sign in sign up
<<
Home , Greenhouse gas, Reforestation, Social cost of carbon

PNW Pacific Northwest Research Station

INSIDE Modeling Sequestration ...... 2 Possible Paths ...... 3 How to Increase . . . . 4 What’s Next ...... 5 FINDINGS issue two hundred thirty-six / february 2021 “Science affects the way we think together.” Lewis Thomas

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

IN SUMM A RY The 741 million acres of forestland in the play a role in mitigating the effects of 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 , would increase the nation’s carbon storage capacity. The U.S. Department of USDA Natural USDA Resource Conservation Service (USDA) has several incentive programs to accomplish these goals. Researchers with the USDA 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 planting and forest conserva- tion programs. They also modeled how a A private in western Oregon. Trees can mitigate climate change by absorbing atmospheric carbon. 10-percent reduction in the area burned Carbon remains sequestered in any product for the life of that product. by stand-replacing 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 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 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 (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 , 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 reoccurring annual . 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 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 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 protection during the winter, outweigh resulted from increasing afforestation and reforestation efforts, followed by reducing the economic value of using the for agri- forestland development. Reducing the area burned by stand-replacing 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 equivalent carbon dioxide and other gasses per year. This increase is equivalent to the amount of carbon emissions produced to in the from human activities, is power 17 million homes in a year, according to the Agency resulting in an increased frequency and sever- Greenhouse 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 , reforestation, and utiliza- Office of Environmental Markets for assis- carbon as a product of , 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 , 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 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 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 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 with the Forest eral investments in public . 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 , 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 and valuation.” [email protected] The Forest Service became the authoritative Rhonda Mazza, editor; [email protected] source on evaluating carbon and 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 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 States to manage because carbon Forest Department Service sequestration plays a crucial role in mitigating of Agriculture Carbon assessment regions. the effects of climate change.

2 As a result of having to manage for ecosystem services, the Forest Service has supported Scenarios for Increasing Forestland research efforts to understand the economic of these ecosystems and how to manage them. Increasing forestland acreage increases carbon sequestration. The research team evaluated What Kline and Haight would bring to the the effect that the following scenarios would likely have on carbon sequestration: C-FARE project is experience conducting • Reduced development: no net loss to forestland. research on valuation of carbon sequestration and its management implications. • Afforestation through landowner incentives in the Eastern United States and refor- estation of federal forest land in the Western United States. On day 2 of the 3-day conference, the 30 sci- entists broke into groups based on their eco- • Wildfire mitigation: a 10-percent reduction in stand-replacing wildfires. system service specialty. • Baseline: business as usual. “Our group started talking about what would be useful to measure around carbon,” Kline says. “If we as a nation wanted to do more to educed development aseline Afforestation/reforestation sequester carbon to address climate change, 00 and if we tried to do that through the USDA, 00 what could we do? What impact could we have educed development

1 aseline Afforestation/reforestation on carbon sequestration through federal poli- 0000 Yr cies and programs at the USDA?” 2 0000 “Valuing carbon sequestration has usually Tg CO been done at the local level,” adds Haight. “We 1 20000 Yr would do it at the national level.” 2 10000 With the project topic and research approach Tg CO 0 200 decided upon, the team members returned to educed development their respective workplaces and began working 100 educed development Afforestation/reforestation Fire mitigation on two assignments: run models to simulate 00 how policy scenarios would increase carbon 0 00 sequestration by forests of the conterminous educed development

48 states from 2015 to 2050, and calculate the 1 00 educed development Afforestation/reforestation Fire mitigation

Yr 00 monetary value of this sequestered carbon. 2 00 This 35-year timespan was selected because 00

“it’s the forecasting period the Forest Service Tg CO 200 used in the 2016 Second Biennial Report of 1 00 Yr 2 100 the United States of America under the United 00 Nations Framework Convention on Climate 0 Tg CO 0 200 0 20 2 20 2 0 0 Change,” explains Haight. As for the second 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 assignment: “If you can sequester a ton of car- 2 0 100 bon, you can avoid the climate-change related Year Year damages and costs associated with that ton of 0 orth acific ocies South 0 0 20 2 20 2 0 0 0 0 1 sequestered carbon,” he adds. 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 0 Projected annual forest carbon sequestration by region under four scenarios. Reduced develop- Possible Paths Year Year ment and10 the afforestation/reforestation scenarios yielded the greatest projected increase in carbon sequestration in the Rockyorth Mountain andacific Southern regions.ocies South The team identified three scenarios to compare 10 orth acific to a business-as-usual (baseline) scenario: (1) 120 protecting forestland from development, (2) ocies South 100 increasing financial incentives for afforesta- 10 0 tion of private lands in the Eastern United 10 0 orth acific States and investments in reforestation of fed- 120 0 ocies South eral lands in the Western United States, (3) and 100 reducing the area consumed by stand-replacing Present value ($billion) 20 0 wildfires by 10 percent. These model scenarios 0 0 were based upon existing policies or desired educed development educed development educed development outcomes of current USDA programs. For 0 Afforestation/reforestation Afforestation/reforestation

Present value ($billion) Fire mitigation example, the afforestation scenario is based on 20 the existing Conservation Reserve Program 0 that encourages private landowners to plant educed development educed development educed development trees in currently nonforested areas. (In con- Afforestation/reforestation Afforestation/reforestation trast, reforestation is the planting of trees in Fire mitigation areas that were previously forested, but the trees were lost because of natural disasters or The projected increase in present financial value (billions of dollars) for each scenario, relative to the baseline scenario (discount rate = 3 percent). The estimated costs associated with the tree plant- timber .) ing scenario are a fraction of the carbon benefits.

3 The third scenario that calls for reducing the Western United States, reforestation would How to Increase Carbon area burned by stand-replacing wildfire was occur on 7.0 million acres of understocked fed- proposed because “as a result of these wild- eral forestland during this same period. Sequestration fires, a big chunk of stored carbon is lost,” A year after the team’s formation, it presented Concurrently, Randall Bluffstone, professor Kline says. C-FARE with their report, Estimated Values of of economics and director of the Institute for Carbon Sequestration Resulting From Forest Team members John Coulston and David Wear, Economics and the Environment at Portland Management Scenarios. The effort revealed both research with the Forest Service State University, led the work to estimate the that ramping up afforestation and reforesta- Southern Research Station, ran the projections monetary benefits of carbon sequestration. To tion efforts had the greatest effect on increas- of how carbon sequestration would change in calculate these benefits, “We used the U.S. ing carbon sequestration at a fraction of the response to increasing forestland. Although Interagency Work Group on of program’s cost. By 2050, afforestation and some research projects require collecting brand Carbon that was published in 2015,” explains reforestation policies could increase carbon new data, for this project, the data and models Kline. “The is the present sequestration from a baseline scenario of 323 were readily available thanks to decades of value of monetized damages associated with Tg CO eq/yr to 469 Tg CO eq/yr, an increase research investment by the Forest Service. The an additional ton of carbon dioxide emissions 2 2 equivalent to the amount of carbon emissions models to estimate current carbon stocks and in a given year.” produced to power 17 million homes in a year flux were developed by the agency’s Forest The interagency work group arrived at the according to the Environmental Protection Inventory and Analysis and the Resource social cost of carbon by modeling the impacts Planning Assessment groups. of climate change and the corresponding eco- “These models were developed for the main nomic value of the damages. “These integrated purpose of carbon reporting,” explains Haight. assessment models look at how changes in “The Forest Service developed the U.S. climate affect agricultural productivity, human Forest Carbon Accounting Framework, which health, and property at spatial scales ranging includes an annual inventory of forest carbon from regional to global and estimate the costs USDA Forest Service USDA that has been emitted and sequestered by U.S. of damages,” says Haight. forests. This annual inventory is submitted to Bluffstone reported the societal cost of carbon the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate with three discount rate scenarios—5, 3, and Change.” After generating the current carbon 2.5 percent—and the team selected the soci- stock and flux estimates, Colston and Wear etal cost of carbon estimates calculated with imported these data into models they had the moderate discount rate of 3 percent. Now developed to estimate future forest carbon the team had all the numbers they needed to stocks under the three scenarios. Each of the complete the final portion of the project—gen- scenarios had a change assumption erate the total value of carbon sequestration of built into the projection. For example, in the each policy scenario. “When you multiply the scenario with reduced development of forest- annual carbon sequestration forecast times the land, they assumed that there would be no net estimate of the societal cost of carbon, you get loss of forestland beginning in 2025. Increasing Tree planters at work after a fire on the San the total value of sequestration in that year,” afforestation and reforestation would be Bernardino National Forest, California. Researchers Haight explains. “Discounting those annual found that reforestation and afforestation initiatives achieved by planting trees on 29.8 million values and summing them up over the 35-year have the potential to yield the greatest return in car- acres of nonforested private land in the Eastern horizon, you get the total value of sequestra- bon sequestration, compared to policies to reduce United States between 2015 and 2020. In the stand-replacing wildfires by 10 percent. tion for the policy scenario.” Lance Cheung Lance

A young stand of planted longleaf in the Magnolia Branch Wildlife Reserve, Alabama.

4 Agency Equivalents Calculator. With an estimated $6.5 billion IMPLICATIONS price tag to increase tree-planting programs, the projected monetary benefits of increased carbon sequestration were $93.6 billion. In • Afforestation and reforestation policies have long played roles in USDA conservation comparison, reducing wildfires resulted in a efforts, and are viable approaches if the USDA chooses to pursue further opportunities projected benefit worth $11.1 billion. for increasing carbon sequestration in the United States. The results were not what Haight and Kline expected. “I thought that reducing the area of • If the goal is increasing the amount of atmospheric carbon that is absorbed and stored wildfires would have the biggest reduction in by trees, afforestation and reforestation initiatives yielded the greatest benefit com- carbon emissions because when you see a wild- pared to policies designed to reduce forestland development and reduce wildfire. No fire, you see all the smoke and there must be a other policy alternative examined was found to be as effective. huge carbon emission and loss,” Haight says. “What surprised us was just how much bigger the effect of the tree-planting scenario was Additionally, for their wildfire scenario, “we ments. “What I like about this work is we were compared to the other scenarios, especially assumed that somehow we could reduce the able to gather up existing data and research compared to how small the effect was of the area burned by 10 percent through increased that is well trusted,” Kline explains. “We were wildfire-reduction scenario,” Kline says. spending on fire prevention and suppression,” able to do analysis to show that if we were to Haight explains. “We don’t know how much implement policies similar to previous polices, However, these increases in carbon sequestra- spending is required to reduce area burned that we could have a measurable impact upon tion are only possible if the USDA invests in by 10 percent, and that wasn’t the purpose of carbon stored.” expanding the current incentive our analysis. Instead, we wanted to know the “As we move forward toward the broader programs. What if the status quo is maintained? benefit of reducing fire area by 10 percent in acknowledgment of the impact of climate and Fortunately, even under the baseline scenario, terms of carbon gain and sequestration.” there is still positive news. “Under the baseline the need for doing or carbon scenario, we’re projecting that, using a moder- In reflecting upon their work, both Kline and sequestration, whether it’s the ocean or ter- ate 3-percent discount rate, the value of carbon Haight are proud of the team’s accomplish- restrial, it does matter more than people are sequestration from 2015 to 2050 is over $500 giving it credit for,” Lohr says. billion for the public and private forestlands “If a tree dies, in the lower 48 states,” says Haight. “That is a huge amount, and I didn’t expect that.” plant another in its place.” —Carl Linnaeus, Swedish botanist What’s Next As the report circulated throughout the Office For Further Reading of Environmental Markets and other programs, Bluffstone, R.; Coulston, J.; Haight, R.G. the positive reactions have justified why it was [et al.]. 2017. Estimated values of carbon valuable for C-FARE to have initiated the proj- sequestration resulting from forest manage- JosephDusek/Library Congress of ect and include carbon sequestration. ment scenarios. In: Wainger, L.; Ervin, D., eds. The valuation of ecosystem services “The report provides sound science on the from farms and forests: informing a sys- value of different carbon sequestration strate- tematic approach to quantifying benefits of gies,” Anne Marsh, the national program lead conservation programs. Report No. 0114- for bioclimatology and climate change research 301. Washington, DC: Council on Food, shared via e-mail. “Monetized scenarios pro- Agricultural and Resource Economics. 24 vide useful information to decisionmakers as p. https://www.cfare.org/publications. they weigh policy alternatives and assess trad- eoffs in managing for carbon.” Haight, R.G.; Bluffstone, R.; Kline, J.D. [et. al.]. 2020. Estimating the present value of car- Kline admits there are still some gaps in the bon sequestration in U.S. forests, 2015-2050, project that weren’t addressed, such as devel- for evaluating climate change mitigation oping more refined cost estimates for imple- federal policies. Agricultural and Resource menting the policy scenarios. However, “tree Economics Review. 49(1): 150–177. https:// planting programs really don’t cost that much Poster created for the 1930s Prairie States Forestry www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/59119. relative to their return in public benefits,” he Project that resulted in 250 million trees planted says. “We have a long history with them, and across the Midwest and Great Plains. USDA pro- Kline, J.D.; Haight, R.G.; Bluffstone, R. [et al.]. it’s fairly easy to predict how much they cost grams, such as the Natural Resources Conservation 2019. Present value of carbon sequestration and the return you get, in particular with how Service and Farm Service Agency’s Conservation in U.S. forests, 2015-2050. In: Applications many farmers will plant on marginal crop land.” Reserve Program, continue this tree planting legacy. and potential of ecosystem services valua- tion within USDA: advancing the science. Proceedings of a workshop. Northeast Writer’s Profile Agricultural and Resource Economics Association. http://www.narea.org/esv- Andrea Watts is a freelance science writer who specializes in covering natural workshopproceedings. resources topics. Her portfolio is available at www.wattsinthewoods.com. She can be reached at [email protected].

5 PRSRT STD US POSTAGE PAID PORTLAND OR F I N D I N G S PERMIT N0 G-40 U.S. Department of Agriculture Pacific Northwest Research Station 1220 SW Third Avenue P.O. Box 3890 Portland, OR 97208-3890 Official Business Penalty for Private Use, $300

Scientist Profiles Collaborators JEFF KLINE is ROBERT Randall Bluffstone, Portland State University a research forester HAIGHT is a John Coulston and David Wear (retired), with the USDA research for- USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Forest Service ester with the Station Pacific Northwest USDA Forest Research Station. Service Northern Kate Zook, USDA Office of Chief Economist His current Research Station. research focus His research Caron Gala, Council on Food, Agricultural includes examining focuses on the and Resource Economics how private land- economics of owners respond to wildlife protec- wildfire risk, eval- tion, metropolitan uating tradeoffs in public land management, open space protection, wildfire management, and understanding barriers to forest access and management. among underserved communities. Haight can be reached at Kline can be reached at USDA Forest Service USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station Pacific Northwest Research Station 1992 Folwell Avenue 3200 SW Jefferson Way St. Paul, MN 55108 Corvallis, OR 97331 Phone: (651) 649-5178 Phone: (541) 758-7776 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

“USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.”