A full 20-25% of global warming is directly attributable to deforestation and forest degradation. This means that any real and comprehensive global warming legislation must include provisions to help stop deforestation if it is serious about reducing carbon emissions. With the Waxman-Markey Bill pacing the way the US appears to be poised to reduce CO2 emissions by up to 83% by 2050. To get there, the bill has provisions for clean energy and energy efficiency steps, but will it address deforestation and forest degradation?
Forest Carbon Portal just released an analysis of the Waxman-Markey Bill entitled, “Strong Push for Reducing Deforestation in 1st Draft US Climate Bill.” This article is suggested reading for anyone looking for a detailed overview of the implications of the Bill for trees.
To quote the article:
International forestry – and in particular reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) credits – may be issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and used as offsets in the US climate regime… the total quantity of offsets allowed each year cannot exceed 2 billion tons…
The bill also includes a provision for the protection of vulnerable groups involved in deforestation offsets. The offset project should give due regard to the rights and interests of local communities, indigenous peoples and vulnerable social groups…
In addition to the cap, there are supplemental pollution reductions with the aim of preserving tropical forests, building capacity to generate offset credits and facilitating international action on global warming. From 2012 through 2025 the EPA will set aside up to five percent of emission allowances to be used to provide incentives to reduce deforestation in developing countries.
On the whole, this climate bill seems to address the fact that trees play a major role in global warming and that any emissions reductions regimes need to address that fact. In the conclusion of the article, it mentions that the provisions included in the legislation will work to prevent the market from being ‘flooded’ with cheap offset credits (thus devaluing other offset options in comparison).
Forest based carbon offsets fight global warming, protect wildlife habitats, and support local communities. By including trees in federal climate legislation, the US will be doing a service to the world that goes far beyond reducing emissions.
Support forest based carbon offsets today; see our reforestation projects by clicking here.
Point Carbon has been researching the impacts of proposed US climate policy and announced its findings in a report entitled, “A US cap-and-trade: Options for compliance.” The report utilized supply and demand dynamics under a US cap-and-trade system.
In determining the gap between estimated emissions and the proposed federal cap, Point Carbon analysts find that in 2012 US covered sources will have an estimated annual shortfall of approximately 205 million metric tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). This gap is anticipated to increase to approximately 571 million Mt by 2015 and up to 1.4 billion Mt by 2020…
Domestic offsets will likely be the lowest cost compliance option according to the report, but that supply will fall short compared to potential demand. “International offsets will have to make up the difference,” said Emilie Mazzacurati, Manager for Carbon Market Research North America. “We’ll need sectoral and forestry credits in addition to the Clean Development Mechanism to meet the demand from US emitters.”
There are mitigating factors that might affect the shortfall that the US experiences trying to achieve real emissions reductions, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the US needs to meet its goals with some use of carbon offsets.
The Winter Olympics in Vancouver, British Columbia are less than a year away, and like many complex events some of the finer details have yet to be ironed out. While the Vancouver Olympic Committee (VANOC) has committed to offsetting to make the event carbon neutral, they have yet to choose an offset provider.
“We’re going to put 300,000 tonnes out there into the atmosphere and we’re going to invest in projects that reduce carbon by an equivalent amount,” Linda Coady, the vice-president of sustainability for the organizing committee said.
In total, the Olympic organizers are looking to offset the emissions of the entirety of the 27 day Olympic and Paralympic games.
In order to help ensure that the Vancouver games get the highest quality carbon offsets, Carbonfund.org would like to make four suggestions about what the Olympic Committee should look for in a carbon offset provider.
- 3rd Party Validated Projects – the offset provider should only offer high quality third-party validated projects that meet renowned standards like the Voluntary Carbon Standard, Environmental Resources Trust, or the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards.
- Project Choice – supporting projects around the world such as in reforestation, renewable energy, etc. can help demonstrate global leadership on climate change.
- Nonprofit Sponsor – partnering with a nonprofit helps ensure transparency of projects and the partnership itself.
- Industry Leader – partner with a proven leader that knows how to create offset programs that work and understands how to manage a high profile partnership.
The good news is that there is an organization out there that has demonstrated the leadership, mission based values, and has the high quality verified projects needed to effectively offset the emissions of the Vancouver Games. Also, their retail price for carbon offsets is more affordable than the $15 a ton that the VANOC is expecting to pay…
Click here to contact this unnamed organization.
As much as I hate to say it, I love beef. I love a thick burger or a juicy steak after a long day, but as a person actively involved in the fight to stop global warming, I am conflicted. Cows (the main source of beef) are notorious polluters and contribute significantly to global warming due to their propensity to emit enormous quantities of methane gas.
But according to a new report, researchers at University College Dublin say that they have found a way to reduce cattle methane emissions by 2% — supplement their diet with fish oil. Adding omega 3 fish oils to a cow’s diet also help the cow’s heart and circulatory system and leads to better meat quality for the consumer.
Globally, cattle are responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. A 2% cut in emissions is a great step in the right direction, but more must be done. Part of this can be accomplished by ensuring consumers who consume beef are aware of the carbon impact of their steaks, and encouraging practical reductions in meat consumption. Farmers can do more as well, with the help of carbon credits.
Many farms are now taking creative steps to capture the methane emissions from their animals to help prevent them from entering the atmosphere. By collecting the emissions in what is called a methane biodigester the farmer can not only capture the emissions, but also utilize the methane to create a renewable source of energy.
Because of their efficiency and clear environmental benefits, methane biodigesters have become prevalent as a means to generate carbon credits. By allowing farmers to generate revenue from carbon credits, the balance of the equation shifts in favor of taking action as opposed to allowing cows to fart us towards a warmer world. I mean, what farmer wouldn’t want to produce high quality food, protect our environment, and be able to count on revenue generated from the sale of carbon credits?
Carbonfund.org is a proud supporter of agricultural methane biodigestors. Offset your carbon footprint with Carbonfund.org and support projects like these today.
Our project in northeastern Louisiana, the Tensas National Wildlife Refuge Reforestation Project, has become the first reforestation carbon offset project in North America to achieve dual validation to the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) as well as the Climate, Community & Biodiversity (CCB) Standards with Gold Distinction. This is a huge milestone not only for the organization, but for reforestation offset projects.
The Rainforest Alliance, an international nonprofit conservation organization with a climate initiative to validate and verify carbon offset projects, provided third-party validation that the project meets the two standards.
“Carbonfund.org’s first-ever CCB Gold and VCS dual validation project is a major milestone for the carbon offset industry, making Tensas among the highest quality, scientifically validated carbon reduction projects in the world,” said Carbonfund.org President Eric Carlson.
He continued, “Deforestation is responsible for about 25% of global warming, meaning reforestation and forest preservation are critical solutions to solving global warming. By providing the highest quality offsets through projects such as Tensas, Carbonfund.org is enabling individuals, businesses and organizations to take responsibility for their carbon footprint, and reduce and offset their climate impact.”
VCS validation ensures that the project is designed to deliver real, additional, measurable and permanent carbon offsets. Because the land in the Tensas Project has been deforested and fragmented for over 50 years prior to the project, it is considered an afforestation-type project.
“We are delighted that this robust project restoring native forest is the first to be validated against the CCB Standards in North America,” said Joanna Durbin, Director of the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance. “The Tensas Project is a great addition to the growing worldwide portfolio of multiple-benefit forest carbon projects using the standard.”
At Carbonfund.org, we take every step possible to provide our donors with an accurate view of their carbon footprint. We base all of our calculations on reputable sources like the EPA, the WRI and the IPCC, and you can view the assumptions that we use for our all of our calculators any time you want online.
Now, I am not just bringing this up to toot the Carbonfund.org horn, but in a voluntary industry it is important to look for carbon offset organizations that are taking the proper steps to ensure accuracy. Carbonfund.org also ensures third-party verification of projects to the highest certification standards.
EcoBusiness Links just released a survey that found that over 1/3rd of flight carbon calculators are under reporting CO2 emissions — this means that people won’t fully understand their climate impact and they also won’t actually be offsetting enough to truly make their trip carbon neutral. According to independent references, a flight across the country should emit 1.81 – 2.72 metric tons CO2 per passenger. Carbonfund.org’s flight calculator produced a result of 2.41 metric tons CO2, to the middle of that range. Carbonfund.org also allows users to include radiative forcing.
Check out the results of the study by clicking here to see how some companies and nonprofits compare. And use our accurate and reliable flight calculator by clicking here.
As America starts looking forward to a clean energy future and emissions reductions that are at least 80% lower than they are today, it is becoming clearer that everyone must be an active participant in the new clean energy economy. One of the groups that may be most impacted by a cap on carbon emissions are farmers and people working in the agricultural industry. Modern agriculture is very energy and resource intensive, so even small changes to the price of fuel or fertilizer can impact a farmers bottom line.
But farmers who take an active role in the fight to stop global warming and reduce emissions stand to profit from a well designed cap and trade.
According to a report in Bloomberg.com, farmers can receive carbon credits from the Chicago Climate Exchange for implementing more sustainable agricultural practices. In the report, Bloomberg cited two examples of farmers who were receiving $3,000 and $1,500 annually for implementing a ‘no-till’ farming practices. Tilling to prepare a field for agriculture releases CO2 is stored underground in organic material. No-till farming allows farmers to continue to utilize their land for agricultural purposes, but it requires farmers not to agitate their soil before planting, thus keeping organic matter and carbon emissions in the ground.
No-till farming is also cheaper than conventional farming. Farmers do not need to use machines required to till a field, saving in fuel costs and more carbon emissions. It is estimated that corn-farmers that implement no-till practices can save $83 per acre in fuel and fertilizer costs.
In addition to the emissions reductions that can be gained through no-till farming, agricultural land can also be used to produce bio-fuels that burn cleaner than conventional fuels and farm land can also be utilized for locations of wind turbines and solar panels.
The role that farmers play in the clean energy economy is going to be crucial if we want to see emissions reductions that match the goals scientists say we must reach. By taking an active role, farmers can make money, produce food and unlock more real world global warming solutions.
Support farm based carbon offsets with Carbonfund.org.
(Image Courtesy of Encyclopedia Britannica)
Many of us know the basic principles that underlie the global carbon cycle. Carbon is emitted into the atmosphere through respiration and burning of organic materials and fossil fuels. Much of that same carbon is then absorbed back into the earth through terrestrial and oceanic biological processes. When more carbon is emitted than the earth can naturally absorb, carbon stays in the atmosphere creating the greenhouse effect which causes global warming.
Understanding the carbon cycle is the key to fighting global warming. Collectively, we are going to need to find ways to reduce carbon emissions from carbon sources and continue to protect and enhance carbon sinks. One of the most accessible carbon sinks are trees, with tropical forests absorbing 4.8 billion tons of CO2 a year — or to put it another way, trees are absorbing 18% of total global emissions. As one scientist succinctly states, “we are receiving a free subsidy from nature.”
It is correct to state that trees do represent a free subsidy as we ramp up our efforts to fight global warming, but should we just consider trees’ effects on the carbon cycle to be a bonus or should we actively be promoting trees as part of the fight to stabilize our climate?
Organizations like Carbonfund.org, the UN, Conservation International, the Rainforest Alliance, RGGI, CCAR, the CCBA and so many others advocate for a comprehensive approach to fighting global warming that includes reforestation and avoided deforestation. Through the voluntary carbon market, financial incentives are created that encourage forest preservation and reforestation.
By persevering and expanding forested areas we are not only helping to maintain valuable carbon sinks, but many forest-based projects offer a wide variety of economic and social co-benefits as well.
Fight global warming and support market based initiatives to maintain and expand our natural carbon sinks– forests. Calculate and offset your carbon footprint with Carbonfund.org and choose to support our third-party verified reforestation projects.
Carbonfund.org is proud to announce its newest partner, GreenEcoSavers.com.
GreenEcoSavers.com is on a mission, in tandem with our own, “Reduce what you can, Offset what you can’t.” GreenEcoSavers.com provides a large selection of products that help you reduce your carbon footprint. They even show you how you can help stop global warming and save some money doing it. Their Return on Investment (ROI) tool displays how quickly their products pay for themselves. As they say, “This is your precious planet… Do your part to preserve it!”
