DOCSLIB.ORG

Planting Trees to Mitigate Climate Change: Policy Incentives Could Lead to Increased Carbon Sequestration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Planting Trees to Mitigate Climate Change: Policy Incentives Could Lead to Increased Carbon Sequestration PNW Pacific Northwest Research Station INSIDE Modeling Carbon Sequestration . 2 Possible Paths . 3 How to Increase Carbon Sequestration . 4 What’s Next . 5 FINDINGS issue two hundred thirty-six / february 2021 “Science affects the way we think together.” Lewis Thomas Planting Trees to Mitigate Climate Change: Policy Incentives Could Lead to Increased Carbon Sequestration IN SUMM A RY The 741 million acres of forestland in the United States play a role in mitigating the effects of climate change by sequestering nearly 16 percent of the atmospheric car- bon dioxide emissions produced annually in our country. Reducing the conversion of forestland to other uses and planting even more trees, whether through affor- estation or reforestation, would increase the nation’s carbon storage capacity. The U.S. Department of Agriculture USDA Natural USDA ResourceConservation Service (USDA) has several incentive programs to accomplish these goals. Researchers with the USDA Forest Ser- vice and Portland State University mod- eled various scenarios to determine how carbon sequestration would increase if the agency increased its financial investment in these tree planting and forest conserva- tion programs. They also modeled how a A private tree farm in western Oregon. Trees can mitigate climate change by absorbing atmospheric carbon. 10-percent reduction in the area burned Carbon remains sequestered in any wood product for the life of that product. by stand-replacing wildfires could affect carbon sequestration. Because increasing “People acting together as a group Atlantic Ocean; it’s estimated that 850,000 tons levels of atmospheric carbon has a social can accomplish things which no of topsoil was lost. cost, they calculated the monetary value of the carbon sequestrated. individual acting alone Through the Prairie States Forestry Project, could ever hope to bring about.” Roosevelt wanted to create a shelterbelt of trees The research team found that afforesta- —Franklin Roosevelt and shrubs spanning from the Canadian border tion and reforestation policies yielded the to the Texas Panhandle. Carrying out this project greatest return in carbon sequestration. By n 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt initi- was a multiagency effort that involved the U.S. 2050, 469 teragrams (Tg) of carbon diox- ated a groundbreaking project, literally, Forestry Service (later named the U.S. Forest ide equivalent per year (CO2 eq/yr) could I in the hopes of stemming an ongoing Service), the Works Progress Administration, be sequestered compared to a baseline ecological disaster. Over the previous 4 years, and the Civilian Conservation Corps. By the scenario of 323 Tg CO2 eq/yr. They esti- the Midwest and Great Plains experienced end of 1930s, 250 million trees were planted, mated the cost of expanding afforestation reoccurring annual droughts. With the prairies resulting in more than 18,000 miles of shel- and reforestation programs at $6.5 billion, now converted to fields of wheat and other terbelts across the Midwest and Great Plains. far less than the estimated $93.6 billion in agricultural crops that weren’t drought toler- Many of these legacy shelterbelts remain on monetary benefits that the increased car- ant, the crops withered and died. Without roots the landscape. Several U.S. Department of bon sequestration from expanding these to retain the topsoil, dust storms carried it as Agriculture (USDA) programs, such as the programs was projected to yield. far away as New York City and even out to the Natural Resources Conservation Service and Farm Service Agency’s Conservation Reserve Program, encourage farmers and landowners to KEY FINDINGS maintain or plant new windbreaks. Subsequent research has shown that the economic benefits of windbreaks, such as increased crop yield and • Modeling showed that the greatest gains in carbon sequestration and monetary benefit livestock protection during the winter, outweigh resulted from increasing afforestation and reforestation efforts, followed by reducing the economic value of using the land for agri- forestland development. Reducing the area burned by stand-replacing wildfire by 10 cultural uses. percent yielded the smallest gains in sequestered carbon. Now, nearly 90 years later, trees are once again seen as a solution to an ecological disaster. • By 2050, afforestation and reforestation policies could increase carbon sequestra- Climate change, caused by increased levels of tion from a baseline scenario of 323 to 469 teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalent carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses per year. This increase is equivalent to the amount of carbon emissions produced to in the atmosphere from human activities, is power 17 million homes in a year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency resulting in an increased frequency and sever- Greenhouse Gas Equivalents Calculator. ity of natural disasters, such as hurricanes and wildfires. And, there are societal costs associ- • The approximate cost of implementing the simulated afforestation and reforestation ated with these natural disasters: lives are lost, policy was estimated at $6.5 billion. This is about 7 percent of the estimated $93.6 bil- the health of millions can be affected by smoke lion in benefits projected to result from increasing the carbon sequestered in trees. inhalation and the stress of evacuation, fol- lowed by the costs of rebuilding. Trees can indirectly mitigate the effects of proposed Trillion Trees Act would “establish reached out to Chris Hartley in the USDA climate change by sequestering atmospheric forest management, reforestation, and utiliza- Office of Environmental Markets for assis- carbon as a product of photosynthesis, which tion practices which lead to the sequestration tance with a project they wanted to undertake. converts sunlight into energy by splitting a car- of greenhouse gases, and for other purposes.” “C-FARE wanted to put values on the benefi- bon dioxide molecule into its raw components. cial changes aside from production that result Yet, how much might the planting of more Oxygen is released into the atmosphere while from USDA conservation programs, focus- trees actually increase carbon sequestration? carbon is turned into a carbohydrate that is ing on benefits that either previously had not Coincidentally, 7 years prior to the launch of used to fuel growth. All plants sequester car- been measured or were difficult to measure,” the One Trillion Trees initiative, a research bon, but trees, due to their longevity and size, explains Luanne Lohr, Forest Service Research team from the USDA Forest Service and aca- are capable of sequestering significant volumes and Development’s national program lead for demia ran a hypothetical exercise to answer of carbon over the course of their lifetime. economic research. that question. There are calls to action both internationally Specifically, C-FARE was interested in and nationally to plant trees: the One Trillion Modeling Carbon explicitly linking the improvements in human Trees initiative calls for planting a trillion trees Sequestration well-being to improvements in ecosystems that worldwide by 2030. In the United States, the result from private sector adoption of USDA’s In spring 2016, Jeff Kline, a research for- incentive programs, such as the Conservation ester with the USDA Forest Service Pacific Reserve Program or the Environmental Northwest Research Station, and Robert Quality Incentives Program, and fed- Purpose of PNW Science Findings Haight, a research forester with the Forest eral investments in public lands. Eventually, To provide scientific information to people Service Northern Research Station, traveled C-FARE settled on creating case studies to who make and influence decisions about to Washington, D.C. for a meeting sponsored value pollinator habitat, forest carbon seques- managing land. by the Council on Food, Agriculture and tration, and water quality improvements. PNW Science Findings is published monthly by: Resource Economics (C-FARE). They were among 30 other scientists from around the “Chris and I were asked by C-FARE’s project Pacific Northwest Research Station country, primarily from federal agencies, leaders to recommend Forest Service research- USDA Forest Service whose expertise C-FARE sought. ers to lead the carbon sequestration study,” Lohr P.O. Box 3890 says. “That our researchers were sought out is a Portland, Oregon 97208 C-FARE is a nonprofit organization whose recognition that the Forest Service plays a really Send new subscription and change of address goals include connecting academic research important role in USDA as the authoritative information to: and extension agencies to policymakers. They source on carbon accounting and valuation.” [email protected] The Forest Service became the authoritative Rhonda Mazza, editor; [email protected] source on evaluating carbon and ecosystem Jason Blake, layout; [email protected] services on forestlands in part because of Pacific two pieces of legislation. The Multiple Use Coast To find Science Findings online, visit Sustained Yield Act of 1960 required national https://www.fs.usda.gov/pnw/ Rocky Mountain forests to be managed for both market benefits, and click on Publications. North such as timber production, and nonmarket ben- To become a digital subscriber, visit: efits, such as water quality, wildlife, and recre- https://www.fs.usda.gov/pnw/page/publica- South ation. The 2012 Forest Service Planning Rule tions-subscription recognized carbon sequestration as another United
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Public Lands
    The Climate Report 2020: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Public Lands As the world works to respond to the dire regulations meant to protect the public and the warnings issued last fall by the United Nations environment from these exact decisions. New Environment Programme, the Trump policies have made it cheaper and easier for administration continues to open up as much fossil energy corporations to gain and hold of our shared public lands as possible to fossil control of public lands. And they have hidden fuel extraction.1 And while doing so, the federal from public view the implications of these government continues to keep the public (aka decisions for taxpayers and the planet. the owners of these resources) in the dark on This report seeks to pull the curtain back on the mounting greenhouse gas emissions that this situation and shed light on the range of would result from drilling on our public lands. potential climate consequences of these At the same time, we’ve seen this leasing decisions. administration water down policies and 1 UN. 26 Nov. 2019. stories/press-release/cut-global-emissions-76- https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and- percent-every-year-next-decade-meet-15degc Key Takeaways: The federal government cannot manage development of these leases could be as what it does not measure, yet the Trump high as 6.6 billion MT CO2e. administration is actively seeking to These leasing decisions have significant suppress disclosure of climate emissions and long-term ramifications for our climate from fossil energy leases on public lands. and our ability to stave off the worst The leases issued during the Trump impacts of global warming.
    [Show full text]
  • The Social Costs of Carbon (SCC) Review –
    The Social Cost of Carbon The Social Costs of Carbon (SCC) Review – Methodological Approaches for Using SCC Estimates in Policy Assessment Final Report December 2005 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Nobel House 17 Smith Square London SW1P 3JR Telephone 020 7238 6000 Website: www.defra.gov.uk © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2006 This document/publication is value added. If you wish to re-use, please apply for a Click-Use Licence for value added material at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp. Alternatively applications can be sent to: Office of Public Sector Information Information Policy Team St Clements House 2-16 Colegate Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax: 01603 723000 e-mail: [email protected] Information about this publication and further copies are available from: Environment Policy Economics Defra Ashdown House 123 Victoria Street London SW1E 6DE Tel: 020 7082 8593 This document is also available on the Defra website. Published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Research on behalf of Defra With support from: DfID (Department for International Development) DfT (Department for Transport) DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) OfGEM (The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets) The Scottish Executive Welsh Assembly Government by AEA Technology Environment, Stockholm Environment Institute (Oxford Office), Metroeconomica, University of Hamburg, Judge Institute of Management - University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford Authors: Paul Watkiss with contributions from David Anthoff, Tom Downing, Cameron Hepburn, Chris Hope, Alistair Hunt, and Richard Tol. Contact Details: Paul Watkiss AEA Technology Environment UK Telephone +44 (0)870-190-6592 [email protected] Social Costs Carbon Review - Using Estimates in Policy Assessment – Final Report Executive Summary The effects of global climate change from greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) are diverse and potentially very large.
    [Show full text]
  • Reforestation: Likely Working on Certification, an Emerg- Nations Secretary-General’S Climate Ing Concept That Sought to Set Third Summit
    18 www.taylorguitars.com [Sustainability] arrived in Washington, D.C. in well over a decade, but in 2014 the 1993 and began my professional concept took a twist when govern- career working in environmental ments, private companies, and civil Ipolitics. Anyone involved with interna- society groups signed the New York tional forest policy in the 1990s was Declaration of Forests at the United Reforestation: likely working on certification, an emerg- Nations Secretary-General’s Climate ing concept that sought to set third Summit. The Declaration is a voluntary, from POLITICS to PLANTING party management standards for active non-legally binding pledge to halve the forestry operations. The idea was (and rate of deforestation by 2020, to end still is) that a consumer would choose a it by 2030, and to restore hundreds With Taylor embarking on reforestation efforts product that had an ecolabel over one of millions of acres of degraded land. that did not, if it assured you that the A year later, in 2015, largely due to in Cameroon and Hawaii, Scott Paul explains the product originated from a well-managed pressure from activist organizations, forest. Think Gifford Pinchot meets the literally hundreds of companies involved politics of forest restoration and why Taylor’s Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. in the Southeast Asian palm oil trade timing might be ideal. The Forest Stewardship Council was announced some sort of new policy. born at this time, and for a decade Looking back at these two events, it’s certification overshadowed much of the fair to say that while lofty words do not global forest policy dialogue.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Comments As Part of the Ongoing Interagency Process.” 2010 TSD, Supra Note 4, at 3
    February 26, 2014 Ms. Mabel Echols Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Office of Management and Budget New Executive Office Building, Room 10202 725 17th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20503 Via electronic submission and e-mail Attn: Docket ID No. OMB-2013-0007, Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order No. 12,866. Comments submitted by: Environmental Defense Fund, Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Union of Concerned Scientists. Our organizations respectfully submit these comments regarding the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) request for comments on the Technical Support Document entitled Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order No. 12,866. We strongly affirm that the current Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) values are sufficiently robust and accurate to continue to be the basis for regulatory analysis going forward. As demonstrated below, if anything, current values are significant underestimates of the SCC. As economic and scientific research continues to develop in the future, the value should be revised, and we also offer recommendations for that future revision. Our comments are summarized in five sections: 1. Introduction: The SCC is an important policy tool. 2. The Interagency Working Group’s (IWG) analytic process was science-based, open, and transparent. 3. The SCC is an important and accepted tool for regulatory policy-making, based on well- established law and fundamental economics. 4. Recommendations on further refinements to the SCC.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Economy of State-Level Social Cost of Carbon Policy
    The Political Economy of State-Level Social Cost of Carbon Policy Will Macheel* Applied Economics, B.S. University of Minnesota – Twin Cities [email protected] *Submitted under the faculty supervision of Professor Jay Coggins, Professor Pamela J. Smith, and Professor C. Ford Runge to the University Honors Program at the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Science in Applied Economics, summa cum laude. MINNESOTA ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION 2020 Undergraduate Paper Competition Faculty Sponsor for Will Macheel: Dr. Pamela J. Smith Department of Applied Economics University of Minnesota 612-625-1712 [email protected] May 26, 2020 1 Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 2 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3 Review of the Interagency Working Group’s Social Cost of Carbon ............................................................... 3 How Are States Valuing Climate Damages? .................................................................................................. 5 State SCC Policy Profiles .............................................................................................................................. 8 Why Have Certain States Adopted the SCC in Energy Policy? ..................................................................... 13 Methodology .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Reforestation Forester Work Location: Ukiah, CA
    Position Description Position Title: Reforestation Forester Work Location: Ukiah, CA The Mendocino Family of Companies (Mendocino Forest Products Company, Mendocino Redwood Company, Humboldt Redwood Company, Humboldt Sawmill Company, and Allweather Wood), is a leading manufacturer and distributor of environmentally certified redwood, Douglas-fir, and preservative treated lumber products throughout California and the Western U.S. Our culture is based in environmental stewardship and community support. The company maintains Forest Stewardship Council® (FSC® C013133) certification for its forestlands, manufacturing, and distribution operations. Mendocino Redwood Company, LLC (MRC) located in Ukiah, CA is seeking a Reforestation Forester to join our forestry team. This is a full-time position that involves working closely with the Forest Manager for the purpose of meeting forest stewardship and business objectives. Relocation help is available! Summary Direct responsibility for tree planting from inception to free-to-grow status, including all facets of vegetation management and materials sourcing. These activities must 1.) Comply with all applicable state and federal laws; 2.) Produce the desired rate of return on investments; 3.) Be conducted safely, and 4.) Be deployed in a manner that is consistent with the Company’s core values and consistent with the requirements of its Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification. Ensuring prompt reforestation and state certification of compliance with required stocking standards is key to achieving sustained yield harvest levels and financial objectives. Duties and Responsibilities To perform this job successfully, an individual must be able to perform each essential duty satisfactorily. The requirements listed below are representative of the knowledge, skill, and/or abilities required. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Costs and Benefits of the Green New Deal's Energy Policies
    BACKGROUNDER No. 3427 | JULY 24, 2019 CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS Assessing the Costs and Benefits of the Green New Deal’s Energy Policies Kevin D. Dayaratna, PhD, and Nicolas D. Loris n February 7, 2019, Representative Alexan- KEY TAKEAWAYS dria Ocasio-Cortez (D–NY) and Senator Ed The Green New Deal’s govern- OMarkey (D–MA) released their plan for a ment-managed energy plan poses the Green New Deal in a non-binding resolution. Two of risk of expansive, disastrous damage the main goals of the Green New Deal are to achieve to the economy—hitting working global reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions of 40 Americans the hardest. percent to 60 percent (from 2010 levels) by 2030, and net-zero emissions worldwide by 2050. The Green Under the most modest estimates, just New Deal’s emission-reduction targets are meant to one part of this new deal costs an average keep global temperatures 1.5 degrees Celsius above family $165,000 and wipes out 5.2 million pre-industrial levels.1 jobs with negligible climate benefit. In what the resolution calls a “10-year national mobilization,” the policy proposes monumental Removing government-imposed bar- changes to America’s electricity, transportation, riers to energy innovation would foster manufacturing, and agricultural sectors. The resolu- a stronger economy and, in turn, a tion calls for sweeping changes to America’s economy cleaner environment. to reduce emissions, but is devoid of specific details as to how to do so. Although the Green New Deal This paper, in its entirety, can be found at http://report.heritage.org/bg3427 The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE | Washington, DC 20002 | (202) 546-4400 | heritage.org Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Flaws in the Social Cost of Carbon, the Social Cost of Methane, and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide
    1 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE • Washington DC 20002 • (202) 546-4400 • heritage.org CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY ________________________________________________________________________ Flaws in the Social Cost of Carbon, the Social Cost of Methane, and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Committee on Natural Resources U.S. House of Representatives July 27, 2017 Nick Loris Herbert & Joyce Morgan Fellow The Heritage Foundation 2 My name is Nick Loris and I am the Herbert & Joyce Morgan Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own, and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation. I would like to thank the House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources for the opportunity to address the Transparency and Honesty in Energy Regulations Act of 2017 (H.R. 3117). The legislation would prevent specific federal agencies from considering the social cost of carbon (SCC), methane, or nitrous oxide. H.R. 3117 is a step in the right direction for U.S. energy and climate policy. The Integrated Assessment Models used to justify the social cost of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are not credible for policymaking. The outputs change significantly with reasonable changes to the inputs. Congress and the Trump Administration should prohibit any agency from using estimates of the SCC in regulatory analysis and rulemaking. What Is the Social Cost of Carbon and How Is It Used? The SCC and other GHGs is the alleged external cost from emitting CO2, methane, and other GHG emissions into the atmosphere. The logic behind the calculation is that the emissions of GHGs impose a negative externality by causing climate change, inflicting societal harm on the United States and the rest of the world.
    [Show full text]
  • ALBEDO ENHANCEMENT by STRATOSPHERIC SULFUR INJECTIONS: a CONTRIBUTION to RESOLVE a POLICY DILEMMA? an Editorial Essay
    ALBEDO ENHANCEMENT BY STRATOSPHERIC SULFUR INJECTIONS: A CONTRIBUTION TO RESOLVE A POLICY DILEMMA? An Editorial Essay Fossil fuel burning releases about 25 Pg of CO2 per year into the atmosphere, which leads to global warming (Prentice et al., 2001). However, it also emits 55 Tg S as SO2 per year (Stern, 2005), about half of which is converted to sub-micrometer size sulfate particles, the remainder being dry deposited. Recent research has shown that the warming of earth by the increasing concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is partially countered by some backscattering to space of solar radiation by the sulfate particles, which act as cloud condensation nuclei and thereby influ- ence the micro-physical and optical properties of clouds, affecting regional precip- itation patterns, and increasing cloud albedo (e.g., Rosenfeld, 2000; Ramanathan et al., 2001; Ramaswamy et al., 2001). Anthropogenically enhanced sulfate particle concentrations thus cool the planet, offsetting an uncertain fraction of the anthro- pogenic increase in greenhouse gas warming. However, this fortunate coincidence is “bought” at a substantial price. According to the World Health Organization, the pollution particles affect health and lead to more than 500,000 premature deaths per year worldwide (Nel, 2005). Through acid precipitation and deposition, SO2 and sulfates also cause various kinds of ecological damage. This creates a dilemma for environmental policy makers, because the required emission reductions of SO2, and also anthropogenic organics (except black carbon), as dictated by health and ecological considerations, add to global warming and associated negative conse- quences, such as sea level rise, caused by the greenhouse gases.
    [Show full text]
  • An Investment Primer for Reforestation CARBON REMOVAL, ENVIRONMENTAL and SOCIAL IMPACTS, and FINANCIAL POTENTIAL
    1 An Investment Primer for Reforestation CARBON REMOVAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS, AND FINANCIAL POTENTIAL JANUARY 2020 1 CONTENTS Contents About CREO 2 Terms 3 Executive Summary 4 Background Forestry for Climate 6 Reforestation Investment Potential 9 - Investment Avenues 9 - Costs and Returns 10 Carbon Markets Regulatory Compliance 14 Voluntary 15 Corporate Offsetting 15 Summary 16 Timber and Non-Timber Forest Products Timber 18 Agroforestry 19 Summary 20 Restoration and Conservation Initiatives Direct Revenue Creation 22 Blended Finance 23 Catalytic Capital 24 Summary 24 Moving Forward 25 Appendix A: CREO Modelling Assumptions 26 Appendix B: Carbon Markets 27 Citations 28 2 ABOUT CREO About CREO The CREO Syndicate (“CREO”) is a 501c3 public charity founded by wealth owners and family offices with a mission to address the most pressing environmental challenges of our time affecting communities across the globe—climate change and resource scarcity. By catalyzing private capital and scaling innovative solutions, CREO is contributing to protecting and preserving the environment and accelerating the transition to a sustainable economy for the benefit of the public. CREO works closely with a broad set of global stakeholders, including Members (wealth owners, family offices, and family-owned enterprises), Friends (aligned investors such as pension funds), and Partners (government, not-for-profit organizations and academia), who collaboratively develop and invest in solutions across sectors, asset classes and geographies. CREO’s primary activities include 1) knowledge building; 2) relationship building among like-minded, values-aligned, long-term investors; 3) conducting select research to support the advancement of its mission; and 4) deal origination. 3 TERMS Terms Afforestation (AF): Planting and/or deliberate seeding on land not forested over the last 50 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis ­ Under Executive Order 12866 ­
    Technical Support Document: ­ Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis ­ Under Executive Order 12866 ­ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government With participation by Council of Economic Advisers Council on Environmental Quality Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Energy Department of the Interior Department of Transportation Department of the Treasury Environmental Protection Agency National Economic Council Office of Management and Budget Office of Science and Technology Policy August 2016 See Appendix B for Details on Revisions since May 2013 1 Preface The Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (formerly the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon) has a longstanding commitment to ensure that the social cost of carbon estimates continue to reflect the best available science and methodologies. Given this commitment and public comments on issues of a deeply technical nature received by the Office of Management and Budget and federal agencies, the Interagency Working Group is seeking independent expert advice on technical opportunities to update the social cost of carbon estimates. The Interagency Working Group asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2015 to review the latest research on modeling the economic aspects of climate change to inform future revisions to the social cost of carbon estimates presented in this technical support document. In January 2016, the Academies’ Committee on the Social Cost of Carbon issued an interim report that recommended against a near-term update to the social cost of carbon estimates, but included recommendations for enhancing the presentation and discussion of uncertainty around the current estimates.
    [Show full text]
  • Afforestation and Reforestation - Michael Bredemeier, Achim Dohrenbusch
    BIODIVERSITY: STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION – Vol. II - Afforestation and Reforestation - Michael Bredemeier, Achim Dohrenbusch AFFORESTATION AND REFORESTATION Michael Bredemeier Forest Ecosystems Research Center, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany Achim Dohrenbusch Institute for Silviculture, University of Göttingen, Germany Keywords: forest ecosystems, structures, functions, biomass accumulation, biogeochemistry, soil protection, biodiversity, recovery from degradation. Contents 1. Definitions of terms 2. The particular features of forests among terrestrial ecosystems 3. Ecosystem level effects of afforestation and reforestation 4. Effects on biodiversity 5. Arguments for plantations 6. Political goals of afforestation and reforestation 7. Reforestation problems 8. Afforestation on a global scale 9. Planting techniques 10. Case studies of selected regions and countries 10.1. China 10.2. Europe 11. Conclusion Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketches Summary Forests are rich in structure and correspondingly in ecological niches; hence they can harbour plentiful biological diversity. On a global scale, the rate of forest loss due to human interference is still very high, currently ca. 10 Mha per year. The loss is highest in the tropics; in some tropical regions rates are alarmingly high and in some virtually all forestUNESCO has been destroyed. In this situat– ion,EOLSS afforestation appears to be the most significant option to counteract the global loss of forest. Plantation of new forests is progressing overSAMPLE an impressive total area wo rldwideCHAPTERS (sum in 2000: 187 Mha; rate ca. 4.5 Mha.a-1), with strong regional differences. Forest plantations seem to have the potential to provide suitable habitat and thus contribute to biodiversity conservation in many situations, particularly in problem areas of the tropics where strong forest loss has occurred.
    [Show full text]