Advertisement

Accounting for time in Mitigating Global Warming through land-use change and forestry

  • Philip M. Fearnside
  • Daniel A. Lashof
  • Pedro Moura-Costa
Article

Abstract

Many proposed activities formitigating global warming in the land-use change and forestry(LUCF) sector differ from measures to avoid fossilfuel emissions because carbon (C) may be held out ofthe atmosphere only temporarily. In addition, thetiming of the effects is usually different. Many LUCFactivities alter C fluxes to and from the atmosphereseveral decades into the future, whereas fossil fuelemissions avoidance has immediate effects. Non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), which are animportant part of emissions from deforestation inlow-latitude regions, also pose complications forcomparisons between fossil fuel and LUCF, since themechanism generally used to compare these gases(global warming potentials) assumes simultaneousemissions. A common numeraire is needed to expressglobal warming mitigation benefits of different kindsof projects, such as fossil fuel emissions reduction,C sequestration in forest plantations, avoideddeforestation by creating protected areas and throughpolicy changes to slow rates of land-use changes suchas clearing. Megagram (Mg)-year (also known as`ton-year') accounting provides a mechanism forexpressing the benefits of activities such as these ona consistent basis. One can calculate the atmosphericload of each GHG that will be present in each year,expressed as C in the form of CO2 and itsinstantaneous impact equivalent contributed by othergases. The atmospheric load of CO2-equivalent Cpresent over a time horizon is a possible indicator ofthe climatic impact of the emission that placed thisload in the atmosphere. Conversely, this index alsoprovides a measure of the benefit of notproducing the emission. One accounting methodcompares sequestered CO2 in trees with theCO2 that would be in the atmosphere had thesequestration project not been undertaken, whileanother method (used in this paper) compares theatmospheric load of C (or equivalent in non-CO2GHGs) in both project and no-project scenarios.Time preference, expressed by means of a discount rateon C, can be applied to Mg-year equivalencecalculations to allow societal decisions regarding thevalue of time to be integrated into the system forcalculating global warming impacts and benefits. Giving a high value to time, either by raising thediscount rate or by shortening the time horizon,increases the value attributed to temporarysequestration (such as many forest plantationprojects). A high value for time also favorsmitigation measures that have rapid effects (such asslowing deforestation rates) as compared to measuresthat only affect emissions years in the future (suchas creating protected areas in countries with largeareas of remaining forest). Decisions on temporalissues will guide mitigation efforts towards optionsthat may or may not be desirable on the basis ofsocial and environmental effects in spheres other thanglobal warming. How sustainable development criteriaare incorporated into the approval and creditingsystems for activities under the Kyoto Protocol willdetermine the overall environmental and social impactsof pending decisions on temporal issues.

carbon dioxide deforestation discount rate global warming greenhouse effect land-use change mitigation time preference 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albritton, D.L., Derwent, R.G., Isaksen, I.S.A., Lal, M. and Wuebbles, D.J.: 1995, 'Trace gas radiative forcing indices', in J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, J. Bruce, H. Lee, B.A. Callander, E. Haites, N. Harris and K. Maskell (eds), Climate Change 1994: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and An Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emission Scenarios, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 205-231.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K.J., Cline, W.R., Maler, K.-G., Munasinghe, M., Squitieri, R. and Stiglitz, J.E.: 1996, 'Intertemporal equity, discounting, and economic efficiency', in J.P. Bruce, H. Lee and E.F. Haites (eds), Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions-Contributions of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 125-144.Google Scholar
  3. Azar, C. and Sterner, T.: 1996, 'Discounting and distributional consideration in the context of global warming', Ecological Economics 19, 169-184.Google Scholar
  4. Barber, M. and Ryder, G. (eds.): 1993, Damming the Three Gorges, Second Edition, Toronto, Probe International/Earthscan.Google Scholar
  5. Bolin, B., Degens, E.T., Duvigneaud, P. and Kempe, S.: 1979, 'The global biogeochemical carbon cycle', in B. Bolin, E.T. Degens, S. Kempe and P. Ketner (eds.), The Global Carbon Cycle. Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) Report No. 13, New York, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1-56.Google Scholar
  6. Cao, M. and Woodward, F.I.: 1998, 'Dynamic responses of terrestrial ecosystem cycling to global climate change', Nature 393, 249-252.Google Scholar
  7. Chomitz, K.M.: 1998, The Permanence and Duration Issue in Carbon Offsets Based on Sequestration, World Bank Working Paper, Washington, DC, Development Research Group.Google Scholar
  8. Cline, W.R.: 1992, The Economics of Global Warming, Washington, DC, Institute of International Economics.Google Scholar
  9. Costanza, R. (ed.): 1991, Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability, New York, Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dai Qing (ed.): 1994, Yangtze! Yangtze! Toronto, Probe International and Earthscan.Google Scholar
  11. Daily, G.C. (ed.): 1997, Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, Covelo, California, Island Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fankhauser, S.: 1995, Valuing Climate Change-The Economics of the Greenhouse, London, Earth scan.Google Scholar
  13. Fankhauser, S. and Tol, R.S.J.: 1997, 'The social costs of climate change: The IPCC Second Assessment Report and beyond', Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 1(4), 385-403.Google Scholar
  14. Fearnside, P.M.: 1988, 'China's Three Gorges Dam: "Fatal" project or step toward modernization?', World Development 16(5), 615-630.Google Scholar
  15. Fearnside, P.M.: 1994, 'The Canadian feasibility study of the Three Gorges Dam proposed for China's Yangzi River: A grave embarrassment to the impact assessment profession', Impact Assessment 12(1), 21-57.Google Scholar
  16. Fearnside, P.M.: 1995a, 'Global warming response options in Brazil's forest sector: Comparison of project-level costs and benefits', Biomass and Bioenergy 8(5), 309-322.Google Scholar
  17. Fearnside, P.M.: 1995b, 'Hydroelectric dams in the Brazilian Amazonia as sources of "greenhouse" gases', Environmental Conservation 22(1), 7-19.Google Scholar
  18. Fearnside, P.M.: 1996a, 'Hydroelectric dams in Brazilian Amazonia: response to Rosa, Schaeffer & dos Santos', Environmental Conservation 23(2), 105-108.Google Scholar
  19. Fearnside, P.M.: 1996b, 'Socio-economic factors in the management of tropical forests for carbon', in M.J. Apps and D.T. Price (eds), Forest Ecosystems, Forest Management and the Global Carbon Cycle, NATO ASI Series, Subseries I, Vol. 40, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, pp. 349-361.Google Scholar
  20. Fearnside, P.M.: 1997a, 'Greenhouse-gas emissions from Amazonian hydroelectric reservoirs: The example of Brazil's Tucuruí Dam as compared to fossil fuel alternatives', Environmental Conservation 24(1), 64-75.Google Scholar
  21. Fearnside, P.M.: 1997b, 'Greenhouse gases from deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: Net committed emissions', Climatic Change 35(3), 321-360.Google Scholar
  22. Fearnside, P.M.: 1998, 'The value of human life in global warming impacts', Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 3(1), 83-85.Google Scholar
  23. Fearnside, P.M.: 1999a, 'The potential of Brazil's forest sector for mitigating global warming under the Kyoto Protocol's "Clean Development Mechanism"', in J.D. Kinsman, C.V. Mathai, M. Baer, E. Holt and M. Trexler (eds), Global Climate Change: Science, Policy, and Mitigation/Adaptation Strategies. Proceedings of the Second International Specialty Conference, Washington, DC, 13-15 October 1998. Sewickley, Pennsylvania, Air & Waste Management Association (AWMA), pp. 634-646.Google Scholar
  24. Fearnside, P.M.: 1999b, 'Forests and global warming mitigation in Brazil: Opportunities in the Brazilian forest sector for responses to global warming under the "Clean Development Mechanism"', Biomass and Bioenergy 16(3), 171-189.Google Scholar
  25. Fearnside, P.M.: 1999c, 'Bogging down in the sinks', World Watch 12(3), 6-7.Google Scholar
  26. Fearnside, P.M.: 1999d, 'Biodiversity as an environmental service in Brazil's Amazonian forests: Risks, value and conservation', Environmental Conservation 26(4), 305-321.Google Scholar
  27. Fearnside, P.M.: 1999e, 'Environmental and social impacts of wood charcoal in Brazil', in M. Prado (ed.), Os Carvoeiros: The Charcoal People of Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Wild Images Ltda., pp. 177-182.Google Scholar
  28. Fearnside, P.M.: 2000a. 'Greenhouse gas emissions from land use change in Brazil's Amazon region', in R. Lal, J.M. Kimble and B.A. Stewart (eds), Global Climate Change and Tropical Ecosystems, Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press, pp. 231-249.Google Scholar
  29. Fearnside, P.M.: 2000b, 'Global warming and tropical land-use change: greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning, decomposition and soils in forest conversion, shifting cultivation and secondary vegetation', Climatic Change 46(1-2), 115-158.Google Scholar
  30. Hall, D.O., Rosillo-Calle, F., Williams, R.H. and Woods, J.: 1993, 'Biomass for energy: Supply prospects', in T.B. Johanssen, H. Kelly, A.K.N. Reddy and R.H. Williams (eds), Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels and Electricity, Covelo, California, Island Press, pp. 593-652.Google Scholar
  31. Heal, G.: 1997, 'Discounting and climate change', Climatic Change 37(2), 335-343.Google Scholar
  32. Houghton, R.A.: 1999, 'The annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use 1850-1990', Tellus 51B, 298-313.Google Scholar
  33. Hourcade, J.C. et al.: 1996, 'Estimating the costs of mitigating greenhouse gases', in J.P. Bruce, H. Lee and E.F. Haites (eds), Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions-Contributions of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 263-296.Google Scholar
  34. Lashof, D.A. and Ahuja, D.R.: 1990, 'Relative global warming potentials of greenhouse gas emissions', Nature 344, 529-531.Google Scholar
  35. Lashof, D.A. and Hare, B.: 1999, 'The role of biotic carbon stocks in stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at safe levels', Environmental Science and Policy 2(2), 101-109.Google Scholar
  36. Marland, G. and Schlamadinger, B.: 1997, 'Forests for carbon sequestration or fossil fuel substitution? A sensitivity analysis,' Biomass and Bioenergy 13, 387-397.Google Scholar
  37. Marland, G., Schlamadinger, B. and Leiby, P.: 1997, 'Forest/biomass based mitigation strategies: Does the timing of carbon reductions matter?', Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 27, S213-S226.Google Scholar
  38. Mattoon, A.T.: 1998, 'Bogging down in the sinks: Escapist accounting and tree planting', World Watch 11(6), 28-36.Google Scholar
  39. Moura-Costa, P. and Wilson, C.: 2000, 'An equivalence factor between CO2 avoided emissions and sequestration-description and applications in forestry', Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 5(1), 51-60.Google Scholar
  40. Nordhaus, W.D.: 1991, 'To slow or not to slow: The economics of the greenhouse effect', Economic Journal 101(407), 920-937.Google Scholar
  41. Nordhaus, W.D.: 1997, 'Discounting and economics in climate change', Climatic Change 37(2), 315-328.Google Scholar
  42. Pearce, D.W.: 1991, 'Internalising long-term costs: Global warming and intergenerational fairness', in T. Hanisch (ed.), A Comprehensive Approach to Climate Change, Oslo, CICERO, pp. 19-31.Google Scholar
  43. Pearce, D.W., Cline, W.R., Achanta, A.N., Fankhauser, S., Pachauri, R.K., Tol, R.S.J. and Velinga, P.: 1996, 'The social costs of climate change: Greenhouse damage and the benefits of control', in J.P. Bruce, H. Lee and E.F. Haites (eds), Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions-Contributions of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 179-224.Google Scholar
  44. Pearce, D.W. and Ulph, D.: 1995, A Social Discount Rate For the United Kingdom, London, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University College London and University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
  45. Price, C.: 1993, Time, Discounting and Value, Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
  46. Price, C. and Willis, R.: 1993, 'Time, discounting and the valuation of forestry's carbon fluxes', Commonwealth Forestry Review 72(4), 265-271.Google Scholar
  47. Richards, K.R.: 1997, 'The time value of carbon in bottom-up studies', Critical Reviews in Science and Technology 27, S279-S292.Google Scholar
  48. Rosa, L.P. and Schechtman, R.: 1996, Avaliação de Custos Ambientais de Geração Termelétrica: Inserção de Variáveis Ambientais no Planejamento da Expansão do Setor Elétrico, Cadernos de Energia, No. 9, Vol. II, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Centro de Estudos de Energia Elétrica (ENERGE), pp. 159-256.Google Scholar
  49. Santos, L.A.O. and de Andrade, L.M.M. (eds): 1990, Hydroelectric Dams on Brazil's Xingu River and Indigenous Peoples, Cultural Survival Report 30, Cambridge, MA, Cultural Survival.Google Scholar
  50. Sarmiento, J.L., Hughes, T.M.C., Stouffer, R.J. and Manabe, S.: 1998, 'Simulated response of the ocean carbon cycle to anthropogenic climate warming', Nature 393, 345-249.Google Scholar
  51. Sathaye, J., Makundi, W., Goldberg, B., Jepma, C. and Pinard, M. (eds): 1997, 'International workshop on sustainable forestry management: Monitoring and verification of greenhouse gases: Summary statement', Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 2(2-3), 91-99.Google Scholar
  52. Schimel, D. et al.: 1996, 'Radiative forcing of climate change', in J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg and K. Maskell (eds), Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 65-131.Google Scholar
  53. Schlamadinger, B. and Marland, G.: 1998, 'The Kyoto Protocol: Provisions and unresolved issues relevant to land-use change and forestry', Environmental Science and Policy 1, 313-327.Google Scholar
  54. Schlamadinger, B. and Marland, G.: 1999, 'Net effect of forest harvest on CO2 emissions on the atmosphere: A sensitivity analysis on the influence of time', Tellus 51B, 314-325.Google Scholar
  55. Schneider, S.H.: 1997, 'Integrated assessment modeling of global climate change: Transparent rational tool for policy making or opaque screen hiding value-laden assumptions?', Environmental Modeling and Assessment 2(4), 229-248.Google Scholar
  56. Schneider, S.H.: 1998, 'Kyoto Protocol: The unfinished agenda', Climatic Change 39, 1-21.Google Scholar
  57. Schneider, S.H. and Goulder, L.H.: 1997, 'Achieving low-cost emissions targets', Nature 389, 13-14.Google Scholar
  58. Scott, M.F.: 1989, A New View of Economic Growth, Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  59. Shine, K.P. et al.: 1995, 'Radiative forcing', in J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, J. Bruce, Lee Hoesung, B.A. Callander, E. Haites, N. Harris and K. Maskell (eds.), Climate Change 1994: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and an Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emission Scenarios, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 163-203.Google Scholar
  60. Tipper, R. and de Jong, B.H.: 1998, 'Quantification and regulation of carbon offsets from forestry: Comparison of alternative methodologies, with special reference to Chiapas, Mexico', Commonwealth Forestry Review 77(3), 219-228.Google Scholar
  61. UN-FCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change): 1997a, 'Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change', Document FCCC/CP/1997;7/Add1 (available at http://www.unfccc.de).Google Scholar
  62. UN-FCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change): 1997b, 'Addendum to the Protocol, Decision 2/CP.3, para. 3', (available at http://www.unfccc.de).Google Scholar
  63. Van Kooten, G.C., Grainger, A., Ley, E., Marland, G. and Solberg, B.: 1997, 'Conceptual issues related to carbon sequestration: Uncertainty and time', Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 27, S65-S82.Google Scholar
  64. Watson, R.T., Meira Filho, L.G., Sanhueza, E. and Janetos, A.: 1992, 'Greenhouse gases: Sources and sinks', in J.T. Houghton, B.A. Callander and S.K. Varney (eds), Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 25-46.Google Scholar
  65. Watson, R.T. and Verardo, D. (eds): 2000, Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry: A Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Wigley, T.M.L., Richels, R. and Edmonds, J.A.: 1996, 'Economic and environmental choices in the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 emissions', Nature 379, 240-243.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip M. Fearnside
    • 1
  • Daniel A. Lashof
    • 2
  • Pedro Moura-Costa
    • 3
  1. 1.National Institute for Research in the Amazon (INPA)Manaus, AmazonasBrazil
  2. 2.Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)WashingtonU.S.A.
  3. 3.EcoSecurities, Ltd.OxfordU.K.

Personalised recommendations