 40. Springer-Verlag Berlin Geidelberg 1996.Google Scholar
  16. Howard, J.: 2001, U.S. timber production, trade, consumption, and price statistics: 1965–1999. Research Paper FPL-RP-595, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison WI.Google Scholar
  17. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): 1996, Climate change 1995. Impacts, adaptations and mitigation of climate change: scientific and technical analysis. Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  18. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): 2000, Land use, land use change, and forestry – a special report of the IPCC. Published by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  19. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): 2003a, Estimation, reporting and accounting of harvested wood products – technical paper. UNFCCC paper FCCC/TP/2003/7, UNFCCC Secretariat, Bonn, Germany October 27, 2003. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/tp/tp0307.pdf. February 3, 2005.
  20. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): 2003b, Estimation, reporting and accounting of harvested wood products – technical paper, corrigendum. UNFCCC paper FCCC/TP/2003/7/Corr.1, UNFCCC Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, November 18, 2003. http:// unfccc.int/resource/docs/tp/tp0307c01.pdf. February 11, 2005.
  21. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): 2003c, Good practice guidance for land use, land use change, and forestry – Appendix 3a.1. IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme Technical Support Unit. Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan, 2003. Available on the Internet http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/. February 3, 2005.
  22. International Standards Organization (ISO): 2003, Environmental management — life cycle impact assessment — examples of application of ISO 14042. Technical Report ISO/TR 14047:2003(E). International Standards Organization, Switzerland, 2003.Google Scholar
  23. Jaakko Poyry Consulting: 1999, Usage and life cycle of wood products. National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report No. 8. Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra, AU. November 1999. Also available on the internet at http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas. February 3, 2005.
  24. Jaakko Poyry Consulting: 2000, Analysis of wood product accounting options for the National Carbon Accounting System. National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report No. 24. Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra, AU. September 2000. Also available on the internet at http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas. February 3, 2005.
  25. Karjalainen, T., Pussinen, A., Liski, J., Nabuurs, G., Erhard, M., Eggers, T., Sonntag, M. and Mohren, G.M.J.: 2002, ‘An approach towards an estimate of the impact of forest management and climate change on the European forest sector carbon budget: Germany as a case study’, Forest Ecology and Management 162, 87–103. Elsevier Science Ltd., Amsterdam, NL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kurz, W.A., Apps, M.J., Webb, T.M. and McNamee, P.J.: 1992, The carbon budget of the Canadian forest sector; Phase 1. Northwest Region Information Report NOR-X-326. Forestry Canada. Northwest Region, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, AL.Google Scholar
  27. Lenzen, M. and Treloar, G.: 2002, ‘Embodied energy in buildings: wood versus concrete — reply to Borjesson and Gustavsson’ Energy Policy 30, 249–255. Elsevier Science Ltd. Netherlands 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lippke, B., Wilson, J., Perez-Garcia, J., Bowyer, J. and Meil, J.: 2004, ‘CORRIM: Life-cycle environmental performance of renewable building materials’, Forest Products Journal. Vol. 54 No. 6 June 2004. Forest Products Society. Madison, WI. June 2004.Google Scholar
  29. McKeever, D.B.: 2002, Domestic market activity in solid wood products in the United States, 1950-1998. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-524, Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 2002. Available on the Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr524.pdf. October 22, 2004.
  30. Miner, R. and Lucier, A.: 2004, A Value Chain Assessment of Climate Change and Energy Issues Affecting the Global Forest-Based Industry. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland. June, 2004. Also available on the internet at http://www.wbcsd.org/web/projects/forestry/ncasi.pdf. February 2, 2005.
  31. Peterson, A.K. and Solberg, B.: 2003, ‘Substitution between floor constructions in wood and natural stone: comparison of energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and costs over the life cycle’, Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33, 1061–1075. National Research Council Canada. NRC Research Press . Ottawa CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pingoud, K., Savolainen, I. and Seppala, H.: 1996, ‘Greenhouse impact of the Finnish forest sector including forest products and waste management’, Ambio Vol. 25 No. 5. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. August 1996.Google Scholar
  33. Pingoud, K., Perälä, A.L. and Pussinen, A.: 2001, ‘Carbon dynamics in wood products’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 6, 91–111, 42, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pingoud, K. and Lehtila, A.: 2002, ‘Fossil carbon emissions associated with carbon flows of wood products’, Mitigation and Adaption Strategies for Global Change 7, 63–83. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Row, C. and Phelps, B.: 1996, ‘Wood carbon flows and storage after timber harvest’, Forests and global change: Volume 2. Forest management opportunities for mitigating carbon emissions. Edited by Sampson and Hair. Published by American Forests, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  36. Scharai-Rad, M. and Welling, J.: 1999, ‘Biomass for greenhouse gas emission reduction: Sawn timber and wood based products as building materials’, Institut fur Holzphysik und mechanische Technologie Report NR 1999/1. Bundesforschungsanstalt fur Forst- und Holzwirtschaft. Hamburg, Germany. October 1999. Also available on the internet at www.bfafh.de. February 3, 2005.
  37. Sikkema, R., Schelhaas, M.J. and Nabuurs, G.J.: 2002, International carbon accounting of harvested wood products: evaluation of two models for the quantification of wood product related emissions and removals. Report no. :410 200 11 (2002) Dutch National Research Programme on Global Air Pollution and Climate Change. Bilthoven, NL.Google Scholar
  38. Skog, K. and Nicholson, G.: 1998, ‘Carbon cycling through wood products: The role of wood and paper products in carbon sequestration’, Forest Products Journal 48(7/8), 75–83. 35.Google Scholar
  39. United States Department of Commerce (USDOC): 1988, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004, American Housing Survey for the United States, Report numbers H150/85, H150/87, H150/89, H150/91, H150/93, H150/95-RV, H150/97, H150/99-RV, H150/01 H150/03. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  40. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA): 2004, Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2002. EPA 430-R-04-003. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington D.C., April 15, 2004. Also available on the Internet at http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/ February 7, 2005.
  41. Winjum, J., Brown, S. and Schlamadinger, B.: 1998, ‘Forest harvests and wood products: sources and sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide’, Forest Science Vol. 44, No. 2, May 1998. Society of American Foresters. Bethesda, MD.Google Scholar
  42. World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WRI/WBCSD): 2004, The Greenhouse Gas Protocol – A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard: Revised Edition. World Resources Institute, Washington DC and World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland. March 2004. Also available on the internet at http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standard/GHGProtocolCorporateStandard\RevisedEdition.pdf. October 22, 2004.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NCASI

Personalised recommendations