|
Often
one travels to a conference with many questions in mind.
The one most memorable question going into this conference titled
“Harvesting the Benefits of Carbon:
The potential for carbon sequestration”, was “what is this
conference really going to be about?”
The answer I found was in the sole word “potential”.
Although the issues seem to be more important than the facts pertaining
to this particular conference, I will briefly explain some technical
information. Carbon
sequestration can be defined as the conversion of carbon from the
atmosphere to other stable sources.
Carbon can be sequestered by living vegetation and then stored in
biomass and/or soil. The
longer carbon is stored the more “valuable” the method of
sequestration. Trees, as
many of us know, can sequester and potentially store carbon for a
long period of time. Meanwhile,
the release of carbon into the atmosphere is substantially increased by
human activities such as land use change, agriculture, ranching,
vehicular use, etc. Carbon
is just one of the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.
This is the place where carbon credits come into play.
The idea behind carbon credits is that industries, business and
other carbon emitters can receive credit by paying others to sequester
and store carbon for specified periods of time.
The money paid by carbon emitters can potentially support
practices that will contribute to ecosystem health in more ways than
just carbon storage (i.e. sustainable ranching and agricultural
practices, reduced soil erosion, increased soil and water quality,
increased wildlife habitat, etc.).
Global warming is an international issue.
“The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”
was the conference where the international community first met to
discuss this issue. There 128 nations agreed and then ratified that they
would reduce carbon emissions to at least 5% below 1990 levels.
Although according to this agreements industrialized nations were
supposed to begin reducing their levels, none of them really started the
process. Under the Kyoto
Protocol, it was decided that the Nations need a legally binding
agreement. Eighty-four
Nations agreed to this protocol and it has been ratified by 33 nations
as of March 19, 2001. In
order to enter into force the Kyoto Protocol needs ratification of 55
nations, plus 55% of those nations have to be the industrialized nations
who are most restricted by the protocol, labeled Annex I nations. Of the
33 nations to ratify the protocol none are Annex I.
Apparently, when the United States agreed to this they were under
the impression that carbon sinks, carbon sequestration and carbon
credits could be used to help them attain their goals.
As of now, the United States will potentially be able to
use carbon credits.
As people living in urban areas and/or people in the urban forestry
profession, we understand the benefits of the urban forest, which are
way beyond simple carbon sequestration and storage.
Because of this understanding we see the potential for
funding the urban forest in the carbon market.
Trees in urban areas will not only sequester and store carbon,
but they can potentially reduce carbon emissions depending on
placement, by reducing energy use and vehicular emissions.
Furthermore, they contribute to better water quality, provide
wildlife habitat, renewable wood products, aesthetic buffers, increase
business revenues, and contribute to an overall better quality of life.
With all of these benefits the urban forest should be easily
marketable to carbon emitters wanting to improve their social standing.
On the contrary, at this conference it was announced that, at this time,
the urban forest and all of its potential is not marketable in
the carbon credit game. It
seems as if buyers for carbon credits are not yet impressed with the
urban forest as an investment. Furthermore,
when an urban forest was used as a sample carbon credit possibility, it
was supposedly determined that urban forests are not cost effective due
to the low number of trees per acre.
This may seem like bad news, but
do not fret tree lovers and urban forestry professionals.
We have reason to believe the market strategies are imperfect and
one small sample can not determine the future for urban forestry in the
carbon market. Some of us
also believe we can prove that urban forestry is cost effective and a
marketable carbon credit program. The potential of the urban forest in the carbon credit
market will not go unnoticed; however, you will have to wait to hear
about that in a future CTC newsletter.
|