Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Trade-Based Carbon Sequestration Accounting

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article describes and illustrates an accounting method to assess and compare “early” carbon sequestration investments and trades on the basis of the number of standardized CO2 emission offset credits they will provide. The “gold standard” for such credits is assumed to be a relatively riskless credit based on a CO2 emission reduction that provides offsets against CO2 emissions on a one-for-one basis. The number of credits associated with carbon sequestration needs to account for time, risk, durability, permanence, additionality, and other factors that future trade regulators will most certainly use to assign “official” credits to sequestration projects. The method that is presented here uses established principles of natural resource accounting and conventional rules of asset valuation to “score” projects. A review of 20 “early” voluntary United States based CO2 offset trades that involve carbon sequestration reveals that the assumptions that buyers, sellers, brokers, and traders are using to characterize the economic potential of their investments and trades vary enormously. The article develops a “universal carbon sequestration credit scoring equation” and uses two of these trades to illustrate the sensitivity of trade outcomes to various assumptions about how future trade auditors are likely to “score” carbon sequestration projects in terms of their “equivalency” with CO2 emission reductions. The article emphasizes the importance of using a standard credit scoring method that accounts for time and risk to assess and compare even unofficial prototype carbon sequestration trades. The scoring method illustrated in this article is a tool that can protect the integrity of carbon sequestration credit trading and can assist buyers and sellers in evaluating the real economic potential of prospective trades.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. K. Andrasko (1997) ArticleTitleForest management for greenhouse gas benefits: Resolving monitoring issues across project and national boundaries. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 2 117–132 Occurrence Handle10.1023/B:MITI.0000004472.99170.5e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. K. A. Baumert (1999) The clean development mechanism: Understanding additionality. . (Eds) Promoting development while limiting greenhouse gas emissions: Trends and Baselines. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and World Resources Institute New York 135–145

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. Boyd D. King M. L. Wainger (2001) ArticleTitleCompensation for lost ecosystem services: The need for benefit-based transfer ratios and restoration criteria. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20(2) 393–412

    Google Scholar 

  4. P. Brown B. Cabarle R. Livernash (1997) Carbon counts: Estimating climate change mitigation in forestry projects. World Resources Institute Washington, DC 25

    Google Scholar 

  5. K. Chomitz (2000) Evaluating carbon offsets from forestry and energy projects: How do they compare? Development Research Group, The World Bank Washington, DC 25

    Google Scholar 

  6. G. Marland B. Schlamadinger L. Canella (1997) ArticleTitleForest management for mitigation of CO2 emissions: How much mitigation and who gets the credits? Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 2 303–318 Occurrence Handle10.1023/B:MITI.0000004484.37564.d5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. R. R. Nordhaus K. W. Danish R. H. Rosenzweig B. S. Fleming (2000) ArticleTitleInternational emissions trading rules as a compliance tool: What is necessary, effective, and workable? Environmental Law Reporter 30 10,837–10,839

    Google Scholar 

  8. T. Tietenberg M. Grubb A. Michaelowa B. Swift X. Z. Zhong (1998) International rules for greenhouse gas emissions trading. Defining the principles, modalities, rules and guidelines for verification, reporting and accountability. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Geneva 93

    Google Scholar 

  9. R. Tipper B. H. de Jong (1998) ArticleTitleQuantification and regulation of carbon offsets from forestry: comparison of alternative methodologies, with special reference to Chiapas, Mexico. Commonwealth Forestry Review 77 219–228

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Solomons, Maryland 20688, USA

    Dennis M. King

Authors
  1. Dennis M. King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dennis M. King.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

King, D. Trade-Based Carbon Sequestration Accounting . Environmental Management 33, 559–571 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-9112-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-9112-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation