Green Horizons

Hank,

Regarding the article about carbon credits in the Spring 2007 issue.

I am not a student of green house gases and air pollution, but do have a question or two about carbon credits.

What little I know tells me that the earth has had green plants since the carboniferous period, some 354 to 290 million years ago. This being the case, one could say that carbon has been circulating in and out of the atmosphere for a long time. This transfer continues to this day, thanks to green plants and the oceans. Inasmuch as carbon can’t be destroyed, only changed in form and stored, there is as much carbon in the earth and atmosphere as at any time in the past. Green plants do absorb carbon while they are growing, but when declining or in death, give it back to the atmosphere at a rate similar to when it was absorbed. We can’t lose sight of the fact that this occurs over millions of years, and there is no start and stop point that has any meaning to our civilization.

And so it is with Joe Heckemeyer’s (or any forest). In the long run, it is in balance absorbing and giving off an equal amount of carbon. This being the case, how will the payment to Joe (or any forest owner) suddenly make his trees absorb additional carbon represented by the money paid? On the other hand, even without monetary payment to Joe, his (or any other trees) will absorb whatever carbon nature programs them to absorb.

It appears to me that carbon credits are a “feel-good” thing, and of absolutely no use whatsoever beyond that. Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

Sincerely,
Donald Bradley

I appreciate you taking the time to write, Don. I have had other people ask me questions along similar lines. So, I thought this would be a good place to answer them and highlight some of the key benefits of this new-found “commodity.”

You are correct in your understanding that the overall amount of carbon is a relatively fixed quantity. But, how it is stored, for how long, how it is released, how it is put back into storage (sequestered) and for how long make carbon credits valuable beyond a “feel-good” thing.

It is all about differential rates; release, sequestration, and storage. I can hear my college calculus professor now, “See, I TOLD you differential equations were useful!”

Payments will not make Joe’s trees grow faster. But, they do reward Joe for planting trees that will absorb more carbon per acre than a crop field or pasture. Plus, it will store the trapped carbon for a longer period of time than either of those two land uses. Even when the wood fiber is processed into lumber, the carbon will remained sequestered; not as long as the fossil fuels we are consuming today, but long enough to make a difference in a regional ecosystem.

In addition, trees that are vigorously growing (as in the case of young saplings) absorb carbon dioxide at a faster rate than slow-growing trees. This also makes the case for a landowner to actively manage his or her forest. Forest stands will maintain vigorous growth if properly thinned throughout the life of the stand; more so than if all the trees were left to grow at slower rates due to increased competition. Further, the release of CO2 back into the environment from those trees that would have died in the forest due to the increased competition will now be tied-up in some other form; a pallet perhaps. Finally, the crop trees left after these thinning operations will be healthier, reach financial maturity faster, and contain higher-quality wood products compared to the wood fiber harvested from unmanaged forests.

In my opinion, ecosystem services – clean water, air, carbon sequestration – have been overlooked for too long. The public (you and I) enjoy all of these benefits, but have not helped pay for any of them. By finally placing an economic value to these benefits, perhaps it will slow the rate at which our woodlands across the country succumb to the next strip mall.