ncx-gitbot
commented
1 year ago NCX response: Projects are additional when the carbon stocks in the project scenario are greater than the carbon stocks expected under the baseline scenario–this is the basis for any carbon project verified against any standard. Because additionality, and therefore, creditable carbon is dependent on an accurate baseline, eligibility is limited to forests that are truly at risk of being harvested in the next year. Deferring that harvest results in additional carbon in the landscape.
Commenter Organization: Wagner Forest Management, Ltd.
Commenter: Daniel H. Hudnut
2021 Deferred Harvest Methodology Section: No Section Indicated
Comment: Think of our regional carbon pool as a bathtub. Forest growth is like water coming into the tub from a showerhead. Timber harvest is like water going out the drain. In the Northeast (and some other regions), growth exceeds harvest, so the water in the tub is already rising. You can think of a landscape-level 100-year carbon project as mostly filling a milk jug with water from the tub, and then leaving it in the tub. The water in the jug isn't circulating, but the fact that it is in the jug doesn't affect the amounts in the tub, going down the drain, or entering the system. Some spray from the showerhead goes into the milk jug, but most just goes into the tub. If there were a LOT of these milk-jug projects, it might start to affect the way that mills perceive the future flow of wood through the system, reducing future mill demand. Reducing the amount of water leaving the tub would accelerate the increase in the water level in the tub. (But it would be bad for the regional forest products economy and rural communities.) An annual harvest deferral program, by contrast, is like making some ice cubes from water that was in the tub. For a brief time, they won't go down the drain, but soon enough, they are just part of the tub water again. No effect on water level (carbon stocks). No effect on rate of increase. No effect on markets leading to reduced future mill demand.
Proposed Change: Insist upon longer-term commitment periods. Fundamentally re-assess the additionality and leakage associated with forest carbon offsets.