Jangal Khubeh
The Basics
- Name: Jangal Khubeh
Jangal Khubeh’s Recent Comments
Click here to view comment in original post
action vs talk
I just don't agree that voting or giving money to some charity trumps direct action: changing your lifestyle or investing in emissions reduction projects. Jason I'm shocked that as an economist you say offsets are paying for "things that should already be happening without an incentive". Umm...but they're not happening. We deal with the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be. Of course Kaela is making a difference (I think she rocks, in fact), and in my opinion she is making more of a difference than you can make by voting (voting is not democracy) or giving money to some far-away charity that may be poorly managed but makes you feel better. Having worked for non-profits, including in international development, I can tell you they are too often grossly inefficient, bureaucratic and dysfunctional. They are not superior to entrepreneurial private efforts. I am interested in outcomes not motivation. I like the light bulb project- the perfect is the enemy of the good.On A new report posted 2 years, 8 months ago 22 Responses
Click here to view comment in original post
measuring
As Atreyger and I have both said, forest mensuration in North America is very well-developed, and in other countries as well.
Baseline: You make a projection of where carbon storage will be over a period, say 50 years, based on where it is now, and expected management and growth rates, etc. Expected growth rates depend on site factors such as species, soil, climate, etc. and management factors such as thinning etc., and are not a total mystery as some would suggest. Your management assumptions for the baseline would be set based on prevailing practices for that region and forest type, and very importantly, what is allowable under law. You can set that baseline tighter or looser, but it's important to make sure it isn't so tight or onerous that it's not actually an incentive to participate, and not so loose that it credits normal activity by the average actor.
The increase is measured by comparing the baseline storage to storage projected under a more conservative case, call it the "offset case".
You can then go back and check storage in the "offset case" against your projections at periodic intervals. Ideally, you only "bank" and sell offsets as they actually accrue, rather than selling futures. Just my opinion.
As to methane, are you suggesting that forests are generally net emitters of carbon, or that methane release via decay is very significant compared to sequestration through growth?
I think we can both agree that trees get bigger by storing carbon dioxide, and that a bigger tree contains more carbon than a smaller tree of the same species, and that it would be worthwhile to encourage landowners to grow bigger trees and try to store more carbon than they currently do, because that would benefit our poor little overworked climate. Yes? I think we could further both agree on my earlier post that many forests in North America are harvested WAY before their carbon storage potential is reached (think NW coastal rainforests, for example), and that such forests might be good candidates for projects to encourage greater carbon storage. Yes? Finally, I think you would agree that we can quantify and certify what we think is sufficiently measurable, and discount or disqualify what we think is not sufficiently measurable, and in so doing we can capture the major part of the carbon balance and not have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I can sense you're feeling agreeable on that, yes? If we can agree on all that, then I am confident that we can work out the details of how to make sure there are not perverse outcomes or benefits to the undeserving and how to protect the consumer so they know they're consistently buying what they think they are.
Then we can be done, and move on. Great!On They're not a silver bullet, but they generally work posted 2 years, 9 months ago 35 Responses
Click here to view comment in original post
Gobbledygook
Gobbledygook, another one's of Grandma's wonderful treats from the Old Country. Yum!
What exactly are Larry Lohman's credentials for being considered an "expert" on forestry? That he's an activist? That he wrote a book? Does he manage forests?
I noticed a lot of big words and sweeping statements in the quote, but actually what he is saying is not accurate, from a practical standpoint. What matters, in terms of measuring forest carbon for offset purposes, is not the behavior of every last molecule of carbon at 3am on the north side of a black spruce in a ravine on the western slope 5 miles from the coast on a slightly windy day in March...What matters is the larger amounts, for which measurement is significantly more straightforward.
Do you honestly believe that billions of dollars are invested in timberland without foresters knowing how to measure how much wood they can produce and how that is affected by management and other inputs?
That reminds me of the time more than ten years ago when I was showing someone around my totally solar powered home and talking about how we didn't have to skimp too much on amenities, and he insisted that solar power can't work because of too much moisture and other particles in the atmosphere limiting the poor well-intentioned photons, and he knew this because he was an ENGINEER. Theory getting in the way of being able to observe reality.
Gar, foresters CAN measure what's going on in forests. In fact, they do! And they don't have to count every last tree, and root, and piece of duff and humus, at each moment continuously, to 5 decimal places, to do it. It's called statistical sampling. If you don't like that degree of certainty for the small stuff, then you can just say only the big pools or the pools that can be measured well should get full credit.On They're not a silver bullet, but they generally work posted 2 years, 9 months ago 35 Responses
Click here to view comment in original post
Trees
Thanks to Atreyger for your comments about trees. I have also been disturbed by Gar's loose treatment of the issue. I agree, Gar does not seem to understand forestry yet seems to feel free making sweeping statements about it. That makes me wonder about Gar's statements about other sectors in which I do not have expertise.
Atreyger, California has done a lot of work on how to incorporate real foresters into the policy-making process. It isn't perfect, but perhaps this experience could be useful in the northeast. Check out: http://www.climateregistry.org/PROTOCOLS/FP/. Mark Harmon at Oregon State University does good work on this too.
People, for the record,
- It is NOT a mystery as to how to measure forest inventories and above and below-ground stores of carbon. Just because there is flux does not mean you can't measure total stores to a reasonable degree; you can also craft an offset system to discount or disallow stores that are more uncertain, or which are onerous to measure regularly. Setting baselines- not difficult scientifically, but potentially difficult to agree on politically.
- Tree plantations are not the same as managed natural forests. In a sustainably managed forest, you can continue to harvest trees while actually increasing forest inventory and carbon stores. How? Harvest at a rate less than growth, and leave down woody debris, among other things. Many forest types can continue to store additional carbon for many hundreds of years, but the economically optimal rotation length is only 40-60 years. If you can find financial incentives for lengthening rotation length, or encouraging uneven-aged management that leaves more volume in perpetuity, then you can store more carbon than would otherwise have been practically possible. It is measurable. It is additional. It is a good idea.
- It is NOT a mystery as to how to measure forest inventories and above and below-ground stores of carbon. Just because there is flux does not mean you can't measure total stores to a reasonable degree; you can also craft an offset system to discount or disallow stores that are more uncertain, or which are onerous to measure regularly. Setting baselines- not difficult scientifically, but potentially difficult to agree on politically.
Click here to view comment in original post
Forest offsets
My grandmother used to make a wonderful kerfluffle, from a recipe she brought from the Old Country. Aah, Grandma's Kerfluffle...
Even though it seems no one but me is interested in forests, I will assert that forest-based offsets have very significant potential to help with global warming solutions. Huge, in fact.
Did you know, that North American forests currently store only a small fraction of the carbon they stored before European occupation began? These forests can again store massively greater amounts of carbon. I am talking about standing forests that pre-date the global warming problem and that not even Ken Caldeira is proposing we cut down.
Since they pre-date global warming, and Dr. Caldeira agrees we shouldn't cut them down (because of their many lovely and useful properties), they are effectively albedo-neutral and we should be thinking of ways for landowners to store more carbon in them, no? Wasteful and foolish not to, don't you think?
If only we could measure the forests' storage of carbon...guess what, we can! Quite well!
OK, well, too bad we don't have a crystal ball or really powerful truth serum in order to divine a producer's motivations and make absolutely sure there's no rewards for the undeserving...guess what, we don't need one!
The proper way to measure additionality is not to say, simplistically, that nothing should count that can not be proven to have been done solely because of the offset incentive. That speculates about motivations for no reason. The better way to define additionality is to carefully define prevailing business-as-usual conditions in a given region and to reward those who exceed the baseline. That is what is known as a performance standard. Those who are opposed to performance standards seem obsessed with eliminating excess rewards for a few, at the risk of removing a powerful incentive for the many.
So, to return to trees, trees store more carbon as they get bigger and older, and our North American forests can store massively larger amounts in some cases than they do presently. But they don't, presently, because of financial pressures that shorten rotations and simplify structures. So, incentives are needed to encourage private landowners to grow bigger trees, manage less intensively, and therefore store more carbon. Forest carbon offsets, in the form of avoided or reduced timber harvest, in perpetuity. (Please don't get hung up on senescence- I'm not talking about specific trees, but the forest inventory over time, which in many forests can continue to rise for much longer than you'll be on this planet, while individual trees are still being harvested). You thereby get not only a small part of the solution for global warming, but you also protect nature and put more money in the pockets of the wonderful stewards of our nation's forests (that crook Charlie Hurwitz excepted).On They're not a silver bullet, but they generally work posted 2 years, 9 months ago 35 Responses