Carbon and Communities

1. Carbon and Communities New Findings for the New England Landscape Presented by Steve M. Raciti Steve M. Raciti, Timothy Fahey, Charles Driscoll, Frederick J. Carranti, David Foster, Philip S. Gwyther, Brian Hall, Steven Hamburg, Jennifer C. Jenkins, Julian Jenkins, Christopher Neill, Scott Ollinger, Brandon W. Peery, Erin Quigley, Ruth Sherman, R. Quinn Thomas, Matt Vadeboncoeur, David Weinstein, Geoff Wilson, Peter Woodbury

2. Carbon as a Pollutant • CO2: most important greenhouse gas • 85% of U.S. emissions (based on warming potential) • 77% of global emissions • Potential impacts • Rising mean global temperature • Sea level rise • Extreme weather events • Species extinctions • Droughts, floods • Increased danger of famine, disease, social upheaval, and global conflict

3. Natural Carbon fluxes are large, but they are in relative balance. Anthropogenic activities have changed this balance, largely through fossil fuel combustion and land use change.

4. The Carbon Budget • Assembling C budgets for Northeastern Counties • Collaboration • Hubbard Brook Science Links Program • Hubbard Brook, Harvard Forest, Plum Island, & Baltimore LTERs • Carbon Budget = Emissions – Sequestration • Emissions: Carbon losses to the atmosphere • Sequestration: Removal of carbon from the atmosphere • Useful for decision-makers • What are our emissions sources? • How can we reduce them? • Can we hope to balance the budget? • What role can forest conservation play?

5. County-level Carbon Budgets • Variation in • Climate • Topography • Population density • Land-use and Land Cover

7. More people = more emissions. Regardless of differences in per capita emissions among counties. Boring data? Gets more interesting at the lower part of our graph… Does not include emissions from manufacture of imported goods or air travel. R2 = 0.99 Net C Flux = Emissions - Sequestration

8. Net zero Emissions 31 persons/km2 Northeast Population 134 persons/km2 Does not include emissions from manufacture of imported goods or air travel. • Conclusion: • Forest and soil C sinks are large. • Conserving forests would be a good idea if we want to slow climate change and offset future emissions. • However, we cannot count on forests alone to balance the C budget. We will need to reduce emissions, too. Net C Flux = Emissions - Sequestration

9. Fortunately, we can significantly reduce CO2 emissions at little long term cost. • Rural areas will supply a large share of carbon offsets, including wind and biomass energy. • Urban and suburban areas should concentrate on energy efficiency. Alternative energy in rural areas. Energy efficiency technologies in urban and suburban areas. ------------- Increasing population density ------------->

10. Forest Preservation is the largest non-zero cost C mitigation opportunity for rural counties in the region. Carbon markets could provide financial incentives to forest land owners, but there are several challenges to overcome. Forest Preservation also provides non-carbon ecosystem services, such as wildlife habitat and diversity, water purification, recreation and scenic landscapes. ------------- Increasing population density ------------->

11. Potential Forest C Offset Markets • Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI): Offsets must be “real, additional, verifiable, enforceable and permanent” • Additional: Cannot replace a management activity that would have happened anyway. • Verifiable: Data collection at regular intervals. • Permanent: Sequestered carbon should not be re-emitted to the atmosphere within the foreseeable future. • Enforceable: Contracts or other legal instruments should ensure compliance and exclusive ownership

12. Potential Forest C Offset Markets • Emerging Option: allocate a portion of emission allowances to fund conservation easements. • Specific protocols have been developed to address the issue of permanence (RGGI, 2007). • Land must be under a legally binding permanent conservation easement • Land must be managed to maintain long-term carbon density in accordance with environmentally sustainable forestry practices • Sequestered carbon is discounted by 10% prior to the award of CO2 allowances to account for potential reversals of sequestered carbon (alternatively, insurance can be purchased). • Current model rule applies to afforestation. • Non-RGGI options are also emerging for preservation of existing forest land. • Credit for avoided deforestation (based on predictive models) could meet the requirement for additionality. • Potential federal funding to support conservation easements.

13. The Ecology of Forest Carbon • Aboveground biomass (wood) and Soil Organic Matter are the largest pools. • Aboveground • Easiest to measure • Tree diameter + allometric equations • Root biomass • Can be estimated based on aboveground biomass • Soil organic matter • More difficult to measure due to high spatial variability, but also less dynamic over short time scales. Fahey et al. 2010

14. Challenges • Measurement and projection of forest C at small scales can be costly. • We need a defensible method for allocating conservation easement funding based on carbon benefit. • The system must be inexpensive, standardized, and discourage dishonest accounting

15. Conclusions • Forests already offset a large portion of emissions in the Northeast • Development threatens to change rural areas from net C sinks to net C sources • The ecology of forest C is well understood • Carbon markets could provide financial incentives to forest land owners, but we need a defensible easement-based approach that is inexpensive, standardized, and discourage dishonest accounting • Land trusts can help retain C storage in the landscape by accelerating forest conservation and reducing forest loss in New England