Forests, Carbon and Global Warming: A SYNTHESIS OF SCIENCE FINDINGS

Forests, Carbon andClimate Change

Forests, Carbon andClimate ChangeA SYNTHESIS OF SCIENCE FINDINGS

© 2006 Oregon Forest Resources Institute



A SYNTHESIS OF SCIENCE FINDINGS

A project of

The Oregon Forest Resources Institute

Oregon State University College of Forestry

Oregon Department of Forestry

Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contributing Authors ................................................................................................ ii

Preface ........................................................................................................................... iiiMike Cloughesy, Director of Forestry, Oregon Forest Resources Institute

CHAPTER 1. Introduction: Forests, Carbon and Climate— Continual Change and Many Possibilities ............................................ 3Hal Salwasser, Ph.D., Dean, College of Forestry, Oregon State University

CHAPTER 2. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide ........................................................... 21Mark Harmon, Ph.D., Richardson Chair and Professor of Forest Science, Oregon State University

CHAPTER 3. Climate Change at Multiple Scales .................................................. 31Constance Millar, Ph.D., Research Paleoecologist, PSW Research Station, USDA Forest ServiceRonald P. Neilson, Ph.D., Bioclimatologist, USDA Forest ServiceDominique Bachelet, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Biological andEcological Engineering, Oregon State UniversityRaymond J. Drapek, Ph.D., Ecosystem Modeler/GIS Scientist, U.S. Forest ServiceJames M. Lenihan, Ph.D., Research Scientist, USDA Forest Service

CHAPTER 4. Global Warming: A Skeptic’s View ................................................... 63George Taylor, State Climatologist, Oregon Climate Service

CHAPTER 5. Forest Management Strategies for Carbon Storage ...................... 79Olga N. Krankina, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Senior Research, Department of Forest Science,Oregon State UniversityMark Harmon, Ph.D., Richardson Chair and Professor of Forest Science, Oregon State University

CHAPTER 6. Keeping Land in Forest ...................................................................... 93Jeffrey D. Kline, Ph.D., Research Forester, Pacific Northwest Research Station

CHAPTER 7. Using Wood Products to Reduce Global Warming ...................... 117James Wilson, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of Wood Science and Engineering,Oregon State University

CHAPTER 8. Emerging Markets for Carbon Stored by Northwest Forests ........ 131Bettina von Hagen, V.P., Forestry and Natural Capital Fund, EcotrustMike Burnett, Executive Director, The Climate Trust

CHAPTER 9. Carbon Accounting: Determining CarbonOffsets from Forest Projects ........................................................................... 157Jim Cathcart, Ph.D., Acting Forest Health & Monitoring Manager, Oregon Department of ForestryMatt Delaney, Forester , Delaney Forestry Services

CHAPTER 10. Governor’s Global Warming Initiative .......................................... 177Gail Achterman, Director, Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State University

i


ii

Contributing Authors

Gail AchtermanDirector, Institute for Natural ResourcesOregon State University210 Strand Agriculture HallCorvallis, OR 97331

Dominique Bachelet, Ph.D.Associate ProfessorDepartment of Biological and EcologicalEngineeringOregon State UniversityCorvallis, OR 97331

Mike BurnettExecutive DirectorThe Climate Trust65 SW Yamhill St., Suite 400Portland, OR 97204

Jim Cathcart, Ph.D.Acting Forest Health & Monitoring ManagerOregon Department of Forestry2600 State St.Salem, OR 97310

Matt DelaneyForesterDelaney Forestry Services1216 Calapooia St.Albany, OR 97321

Raymond J. Drapek, Ph.D.Ecosystem Modeler/GIS ScientistU.S. Forest ServicePNW StationCorvallis, OR 97331

Mark Harmon, Ph.D.Richardson Chair and Professor of Forest ScienceOregon State UniversityDepartment of Forest Science321 Richardson HallCorvallis, OR 97331

Jeffrey D. Kline, Ph.D.Research ForesterPacific Northwest Research Station3200 SW Jefferson WayCorvallis, OR 97331

Olga N. Krankina, Ph.D.Assistant Professor, Senior ResearchDepartment of Forest ScienceOregon State University202 Richardson HallCorvallis, OR 97331

James M. Lenihan, Ph.D.Research ScientistUSDA Forest Service3200 SW Jefferson WayCorvallis, OR 97331

Connie Millar, Ph.D.Research PaleoecologistSierra Nevada Research CenterPSW Research Station, USDA Forest Service800 Buchanan St.Albany, CA 94710

Ronald P. Neilson, Ph.D.BioclimatologistUSDA Forest Service3200 SW Jefferson WayCorvallis, OR 997331

Hal Salwasser, Ph.D.Dean, College of ForestryOregon State UniversityCorvallis, OR 97331

George TaylorState ClimatologistOregon Climate Service326 Strand Ag HallCorvallis, OR 97331

Bettina von HagenV.P., Forestry and Natural Capital FundEcotrust721 NW 9th St.Portland, OR 97209

Jim Wilson, Ph.D.Professor EmeritusDepartment of Wood Science and EngineeringOregon State UniversityCorvallis, OR 97331,Vice President,CORRIM, www.corrim.org.


The Oregon Forest Resources Institute(OFRI) commissioned this book, asynthesis of science findings on the

relationships between forests, atmosphericcarbon and climate change. While there is notscientific consensus about all the causes andimplications of global climate change and therole of human activities, there is agreement thatthe relationships between forests and carbon,carbon and climate, and climate and forests areimportant and need to be better understood. Itis also clear that Oregon is a forest-rich state,poised with opportunities for forests, forestryand forest product enterprises to contributetoward maintaining a livable climate.

As we might remember from school, carbon isthe essential element of life. Plants convertatmospheric carbon from CO2 into sugarsthrough photosynthesis. Animals eat plants andgive off CO2 to the atmosphere throughrespiration. And all organisms give off carbonwhen they respire, die and decay.

We now know that there is a relationshipbetween temperature and the amount of carbonin the atmosphere. Of the five greenhouse gases(those in the atmosphere that warm the earthbecause they let in light but do not let out heat),CO2 is the most prevalent. Recent research hasenabled scientists to determine historic CO2atmospheric levels as well as rates of increase anddecrease, and these data have helped put thesituation today in historical perspective.

We know that forests contribute to clean air andwater and to wildlife habitat while providingwood products and recreation. We know thatforests are dynamic and have changed both inlocation and species composition throughcooling and warming periods over the lastseveral million years. We know that climate setsthe stage for livability on earth. And, we know

iii

Preface

that forests play an important role inmaintaining a livable climate.

Beginning around 8,000 to 10,000 years ago,humans initiated massive losses of forest due toagriculture and, subsequently, urban and industrialdevelopment. While forest conversion has largelybeen reversed in North America and Europe, westill face big challenges to keeping the world’sremaining 9.6 billion forest acres in forest use.

During the past 300 years of the industrial age,humans have accelerated the transfer of carbonfrom long-term stores in fossil fuels and forestsinto the atmospheric pool. The current level andrate of increase in both temperature andatmospheric carbon may exceed conditions overthe past 650,000 years, with forests responding incomplex ways.

Since forests play an important role in storingcarbon, having more forest cover is a positiveforce in lowering atmospheric carbon levels.Conversion of lands currently in other uses toforests (afforestation), reforesting quickly andaggressively after harvest or natural disturbance,keeping forestland in forest use and managingforests for fire resilience all have obvious positiveeffects. Beyond that, recent research by forestscientists has confirmed that wood productscontinue to store carbon.

For Oregon and the other Northwest states thatare rich in forest resources, the role forestry canplay in reducing atmospheric carbon has been ofkey interest. This is evidenced even on the policyfront, where California, Oregon and Washingtonhave stepped ahead of the federal government inaddressing the issue. Forests contain about 75percent of the earth’s biomass, so in a state likeOregon, with its highly productive forests, theper-acre potential for carbon storage is among thehighest in the world.


iv

Forest scientists have been studying theinteractions of forests and climate for sometime, and while there is, as might be expected,some complexity and contradiction, there areforest management strategies that can help insequestering carbon or reducing its emissioninto the atmosphere. These techniques include:

■ reducing forest densities to keep trees healthyand minimize the risk of stand-replacing firesand insect problems (for example, the 2002Biscuit Fire in southwestern Oregon releasedabout a fourth as much carbon into theatmosphere that year as was emitted statewideby the burning of fossil fuels);

■ keeping forestland in forest use (this meansensuring that private forestlands can bemanaged profitably as forests);

■ afforesting former forestlands that have beenconverted to non-forest uses and reforestingquickly and aggressively after harvest ornatural disturbance;

■ using wood products and energy generatedfrom wood in lieu of using fossil fuel-intensive products such as steel and concreteand energy generated from fossil fuels; and

■ changing forest management strategies tosequester carbon through thinning, increas-ing rotation lengths and other techniquescan provide forest landowners an opportu-nity to profit from the sale of carbon offsets.

This “carbon sequestration tree” demonstrates mypersonal understanding of the relative importanceof these strategies in affecting climate change.Moving up the tree from the bottom to the top,we have a series of management strategies that canhelp reduce the carbon in our atmosphere.

OFRI’s board of directors and staff appreciate thethorough and professional work done by theauthors and reviewers of the various chapters inthis book. We especially appreciate the leadershipof Hal Salwasser, dean of the OSU College ofForestry, in conceiving this idea and helpingbring it to fruition. We are grateful for the finework of our editor, Donna Matrazzo of theWriting Works, who worked tirelessly with ourauthors and reviewers to pull this project togetherand translate scientific and technical jargon intolanguage the rest of us can understand. Finally,we want to thank Mary Gorton, graphic designerwith Oregon State Printing, for a masterful job oflaying out this book.

We hope you enjoy this book and are stimulatedby these ideas.

Mike CloughesyDirector of ForestryOregon Forest Resources Institute

Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings Chapter One

2

CHAPTER ONEHIGHLIGHTS:

ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE

INTRODUCTION: FORESTS, CARBON AND CLIMATE —CONTINUAL CHANGE AND MANY POSSIBILITIES

WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT FORESTS,CARBON AND CLIMATE?

■ People benefit greatly from forests: qualitywater, native species, wood, recreation.

■ Climate sets the stage for livability; carbonlinks forests and climate.

■ Our climate is warming rapidly; climateaffects forests, forests affect climate.

How have Forests Changed overTime and Space?

■ Forests are dynamic and have changed bothin location and species composition throughcooling and warming periods over geologictime.

Working with Half the Forest

■ Human activities have reduced 50% ofEarth’s post-glacial forest cover.

■ We face large challenges perpetuating theremaining 9.6 billion forest acres as forest.

How have Carbon and ClimateChanged over Time and Space?

■ Levels of atmospheric carbon correlate overtime with ice ages and warm periods.

■ Current level of atmospheric CO2 exceeds

levels estimated over the past 650,000 years;rate of change highest since Last GlacialMaximum about 18,000 years ago.

■ During the past 300 years of the industrialage, humans have transferred carbon from

long-term stores in forests and fossil fuelsinto atmospheric and oceanic pools.

What does the Future Look LikeFrom Here?

■ Climate oscillation and change are expectedto continue, with forests responding incomplex ways: longer growing seasons,warmer winters, more drought stress andfires.

What can We do to Influence FutureClimate through Forest ResourceManagement?

■ Increase forested land area; forests are betterat storing carbon than other land cover.

■ Manage forests and protect from fire, insectsto store more carbon per acre.

■ Capture more carbon in wood products.■ Use mill waste, woody biomass for bio-

based, renewable energy.■ Use wood products instead of more energy-

demanding materials.■ Reward forestland owners for ecosystem

services, other public values; helps keepforestland in forest use.

The Future for Oregon/FinalComments

■ Oregon is a forest-rich state, poised withopportunities for forests, forestry and forestproduct enterprises to profit from positiveroles in maintaining a livable climate.

Chapter One Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings

3

CHAPTER ONEINTRODUCTION: FORESTS, CARBON AND CLIMATE —

CONTINUAL CHANGE AND MANY POSSIBILITIESHal Salwasser

WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT FORESTS,CARBON AND CLIMATE?

This is a book about forests, carbon, andclimate and how they interact. Forestsare vital to our quality of life and well

being. They protect our watersheds, harbornative plant and animal species, provide woodand fiber-based products used daily by nearlyeveryone, and are settings for varied recreationaland cultural activities. Forest management andconservation and forest products enterprises alsosupport many communities and drive a majorpart of Oregon’s economy.

Climate, of course, sets the context for livability. Itaffects the means by which all organisms pursuetheir existence. It also affects the kinds of foreststhat occur in different places and at different timesacross the land surface of our planet. And, as weare increasingly aware, not only does climate affectforests, but forests affect climate. Carbon is one ofthe prime linkages between forests and climate,along with water and oxygen.

Carbon is a key component of all life’sfundamental building blocks, including fats,carbohydrates, and proteins. In fact, about half ofthe dry mass of all living things is composed ofcarbon. Plants take carbon from the atmosphere inthe form of carbon dioxide gas (CO

2) and use

water and the sun’s energy to make a newcompound, glucose (C

6H

12O

6 ), composed of

carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Some of theglucose is converted by the plant to cellulose andends up as one of the main structural compoundsin wood in the case of trees. Through this process,called photosynthesis, carbon is removed from theatmospheric pool. About half the carbon absorbedthrough photosynthesis is later released by plants

as they use their own energy to grow. The rest iseither stored in the plant, transferred to the soilwhere it may persist for a very long time in theform of organic matter, or transported through thefood chain to support other forms of terrestrial life.

When plants die and decompose, or when weburn biomass or its ancient remains in the formof fossil fuels, the original captured and storedcarbon is released back to the atmosphere as CO

2

and other carbon-based gases. In addition, whenforests or other terrestrial ecosystems aredisturbed through harvesting, conversion, ornatural events such as fires, some of the carbonstored in the soils and organic matter, such asstumps, snags, and slash, is oxidized and releasedback to the atmospheric pool as CO

2. The

amount released varies, depending on subsequentland use and probably rarely is more than 50% ofthe original soil store.

At the global scale, if more carbon is releasedthrough decomposition or burning than iscaptured and stored through photosynthesis oroceanic processes, the concentration of carbondioxide (CO

2) builds in the atmospheric pool.

Why is this important? Because CO2 is a

greenhouse gas, as are methane (CH4) and

nitrous oxide (NO2). Like a car windshield on a

sunny day, these gases let short wavelengthsunlight energy pass through the atmosphere tothe earth’s surface, but do not let an equivalentamount of longer wavelength heat energy passback out to the universe. Oceans also absorband store—or sequester—large amounts ofcarbon through the accumulation of unoxidizedproducts of photosynthesis, as well as throughother chemical processes (IPCC 2001).


4

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere correlatewith the earth’s mean annual surface temperature,and global surface temperatures affect processessuch as glaciation. From the geologic record, itappears that glacial periods coincide withatmospheric levels of around 200 parts per million(0.02%) CO

2. Interglacials (the periods of time

between glacial epochs) have generally coincidedwith levels approaching, but not exceeding 300parts per million (0.03%)—that is, until the past100 years (Siegenthaler et al. 2005). Earth’satmosphere currently includes around 380 partsper million (0.038%) of CO

2, the highest detected

or inferred level over the past 650,000 years. Thecurrent concentration of atmospheric CO

2 is

about 30% higher than at the start of theindustrial era, with a rate of change unprecedentedsince the last glacial maximum.

It is important to note that global temperature andCO

2 relationships are correlations. They may not

necessarily result from a direct cause and effectrelationship. Scientists are still not certain aboutthe degree to which increasing carbon dioxide inthe atmosphere causes warming or the degree towhich warming causes increasing atmosphericcarbon dioxide levels. Mean global surfacetemperatures during the most recent glacial periodare estimated to have been around 10° F colderthan present (IPCC 2001). Scientific evidence isclear that both temperature and CO

2 levels have

increased over the past 100 years, reversing a priorcooling trend in the climate (IPCC 2001, NRC2006), and human activity is strongly implicated.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) estimated about 0.25° F sensitivity inmean annual global temperature with each changeof 10 parts per million in the level of atmosphericCO

2. This would amount to a global climate

about 2.5° F warmer than 100 years ago, if CO2

alone explained all climate change. But theclimate warmed by only about 1.0° F over the pastcentury, mostly during two periods: 1910-1945and 1976-2000 (IPCC 2001). The difficulty inelucidating cause and effect between atmosphericcarbon dioxide and climate results from lags inprocess responses and complex feedbacks among

climate factors that are not completely understoodat this time (Boisvenue and Running 2006).Major aspects of climate change are also driven bymechanisms unrelated to greenhouse gases, such asthe shape of the earth’s orbit, tilt of the polar axis,and solar and volcanic activity. Nevertheless,recent scientific evidence points to human-causedadditions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere asvery likely (90%-99% probability) factors in recentwarming trends over the past century (IPCC2001, NRC 2006).

Forests play important roles in climate throughother mechanisms in addition to carbon exchange.These mechanisms may be as or more importantthan that of carbon exchange. The massiveamounts of water transpired by forests ultimatelychange the global distribution of energy in theatmosphere, affecting rainfall patterns, cloudiness,and storms. Even the optical or reflectiveproperties of forests differ from those of mostother objects; forests absorb 85%-95% ofincoming shortwave solar energy. Evergreenconifers in the boreal region thus warm theatmosphere by holding solar energy, while borealdeciduous forests with snow on the ground in thewinter reflect more incoming radiation away fromthe earth, as do deserts.

There is currently much public concern andscientific dialogue about the impacts of human-caused additions of CO

2 and other greenhouse

gases to the atmosphere. Cycles of warming andcooling periods in our geologic history have greatlyaffected where certain organisms could thrive,including lately, humans. Thus the ability ofplants and animals to move and adapt in responseto climate change has been vital to the persistenceof those lineages that have not gone extinct(Williams 2006). Some tree species, for example,have shifted in elevation as much as 3,000 feet orin latitudes as much as 1,000 miles in response toclimate changes since the last glacial retreat around10,000 years ago. In the past, species had the timeand physical ability to make such adjustments.


5

Some studies suggest that the rate of climatechange today is unparalleled in the geologic past,certainly in the past 1,000 years (NRC 2006).Other evidence indicates that climate changes mayhave been even more rapid and abrupt duringprevious glacial periods, associated with largereleases of methane from the ocean floor, and thatthe interglacial period of the past 10,000 yearsmay actually be a more stable climate thancharacterized much of the previous 2.5 millionyears, except perhaps for the past 100 years whenthe rate of change has been very steep (IPCC2001, NRC 2006).

Irrespective of the rate of climate change currentlyunderway, the landscape in many parts of theworld is now filled with artifacts of humanoccupancy that present barriers to the freemovement of many species, such as fencedhighways, valley bottoms full of houses and farms,and dams on major river systems. Today’s diverseassemblage of species has neither the luxury oftime nor the freedom to move unimpeded byphysical barriers or fragmented landscapes.

If human-caused additions of carbon dioxide andother greenhouse gases to the atmospheric pool aredriving the rapid rate of climate change, then wehave major reason for concern. Forests areaffected. Hydrologic cycles are affected.Agriculture is affected. And ultimately our qualityof life is affected. But we need not sit back andjust let it all unfold. Some even say we have amoral imperative to act quickly and boldly tochange human impacts on climate (Gore 2006).Options are many but lag effects of greenhousegases already in the atmosphere appear to committhe planet to continued warming for manydecades (Pacala and Socolow 2004). If we wantdiverse, productive and resilient future forests, weneed to prepare them for a warmer future. Andwe need to look for ways forest resources canmitigate or ameliorate undesired climate change.

We can take actions to reduce the effects of humanactivities on climate, but not immediately reverseimpacts already made. The most significant actionto reduce human-caused atmospheric carbon is to

use less fossil fuel energy to support our life needs.To reverse trends will require finding energysubstitutes for fossil fuels at the global scale. Thesepoints cannot be overemphasized because withouttaking these actions soon the planet is going to geta lot warmer than it has been for at least severalmillion years.

Annual per capita CO2 emissions vary widely

among nations: estimated at 22 US tons emittedper person per annum in the U.S., about 11 tonsper person in European Union countries, about3.3 tons in China and slightly over 1 ton for India(United Nations 2005). With the economies ofIndia and China growing rapidly based on fossilfuel energy, principally coal-fired power plants,their per capita consumption rates are bound toincrease; combined those nations already havenearly eight times the human population as doesthe U.S. Combined per capita carbon emissionsin India and China need only rise to around 2.8tons per person to equal the total CO

2 emissions

of the U.S. at our current population andconsumption. They may well reach this level oftotal emissions in the early 21st century. Unlikesome local or regional environmental impacts,adding pollutants from anywhere to theatmosphere eventually effects the entire planet.

We can partially influence how much human-caused carbon dioxide is added to or sequesteredfrom the atmosphere through how we manage andconserve forests and forest products. Majoroptions include reducing deforestation whichreduces carbon release, storing more carbon inexisting forest ecosystems, acceleratingafforestation which sequesters more carbon as thetrees grow, and encouraging greater use of wood-based materials that store more carbon and use lessenergy in manufacture in place of more energy-demanding products such as steel, concrete, andplastics. These actions could also have significantco-benefits beyond their impacts on climate.

We can also influence future forest ecosystems sothey are better able to accommodate the warmerclimates they are likely to encounter. Westerlinget al., (2006) suggest that climate warming is a


6

significant factor in the intensity of forest fireseasons in recent decades and that restoringresilience to fire in some forest types may reducefuture impacts of even warmer temperatures onforest fires. Given that climate is warming, evenif we do not understand all the driving factors,preparing forests to handle a future muchdifferent than the past makes sense. As thesaying goes, “One cannot navigate the future byonly looking in the rear-view mirror.”

Forests, forestry, and forest products cannotcollectively solve the entire “climate problem,”but they are essential pieces to a comprehensiveclimate strategy (Pacala and Socolow 2004). Thechapters in this book show that how we use,manage, and conserve forests and forest productscan make a difference for future climates if webegin to bring carbon and climate into forestpolicies and decision-making.

How have Forests Changed overTime and Space?

So, what can we learn from the past that willhelp us navigate into the future regardingforests and climate? Satellite imagery has beenused to show the kinds of vegetation or lackthereof currently covering the earth’s landsurface. If such imagery could have beenobtained for prior times we would see muchchange in land cover. Over the past 2.5 millionyears we would see around 40 cycles of glacialand interglacial periods, sea levels rising andfalling by 300-400 feet, and forests moving andchanging not only in location but also inspecies composition. Over hundreds of millionsof years we would see entire continents movingacross the surface of the earth, isolating orreassembling their biotas in the process. Lesson1: whatever we might consider as forest today,even without human actions it has never beenstable or in the same place for all time.

Regardless of age, structure, or species composi-tion, all forests are created and maintained byinteractions among their constituent species andbetween those species and their physical environ-

ments, including the prevailing climate for theregion. Forests are also affected by disturbanceevents such as fires, storms, droughts, landslides,volcanoes, floods, and human actions. While agiven forest may look stable or seem in equilib-rium to a casual observer on an annual or evendecadal time scale, all forests are highly dynamicon multiple temporal and spatial scales with bothspecies composition and structure changing overtime and space. Some animal species move inand out of particular forest areas on a daily orseasonal basis. Hourly measures of carbonexchange between forests and the atmosphereshow that large changes occur over the course ofa day. Lesson 2: any perspective on forests mustbe taken with multi-scale dynamics in mind,especially change we can affect over decadal andcenturies time scales at stand, landscape andregional geographic scales.

Prior to around a million years ago, the landsurface cover we would see over most of theworld if we had the satellite imagery wouldconsist of whatever nature delivered in theabsence of human beings. But with the emer-gence of early humans (Homo erectus) and theireventual diaspora out of Africa into Europe andAsia around 0.5 to 1 million years ago, naturewithout humans ceased being the only driver ofchange (Williams 2003, Wade 2005). Humaninfluence on forests through use of fire, hunting,and gathering would most likely have been slightand localized at first, then spreading and morepervasive as behaviorally modern humans (Homosapiens) subsequently evolved in Africa thendispersed across Eurasia an estimated 80,000 to50,000 years ago. In some places they replacedearlier hominids, Homo erectus, and in others,such as Australia and the Americas, they were thefirst humans to show up. People arrived in theAmericas perhaps as early as 15,000 to 20,000years ago (Shreeve 2006), though the mostcredible earliest reliable dates so far recorded arecloser to 12,000 years ago (see review byRoosevelt et al., 2002). At the height of the LastGlacial Maximum approximately 18,000 yearsago, sea levels were an estimated 300-400 feetlower than current (Lambeck and Chappell


7

2001), continental ice sheets covered vast areas ofNorth America’s middle to higher latitudes, andglaciers occurred even at low elevations, ca. 3,000feet, in the Southern Sierra Nevada in California.By 12,000 years ago, continental and montaneglacial ice was in retreat but sea levels were stillnearly 200 feet lower than current. It is plausiblethat some of the first Americans lived in placesnow under coastal oceans and used watercraftand coastline resources (Erlandson 2002) in theirrapid dispersal to South America, reachingpresent day Chile an estimated 12,500 years ago(Dillehay 2000).

The key point here is that whenever and wher-ever humans arrived, they did not encounterforests or any other ecosystem types in the sameplaces or of the same species composition that wedo today. When humans first arrived in what isnow Oregon, as hunters and gatherers who alsoused fire, it marked the beginning of a new forceof ecosystem change in our state—human action.Lesson 3: one must envision forests in periodsprior to human occupancy—not just prior toEuro-American settlement—to get a sense ofwhat a pristine forest unaffected by humanactivity might have been and that forest willnever occur in exactly that form or place again.

Human influences on forests increaseddramatically in scope and magnitude followingthe most recent glacial period. Sometimearound 20,000 years ago in Southeast Asia, HoaBinh people appear to have learned how tocultivate food plants to augment their hunter-gatherer existence. Around 8,000 to 10,000years ago, perhaps earlier, humans beganpracticing agriculture in the near East(Mesopotamia), Indus River Valley, and Far East(China) and Mesoamerica. Farming enabledpeople to augment then replace small-bandnomadic and hunter-gatherer lifestyles withmore stable, larger communities based onsedentary rather than shifting agriculture and alarger, more consistent food supply. The earlypost-glacial domestication and selectivebreeding of cereal grains, maize, fruits, andvegetables entailed purposeful transformation of

native plant communities, including areas offorest, to farm plots or the interplanting of foodcrops into native plant communities. Withnew, more stable food supplies, the total humanpopulation was able to grow from around 5-10million prior to agriculture to perhaps on theorder of 100 million as cultivating culturesspread and multiplied. It also enabled theevolution of social hierarchies, complex cultures,and the trappings of what we would eventuallycall civilizations, including highly organizedwarfare.

It is likely that early farmers grew their firstcrops in forest or woodland openings, onfloodplains or on terraces near water but aboveflood zones. Grassland sods would likely havebeen difficult to cultivate with primitive toolsbut their large-scale conversion to farms wouldeventually come beginning 3,000 to 5,000 yearsago with metal tools, draft animals and, in thelast 100 years, motorized machines. As theglobal human population grew, reaching anestimated 500 million prior to the start of theindustrial era, its need for forest soils for crops,water for irrigation, and wood for fuel, farmimplements, building materials, metallurgy, andconducting trade and war impacted forestsfarther and farther from the early communities(Perlin 1991). As Perlin (1991) compellinglydocumented, most Euro-Asian civilizations wereenabled by wood and other forest resources.Many of those civilizations, in turn,dramatically transformed forests and forest soils,often to the long-term degradation of the landand the cultures they at one time supported(Marsh 1874, Perlin 1991, Williams 2003).The reader should note that what I amdescribing here is not forestry as we know ittoday; it was unsustainable resourceexploitation, land degradation and land-useconversion. Forestry emerged as a “solution” tothese unsustainable human land and resourceuse practices.

Sedentary agriculture and associated high densitiesof people arrived or emerged at different times invarious places around the world. But whenever


8

and wherever it did, it inevitably entailed human-caused land use change. These changes, in the mostrecent 2,000 years, include massive conversion offorests to agriculture and, prior to widespread use offossil fuels, massive amounts of wood used forcooking, heating, shelter, tools and ships (Perlin1991, Williams 2003). Forest trees provided thefuels that allowed prehistoric stone-age humans tobegin smelting bronze beginning about 5,500 yearsbefore present and later iron beginning around3,200 years before present. Both of these metalsrequire very energy-demanding processes, i.e., lotsof wood or charcoal to fuel the furnaces. New metaltools then enabled even more productive agricultureand more land conversion to farms and towns.While IPCC (2001) suggests relatively little humanimpact on climate prior to the industrial era, otherevidence suggests potentially significant pre-industrial impacts (Perlin 1991, Ruddiman 2003,Williams 2003). Lesson 4: while it is commonlybelieved that most global forest loss and its associ-ated climate impact occurred during and after theindustrial era began in the mid to late-1700s, it isquite plausible that very early uses of forest resourcesand forest transformations actually began the era ofhuman-aided climate change thousands, not justhundreds of years ago.

Ruddiman (2003) points to a divergence in theactual level of atmospheric carbon from thatpredicted by current global climate models—without human additions, atmospheric carbondioxide levels based on Earth’s physical processesshould have declined, while actual levels esti-mated from proxy indicators increased. CO

2

release from widespread deforestation, burning ofwood and forests, rise of paddy rice cultivation,and growing herds of domestic livestock are citedby Ruddiman as reasons why the climate atnorthern latitudes is now an estimated 3.6° Fwarmer than it otherwise might have beenwithout human-caused additions of atmosphericcarbon dioxide that started well prior to theindustrial era. He posits that had it not been forpre-industrial age additions of carbon dioxide andmethane to the atmosphere, Earth would havebegun returning to the early stages of the nextglacial period nearly 6,000 to 4,000 years ago.

Broecker (2006) rebuts Ruddiman’s explanationand claims that the past 8,000-year record ofatmospheric CO

2 can be explained by non-

human factors. If Broecker is right, pre-industrial era impacts of human action onclimate may not be of significant concern,though the recent and current roles certainlyare. However, if Ruddiman is right, the roles ofhuman action and forest loss in climate changeover thousands of years would be even moresubstantial than we might currently think andwould compel consideration in betterunderstanding current impacts. At this pointscience is still debating and collecting data andrunning models. But it certainly is intriguing aswe ponder the effects of climate warming tothink about Ruddiman’s hypotheses andwhether or not the human enterprise hasunintendedly postponed the next period ofglacial advance.

Deforestation and fire create the second largestsource of human-caused CO

2 emissions to the

atmosphere, following fossil fuel burning.Future forest losses if deforestation is not haltedcould lead to something on the order of 25% oftotal future CO

2 emissions still coming from

forest conversion. This is why the human-caused climate impacts of the last 150 years, thecurrent rapid rate of human-influenced climatechange, and further changes projected for thenext 100 years are of prime concern now andfor the foreseeable future and why forests andforest resources must be part of anycomprehensive strategy to ameliorate undesiredchanges. Lesson 5: the rates of climate changesince 1850 and projected for the next 100 yearsare extreme compared to most of the past andthey will have profound consequences for ourquality of life that will be compounded if we donot start taking actions to ameliorate them.

Working with Half the Forest

Why is this historical perspective on forests,carbon, and climate included in theintroductory chapter? Because understandingthe past is useful in knowing how to journey


9

into the future. Human population growth,expansion, and land transformation have likelyresulted in the more-or-less permanent loss ofabout 50% of the forest cover that existed 8,000years ago, and much though certainly not all ofthis loss has occurred within the past 300 years(Figure 9.1, Williams 2003). (I say more or lesspermanent because if or when the earth’sbiodiversity no longer includes humans, forestsmay eventually return to those places whereclimate and soils support their species.) Some

The main point here is that whatever thedevelopmental stage of the world’s forests priorto the advent of agriculture or prior to theindustrial era post 1750, approximately half of it isnot forest of any kind anymore. It has beenconverted to agricultural use, or more permanentlychanged by multiple forms of humandevelopment. It has long ago given up its above-ground stored carbon to the atmospheric oroceanic pools or to temporary storage in durablewood products and some—probably less than

forests long ago converted to farms returned toforest when people abandoned areas of occupancyor decided to plant trees rather than food crops,while deforestation continues in other places tothis day. Not all of the originally converted forestswould have been old-growth full of stored carbon,since nature and human activities create andmaintain mosaics of successional stages. But someor much of the original forest must have been old-growth or late-successional forest that storedmaximal amounts of carbon for the forest type andgeographic location.

50%—of its below-ground carbon as well. Howmuch total carbon? We can only estimate theanswer. A plausible amount might be thatsomething on the order of between 25% and 37%of the carbon once stored in forests has beenreleased since about half the carbon stored inglobal forests is in the soils and between 50% to100% of an equivalent to the original soil carbonpool may still be intact or subsequentlyreplenished. By now, oceans have probablyabsorbed most of the CO

2 released from forests

centuries to millennia ago and they may beturning more acidic as a result with undesiredconsequences to marine life (Kleypas et al. 2006).

Figure 1

Source: Williams, Michael. 2003. Deforesting the Earth: From Prehistory to Global Crisis. ©University of Chicago Press.

> 0.5% Decrease per year

> 0.5% Increase per year

Change rate below 0.5% per year


10

Beyond knowing we are now working withabout half the forest that might have beenpossible had the human enterprise not evolvedas it has, we must also consider that much ofthe remaining half has been impacted byharvests and reforestation, afforestation afteragricultural abandonment, or alterations inspecies composition resulting from“agroforestry” or introduction of non-nativespecies. Hence, their ecological condition andcarbon storage capacity are much different fromthat of pristine forests prior to humanintervention. And humanity is not a mere 500million souls anymore, but nearly 6.5 billion,heading for perhaps 8 to 10 billion by mid-century. This is on the order of 1,000 timesmore people than are thought to have existed atthe advent of agriculture.

Global forests currently store just over half of thecarbon residing in terrestrial ecosystems (FAO2001). The total biosphere carbon pool isestimated at 2,190 Pg (a petagram is 1.1 billionU.S. tons) of carbon. Of this, approximately1,000 Pg is in forests. How significant is that? Itis roughly 50% more carbon than now resides inthe atmospheric pool and about 20%-25% of thecarbon pool stored in remaining, accessible fossilfuels, estimated at 4,000-5,000 Pg. This meansthe original forest prior to human impacts mayhave stored up to 40% as much carbon as thecurrent pool in fossil fuels, or that deforestationmay have already released an amount of carbonequal to up to 15% of the carbon currently storedin the fossil fuel pool. Far greater carbon pools arein deep oceans (38,000 Pg) and carbonaceousrocks (65,000,000 Pg), but contrary to forests,these pools do not turn over quickly.

Cumulative carbon losses due to changes inland use from 1850 to 2000 are an estimated156 Pg of terrestrial carbon (Houghton 2003),90% of which may be from deforestation alone(IPCC 2001). Emissions from burning fossilfuels and making cement during this sameperiod are estimated at 275 Pg of carbon(Houghton 2003). Thus, carbon emissionsfrom historical land use change could be equal

to 56% of historical fossil fuel emissions makingland use change, most especially deforestationand afforestation, a significant factor inatmospheric carbon accumulation and in anycomprehensive climate strategy.

Throughout the industrial era, most though notall forest clearing occurred in temperate regions.Now most deforestation is occurring in tropicalregions and global temperate forested area isrelatively stable (or increasing thoughafforestation). However, much new temperateforest is quite different in composition andcarbon storage capacity than the original forestit replaced and it is also quite different thanprimary tropical forest (FAO 2005). Temperateforest area stability, while true for many regions,is not true for certain U.S. regions, such asWashington, California, New England, theSouth, and Midwest, where forests are stillbeing converted to residential uses.

Deforestation remains the primary source ofcarbon emissions from terrestrial ecosystemsglobally, amounting to net of about 2 Pg peryear (FAO 2001). Releases from burning fossilfuels add more than 6 Pg per year. FAO (2001)estimates that reducing deforestation by 50%,combined with agroforestry and afforestation/reforestation over and above what is currentlyoccurring could maximally offset about 1.5 Pgof the fossil fuel additions to the atmosphericpool. This is significant and should beconsidered in any comprehensive climate policy.But even if all global forests were managed formaximum carbon sequestration, they alonecannot completely offset CO

2 emissions from

current rates of burning fossil fuels.

Humans are not through transforming land,particularly forests. And we’re not throughburning fossil fuels. Starting with only half theforestland that might have been possible absenthumans, we face large challenges to retain eventhe remaining 9.6 billion acres of global forest asforest. Only by keeping or increasing forestlandin forest uses, storing more carbon in thoseforests, using forest products in place of energy-


11

demanding substitutes, or by lengthening thelife of forest products can forests contribute tothe amelioration of current climate trends.Doing all these things would maximize forestopportunities to contribute to desired climateoutcomes.

How have Carbon and ClimateChanged over Time and Space?

Absent the presence and impacts of humans,climate and atmospheric carbon continuallychange in cyclical patterns due to physical factorsassociated with the shape and position of Earth’sorbit relative to the sun, tilt of the polar axis,solar activity, volcanoes, and ocean currents.There are also complex feedbacks between thereflectance of various land covers and climatetrends. Ice sheets reflect more of the sun’s energythan forests so when a glacial period starts itaccelerates as the ice advances and vice versa.These climate processes have been at work foralmost as long as Earth has existed and they willcontinue to cause climate change in the future.Thus the issues at hand are: what are the effectsof human activities in modifying climate changeand what can we do about those we do not wishto experience? These are the main points ofcontention among climate scientists.

Most climate scientists do not argue aboutclimate change, they argue about how currentchange relates to past change, the magnitude ofhuman impacts on climate, and how thoseimpacts might be interacting with non-humanfactors that drive climate change (IPCC 2001,Ruddiman 2003, Broecker 2006, NRC 2006).The principal human activities that add carbonto the atmosphere are burning fossil fuels,manufacturing cement which consumes energyto heat limestone, converting ecosystems withhigh carbon stores (such as forests) to ecosystemswith lower carbon stores (such as agriculturallands or residential areas), certain agriculturalpractices such as paddy rice cultivation whichemits methane, and maintaining largepopulations of domestic livestock that alsoproduce methane. Much of the estimated 50%

loss of forests to other land uses over the past8,000 years has occurred during the most recent300 years of the industrial age, augmenting theadditions of carbon to the atmosphere from otherhuman activities.

The past 300 years are also significant in severalother ways. The massive conversion of forestsduring this period coincided with burning woodharvested from those forests, and then burningfossil fuels. Used for smelting metals, makingbricks and cement, and eventually fuelingmotorized transportation, fossils fuels helpedenable dramatic increases in economic activity incertain nations, along with accelerated globaltrade. The industrial age has thus witnessed thetransfer of large amounts of carbon from two ofits long-term stores into the atmospheric andoceanic pools—from forests converted to otherland uses and from wood and fossil fuels burnedto drive economic development. Theatmospheric carbon in excess of what nature’sprocesses would otherwise deliver will eventuallybe taken back up by oceans, but not as quickly aswe are delivering carbon to the atmosphere, andnot all of it until human actions release only asmuch carbon as terrestrial and aquatic ecosystemsare capable of sequestering.

Scientists are still working to understand moreprecisely how industrial-era carbon releases haveimpacted global climate. Relationships betweencarbon and climate are not simple. Nor are theylinear, direct cause and effect. During this 400-year period of adding carbon dioxide to theatmosphere, Earth also experienced what isreferred to as the Little Ice Age, a cooling periodthat ended during the latter half of thenineteenth century. Remnant glaciers have beenreceding since the late 1800s, dramatically so inrecent decades. Did the addition of carbondioxide from industrial era forest conversioncoupled with burning fossil fuels bring the LittleIce Age to a premature end? Ruddiman (2003)thinks it plausible. Or did long-term cyclicalfactors that drive climate override whateverimpacts human activities might have had?Probably not (IPCC 2001, NRC 2006).


12

What does the Future Look LikeFrom Here?

To a degree, what we know from the past tells uswhat we might expect in the future. Climateoscillates, it cycles at multiple scales, it oftenchanges abruptly, and forests respond to climatechange in complex ways. We should not expectany of these principles to be different in the future.

The transition time to any potential futureclimate equilibration—estimated to be at least acentury from now, perhaps longer and then onlyif we boldly change course on emissions andsequestration soon—means that we and ourgrandchildren will live through warmer climatesfor many decades. Will the current levels of CO

2

in the atmosphere, and projected additions fromfuture human activities, be enough to alter anynon-human climate cooling forces? Or will theyexacerbate non-human warming factors? Wedon’t know for sure yet. We have only models togive us ranges of possible futures and the mainscenarios examined point to a warmer, not cooler,future (IPCC 2001). These scenarios suggestfuture mean annual global temperature increasesthat range from a low of about 2 times theamount of increase over the past 100 years to ahigh of about 11 times the rate of increase duringthe twentieth century (IPCC 2001). Thus, theheightened concern about carbon and climateand what we can do about them.

What might these estimated future global meantemperatures mean for us? IPCC (2001)estimates the following as very likely: highermaximum temperatures and more hot days overnearly all land areas, higher minimumtemperatures, fewer cold days and more frost-free days over nearly all land areas, and moreintense precipitation events. They rate as likely,increased summer continental drying andassociated risk of drought for most mid-latitudecontinental interiors. The U.S. south of theCanadian border is a mid-latitude region.

Using the best state-of-the-art models anddatabases, scientists describe what we might

expect for climate and forests in Oregon—not asingle future but a range of possible futuresbased on current trends and assumptions abouttheir continuation. Most future climatescenarios for the Pacific Northwest showincreases in mean annual temperature of fromabout 3.5 to 7.0° F by the end of the twenty-first century. Recall that global mean annualtemperature rose by only about 1.0° F duringthe twentieth century. Regional precipitationmay change little, perhaps become slightlywetter or slightly drier. But with a warmerclimate more precipitation will come as rainthan snow and growing seasons may beextended, leading to higher biomassaccumulations and lower summer stream flows.

Woody vegetation is likely to increase in the dryecosystems east of the Cascade crest and insouthwestern Oregon, while alpine vegetation maybe reduced as the upper treeline moves up inelevation — right off the top of the mountain insome cases. Projected warmer winter temperaturescould open some Oregon forests to species that donot tolerate hard winter frost, changing theassemblage of species in our forests. It could alsochange the nature of insect and disease outbreaks,as cold winters are one of nature’s checks andbalances on their populations. In the past, plantand animal species were able to move freely acrossthe landscape in response to climate change if itwas tolerable and slow enough. But the currentfaster pace of change, along with extensive humaninfrastructure such as roads and developmentsthroughout many landscapes, will hamper thenatural ability of some species to adapt bychanging location.

Perhaps the most significant implications of futureclimate scenarios for the Pacific Northwest are thepotential impacts on fish and fire. Warmertemperatures, longer growing seasons, earlier snowmelt, and more droughts mean earlier peak streamand river flows and lower summer flows. Theseare bound to impact native fish populations,including wild salmon runs. Forests in the futurewill be even more vulnerable to insect epidemicsand uncharacteristically intense, large fires.


13

Westerling et al. (2006) document data and modelresults suggesting that climate warming has madefire seasons since the 1980s more severe, regardlessof fuel conditions or past forest management.Running (2006) suggests future fire seasons willeven be more severe.

These changes in fire seasons will require eithermore resources dedicated to fire suppression,which will only make the eventual fires moresevere, or a policy change to allow fires to burnwhere they do not endanger other’s property orhomes. With a declining federal discretionarybudget, the latter may end up being the defaultoption. Another option would be topurposefully ignite fires when forest and weatherconditions are likely to lead to acceptable andmore controllable fire intensity and area of burn.This may require rethinking how air, water, andendangered species laws are implemented,accepting some short-term risk to air and waterquality and at-risk species to reduce long-termcumulative risk (Mealey et al. 2005).

Whether future forest fires will add more CO2

to the atmospheric pool than is removed byforests accumulating more biomass in awarming climate with longer growing seasons isnot universally clear. It depends on thegeographic scale and the severity of fires, as wellas the forest type. It also depends on whathappens after the fire in terms of burned treesand reforestation. In some cases the mostpositive effect on climate may entail harvestingfire-killed trees, turning them into durableproducts, and then actively reforesting theburned area as proposed by Sessions et al.(2004). But this also depends on how muchfossil fuel would be consumed through harvest,transport, milling, and reforestation. In othersthe most positive effect may entail letting naturealone decompose the fire-killed trees andrevegetate the landscape (Law et al. 2004). Theissue of how best to respond following majorforest disturbance events is currently receivingmuch attention in scientific and policy areas.

What can We do to Influence FutureClimate through Forest ResourceManagement?

Scientists, among others, have suggested worst casescenarios for future climate and forests. But we arenot doomed to worst-case scenarios on eitherclimate or forests unless we do nothing to changecourse. There are significant actions that can beemployed to mitigate the worst case, and helpreduce net human-caused additions of carbon tothe atmosphere, what Princeton scientists StevenPacala and Robert Socolow (2004) call the WedgeStrategy to close the gap between worst case andpossibly tolerable case. West Coast governors haveagreed to work together to reduce CO

2 emissions.

California has established a state-backed and third-party verified carbon registry that includes forestconservation and management for storing addi-tional carbon beyond “business as usual.” Thereare many actions the field of forestry can employ.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(2005) estimated that forest and agricultural landin the U.S. is currently an annual “sink” of about.225 Pg of carbon equivalent. (Carbon equivalentrepresents all greenhouse gas effects expressed asthe net effect of that amount of carbon dioxide. Asink is a carbon pool that is gaining carbon, suchas a forest that is growing). Annual removal ofCO

2 through carbon sequestration, i.e., the rate of

carbon removals, in terrestrial ecosystems is greaterthan CO

2 emissions from forest harvests, land-use

conversions, or fire—and 90% of this sink activityoccurs on forest lands. U.S. forests currently offsetabout 12% of annual U.S. greenhouse gas emis-sions from all sectors. If fossil fuel use increases, theoffset percentage may go down. If fossil fuel usestabilizes or declines and if forests and forestproducts are better used as sequestration mecha-nisms, it could go up. But the U.S. continues tolose forests to development at the rate of about 1million acres per year in the 1990s decliningslightly since then but with projected net losses ofup to 23 million acres by 2050 (Stein et al. 2005,Alig et al. 2003). This trend needs to be reversed ifforests are to play positive roles in carbon storageand climate.


14

Forests could play more positive roles in atmo-spheric carbon and future climate if we manageand conserve them with their roles in carbon cyclesin mind—as both long-term storage pools andactive sinks—and use durable wood-based materi-als instead of higher energy consuming substitutessuch as steel and concrete.

Land Use Strategies

The Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO 2005) estimates global netforest loss at about 45 million acres per year:about 79 million acres of forest lost in the tropics,offset by about 35 million acres of forest gainedin temperate areas each year. But these are notone-for-one offsets. An acre of native forest inthe tropics doesn’t equal an acre of new forest intemperate zones for carbon or biodiversity forthat matter. The two most positive impacts onglobal climate the forest sector can make are land-use strategies that reduce forest conversion toother uses—i.e., keep forestland in forest uses—and the creation of additional forests on soilscapable of supporting forest trees but were not inforest use. Managing for and perpetuating high-carbon-storage older forests are also part oflandscape-scale solutions. But this will requirenew thinking about what old forest conservationmeans in the face of a continually warmingclimate with more droughts, insects, and fire; itmay not mean passive preservation with nohuman intervention.

Starting points are significant in determining agiven forest’s contribution to global atmosphericcarbon. Afforestation of abandoned agriculturalland that is suitable for tree growing will have anet positive effect, removing more carbon than isbeing released. Reforestation of recently cut oldor mature forests would have negative net effectsuntil such time as the new trees capture and storemore in-forest carbon than was released throughharvest and processing, as well as that releasedfrom on-site decomposition. Also, determiningthe net effect of forestry on carbon sequestrationis not a stand-scale problem; it requires

landscape-scale and inter-regional assessmentsover periods of time. Storing more carbon indomestic old growth or secondary forests will dolittle to increase the global rate of carbonsequestration if primary forests in other regionsof the world are harvested to produce the woodproducts we consume but do not produce(Shifley 2006). This is a real and timely concernas the U.S. now imports nearly 40% of softwoodtimber products used annually (Howard 2006),much of it from boreal primary forests in Canadaat present. Between 1965 and 2005 softwoodlumber consumption in the U.S. – our largest useof wood products — rose by 93% while theportion of consumption supplied by imports roseby 400%. Domestic strategies for using forests tosequester and store carbon must be considered inthe global context of how much wood the U.S. isusing and where it is coming from.

Forest Management Strategies

Beyond avoiding deforestation and creating newforests on suitable lands, there are multi-prongedmanagement strategies that can be employed forexisting forests. For example, more carbon can bestored per acre of land by accelerating reforesta-tion and tree growth after disturbance, whateverthe cause. On forests managed for timberproduction, extending the length of time treesgrow prior to harvest along with protectionagainst fires and insects, would increase in-forestcarbon storage and reduce vulnerability to carbonloss at the landscape scale. In fire-prone foreststhis might mean favoring a diversity of treespecies rather than a single species, and keepingstocking levels lower than full-site occupancy formaximum productivity, i.e., reducing vulnerabil-ity to drought stress, insects, and fire. Lowerstocking and diverse species tend to reduce fireseverity resulting in more trees surviving the fireand hence more carbon stored than if a fire killsmost or all standing trees.

Perpetuating old growth forests in a warmingclimate subject to more fire may require landscape-scale strategies to reduce fire hazards within


15

reserves and buffer surrounding areas from highseverity burns. In interior lower elevation forests,it may mean active management to restore standand landscape conditions that support low severitysub-lethal fires as opposed to stand replacing fires.In wood production forests, growing trees onshorter rotations and turning the young trees intodurable products then returning a fast-growingforest composed of species or provenances suitedto the changing climate (St. Clair and Howesubmitted) may also be part of a comprehensivesolution if combined with use of wood productsoffsetting use of more energy demanding materials(Perez-Garcia et al. 2005). Paying sharper atten-tion to the carbon impacts of forest managementactivities that consume fossil fuels, such as reduc-ing the use of fuel inefficient machines, petro-leum-based chemicals, and long-distance transportof logs and biomass to processing facilities, couldalso have some positive impacts.

Some of these options have co-benefits beyondcarbon storage. Longer rotations, for example,generally provide habitats for a wider diversity ofwildlife species and have the potential to generatehigher value wood products. Restoring forestresilience to extreme disturbance events throughthinning to reduce stocking levels can generatewood-based products or biomass energy asbyproducts of forest treatments while decreasing thelikelihood that large-scale future disturbances wouldcreate both immediate and long-term carbonreleases through fire or decomposition. Rapidregeneration of forests after large disturbance events,especially if it entails transfer of significant portionsof the carbon in damaged trees into durable wood-based products, may accelerate the return of a netcarbon sink for the landscape so affected. But fullaccounting must consider carbon consumed inharvest, transport, manufacturing and reforestationrelative to carbon transferred from the forest pool tothe product pool.

Forest Product ManagementStrategies

Once trees with their stored carbon leave theforest, what happens next as wood products can

provide additional opportunities for carbonsequestration. Forest products carbon is a transferof carbon from one pool to another, not a newpool or stock of carbon. In the mill, carboncapture in manufactured wood products is typi-cally about 50 percent of the carbon in the log as itentered the mill, and perhaps one third of whatwas in the forest carbon pool. In modern mills thecapture may be higher. Also in the mill, biomassnot suited for wood-based products is increasinglybeing used to generate energy, offsetting theburning of fossil fuels for that amount of energy.The role of wood-based products in global carboncould be significant if those products are durableand store carbon for very long periods. Evenwood products in landfills continue to storecarbon. Technological advances in the manufac-turing sector have resulted in significant improve-ments in biomass capture into products since the1950s. More may be possible. Durable wood-based products are additionally valuable for carbonstorage when they are used in place of substitutematerials such as steel, concrete, and plastics thathave higher fossil fuel needs in their manufacture.

Forest Profitability from CarbonMarkets

The Kyoto Protocol arose from an internationaltreaty on climate change negotiated in 1997 andcame into force in 2005. The protocol does notembrace all potential roles for forests and forestproducts in carbon sequestration, however, dueto resistance from some environmental groups.They were and perhaps still are concerned thatfully crediting carbon sequestered and stored inforests and forest products would be used tojustify continued fossil fuels emissions. The U.S.,Australia, India, and China have chosen to notparticipate in Kyoto. Rather, they are workingwith Japan, South Korea, and other members ofan Asian-Pacific partnership on a non-bindingplan to cooperate on development and transfer oftechnologies that would enable greenhouse gasreductions, including better use of forests andforest products. Collectively, these non-Kyotonations account for around 50 percent of globalgreenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption,


16

gross domestic product and population. But theyare still talking about what to do, without takingsignificant action yet.

In the meantime, California is developing carbonoffset markets to generate revenue streams forforestland owners who go beyond “business asusual” to store additional carbon in their forests.On September 27, 2006, Governor ArnoldSchwarzenegger signed into law Assembly Bill 32,making California the first state in the nation todirect its Air Resources Board to establish a stategreenhouse gas emissions cap by 2012. Oregon-based The Climate Trust is working on the state’sCarbon Dioxide Standard and creating a voluntarycarbon offset market. Under the offset concept,forestland owners receive payments for theamount of carbon they store that (1) cancels outother emissions, (2) are recorded in a registry, and(3) work as if the emission had not occurred.Offsets, in essence, are compensations based onthe promise that the additional carbon storagewould have the same atmospheric effect as if theemissions being offset had never occurred in thefirst place. The potential emitters pay the entitymaking the promise to store a particular amountof carbon for a certain period of time.

The U.S. has rudimentary carbon markets,mainly starting to develop at state or regionallevels. While there is much attention to andinterest in carbon markets and how they mightadd streams of revenues to forestland owners,there is also much uncertainty in how thosemarkets would function and how the carbonbenefits would be measured and accounted for.Some states and entities are creating regulationsthat set emission reduction standards.

A recent study cited in this book shows thepotential for carbon markets to augment revenuestreams over and above those from traditionalforest management. The potential to deliverinternal rates of return competitive with shortrotation, industrial forestry are possible throughextended rotation lengths that store additionalcarbon, if accompanied by a small premium for

higher value logs, sale of carbon sequestrationoffsets, sale of conservation easements, and NewMarket Tax Credits. There remain significantuncertainties in this possibility, but these are allpossibilities for those who choose to participatein emerging markets. The power in this conceptcomes from finding ways to value and price thepublic benefits of private forests, in turn creatingstreams of revenues for forest ecosystem servicesbeyond those that currently have markets, such aswood, recreation, and some aspects ofbiodiversity conservation. Stavins and Richards(2005) document that forests can play a signifi-cant and economically valuable role in futureclimate policy.

To date, carbon markets look at rewardinglandowners for storing additional carbon beyond“business as usual.” This is the reference pointused in the Kyoto Protocol. But an alternativereference point could be “beyond alternative landuses.” Where pressures to convert forest to otherland uses or where regulatory costs of forestry arehigh, landowners may see business as usual as sellthe land for development or high value agricul-ture such as wine grapes or specialty orchards(Alig et al. 2003). Treating existing forestrypractices under state forest protection laws as thereference for additionality fails to reward land-owners for keeping their land in forest uses in thefirst place. This coupled with the potentialimpacts on timber supply of compensatinglandowners for storing more carbon in their treesrather than sending them to mills (Im et al. inprocess) could be among the contentious issues asstate or federal forest-carbon policy takes shape.

The Future for Oregon

Can any of this happen in Oregon? Yes, it canand likely will. Oregon is poised to be a playerin carbon markets. Our forests have relativelyhigh productive capacity, i.e., high potential forcarbon storage, and a wide diversity of valuesthat are compatible with and may even beenhanced by “stacking” streams of revenues


17

from all forest ecosystem services, includingsustainable wood production. This potentialwarrants serious policy consideration as the stateexplores its forest futures.

So, where do we sit on the policy front? Cali-fornia has a carbon registry and a new law to setemissions caps. Oregon’s governor has a GlobalWarming Initiative. Oregon is also teamingwith California and Washington to developregional and state strategies for reducing contri-butions of greenhouse gases. The forestlandparts of the strategies include reducing wildfirerisk by creating markets for woody biomass,considering greenhouse gas effects in farm andforest land use decisions, and increasing affores-tation on under-producing lands. These aregood first steps and all journeys start with firststeps. But they just get us started on the possi-bilities. What is significant about Oregon’s firststeps is they have an Executive level mandate.

Final Comments

This introduction has attempted to set a globaland temporal context for the material covered inthis book. I have brought in some informationthat is not covered by other chapters to helpdescribe long-term relationships betweenforests, carbon, climate and people and what ispossible for forest roles in carbon and climate.The chapters you are about to read tell part ofthe story of forests, carbon, and climate—astory that is also only partially revealed to date.We still have a lot of learning to do. But wealready know enough to get started.

What we know so far is that our climate israpidly getting warmer due to human activities.This will affect our quality of life for manydecades, perhaps longer. Forests can play vital

roles in ameliorating some of future climatechange because they are significant carbon sinksand carbon pools. They could be managed to beeven more significant in the future. Forests arealso very responsive to climate change. They willexist in a warmer climate with more severedisturbance events than at any time since thelast glacial maximum, perhaps even longer.This needs to be considered in revising conser-vation and management plans that were notdeveloped with climate change in mind. Weknow that how we conserve and manage forestsand how we produce and use wood productshave potential to ameliorate some of the carbonbeing added to the atmospheric pool throughother human activities. We know that manag-ing forests for carbon storage, as well as forwood and other ecosystem services, has co-benefits that generally improve our quality oflife. We know that carbon markets have thepotential to add streams of revenue to forestlandowners, perhaps significant enough to helpconserve forests from conversion to other usesless beneficial to the climate. Finally, we knowthat forests managed and conserved to sustain amultitude of values, uses, products, and servicesalso help maintain economic and communityvitality in our state.

These are some of the major reasons we shouldall care about forests, carbon, and climate.Because Oregon is such a forest-rich state, thefuture is indeed bright with many possibilitiesfor Oregon forests, forestry, and forest productsenterprises to play positive roles in maintaininga livable climate.


18

Literature Cited

Alig, R. J., A. J. Plantinga, S.E. Ahn, and J. D.Kline. 2003. Land use changes involving forestry inthe United States: 1952-1997 with projections to2050. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-587. Portland, OR.

Boisvenue, C. and S. W. Running. 2006. Impactsof climate change on natural forest productivity –evidence since the middle of the 20th century. GlobalChange Biology, Vol. 12(5):862-882.

Broecker, Wallace S. 2006. The Holocene CO2 rise:

anthropogenic or natural? Eos, Vol. 87(3):27-29.

Dillehay, T.D. 2000. The settlement of the Ameri-cas: a new prehistory. Basic Books, New York.

Erlandson, J. M. 2002. Anatomically modernhumans, maritime voyaging, and the Pleistocenecolonization of new lands. in N.G. Jablonski, ed.The first Americans: the Pleistocene colonization ofthe New World. Memoirs of the California Acad-emy of Sciences, Number 27, University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley, CA.

FAO. 2001. State of the World’s Forests, Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations.Rome, Italy.

FAO 2005. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005:Progress Toward Sustainable Forest Management.Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations. Rome, Italy. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/A0400E/A0400E00.pdf

Gore, A. 2006. An Inconvenient Truth. RodalePress, NY

Houghton, R. A. 2003. Revised estimates of theannual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere fromchanges in land use and land management.1850-2000. Tellus 55B:378-390.

Howard, J. L. 2006. U.S. timber production, trade,consumption and price statistics, 1965-2002 (with2005 statistical table update). USDA Forest Service,Research Paper, FPL-RP-615. Forest ProductsLaboratory, Madison, WI.

Im, E. H., D. M. Adams, and G. S. Latta. (inprocess). Potential impacts of carbon taxes oncarbon flux in western Oregon private forests.Forest Ecology and Management.

IPCC. 2001. Climate change 2001: the scientificbasis. Contribution of Working group I to the ThirdAssessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC).

Kleypas, J. R., R. A. Feely, V. J. Fabry, C. Langdon,C. L. Sabine, and L. L. Roberts. 2006. Impacts ofocean acidification on coral reefs and other marinecalcifiers: a guide for future research, report of aworkshop held 18-20 April 2005, St. Petersburg,FL, sponsored by NSF, NOAA, and the U. S.Geological Survey, 88 pp.

Lambeck, K. and J. Chappell. 2001. Sea levelchange through thee last glacial cycle. Science292:679-686.

Law, B. E., D. Turner, J. Campbell, O. J. Sun, S.Van Tuyl, W. D, Ritts and W. B. Cohen. 2004.Disturbance and climate effects on carbon stocksand fluxes across Western Oregon USA. GlobalChange Biology, Vol. 10(9):1429-1444.

Mann, C. C. 2005. 1491: New revelations of theAmericas before Columbus. Alfred A. Knopf,New York.

Marsh, G. P. 1874. The Earth as modified byhuman action. Scribner, Armstrong and Co.,New York

Mealey, S. P., J. W. Thomas, H. J. Salwasser, R. E.Stewart, P. L. Balint, and P. W. Adams. 2005.Precaution in the American Endangered species Actas precursor to environmental decline: the case ofthe Northwest Forest Plan. in R. Cooney and B.Dickson, eds. Biodiversity and the precautionaryprinciple: risk and uncertainty in conservation andsustainable use. Earthscan Press, Sterling, VA.

NRC (National Research Council). 2006. Surfacetemperature reconstructions for the last 2,000 years.The National Academies Press, Washington DC.


19

Pacala, S. and R. Socolow. 2004. Stabilizationwedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50years with current technologies. Science, Vol.305(5686):968-972.

Perez-Garcia, J., B. Lippke, J. Comnick, and C.Manriquez. 2005. An assessment of carbon pools,storage, and wood products market substitutionusing life-cycle analysis. Wood Fiber Science, Vol.37:140-148.

Perlin, J. 1991. A forest journey: the role of wood inthe development of civilization. Harvard UniversityPress, Cambridge, MA

Roosevelt, A.C., J. Douglas, and L. Brown. 2002.The migrations and adaptations of the first Ameri-cans Clovis and pre-Clovis viewed from SouthAmerica. in N.G. Jablonski, ed. The first Ameri-cans: the Pleistocene colonization of the NewWorld. Memoirs of the California Academy ofSciences, Number 27, University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley, CA.

Ruddiman, William. F. 2003. The anthropogenicgreenhouse era began thousands of years ago.Climatic Change, Vol. 61:261-293.

Running, Steven W. 2006. Is global warmingcausing more, larger fires? Sciencexpress. 6 July 2006.July 6 2006; 10.1126/science.1130370 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1130370v1.pdf

Sabine, Christopher L., Richard A. Feely, NicolasGruber, Robert M. Key, Kitack Lee, John L.Bullister, Rik Wanninkhof, C, S, Wong, DouglasW. R. Wallace, Bronte Tilbrook, Frank J. Millero,Tsung-Hung Peng, Alexander Kozyr, Tsueno Ono,and Aida F. Rios. 2004. The oceanic sink foranthropogenic CO2. Science, Vol. 305:367-371.

Sessions, John, Pete Bettinger, Robert Buckman,Mike Newton and Jeff Hamann. 2004. Hasteningthe return of complex forests following fire: theconsequences of delay. Journal of Forestry, Vol.102(3):38-45.

Shifley, S. R. 2006. Sustainable forestry in thebalance. Journal of Forestry, Vol. 104(4):187-195.

Shreeve, James. 2006. The greatest journey.National Geographic. March, 2006. 62-69

Siegenthaler, U., T. F. Stocker, E. Monnin, D.Luthi, J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, D. Raynaud, J.Barnola, H. Fischer, V. Masson-Delmotte, and J.Jouzel. 2005. Stable carbon cycle-climate relation-ship during the Late Pleistocene. Science, Vol.310(5752):1313-1317.

Stavins, R. N. and K. R. Richards. 2005. The costof U.S. forest-based carbon sequestration. PewCenter on Global Climate Change. Arlington, VA.

St. Clair, J. B. and G. T. Howe. (in process). Ge-netic maladaptation of coastal Douglas-fir to futureclimates. submitted to Global Change Biology.

Stein, S. M., R. E. McRoberts, R. J. Alig, M. D.Nelson, D, M. Theobald, M. Eley, M. Dechter, andM. Carr. 2005. Forests on the edge: housingdevelopment on America’s private forests. USDAForest Service. PNW-GTR-636. Pacific NorthwestResearch Station, Portland, OR.

United Nations. 2005. Millennium developmentindicators. http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mi/mi_series_resultsd.asp?rowID=751&fID=r15&cgID=&action=print

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005.Greenhouse gas mitigation potential in U.S. forestryand agriculture. U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, EPA-430-R-05-006.

Wade, Nicholas. 2005. Before the Dawn: Recover-ing the lost history of our ancestors. The PenguinPress, NY.

Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, andT. W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier springincreases western U.S. forest wildfire activity.Sciencexpress. 6 July 2006.

Williams, J. W. 2006 (in press). Quaternary vegeta-tion distributions. In Encyclopedia of paleoclimatologyand ancient environments. , Earth Science Series,Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York.

Williams, Michael. 2003. Deforesting the Earth:From Prehistory to Global Crisis. University ofChicago Press, Chicago.

Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Systhesis of Science Findings Chapter Two

20

Introduction

■ Carbon dioxide plays a critical role inregulating earth’s surface temperature.

■ Human activities that release carbon dioxidehave resulted in increasing concentrationssufficient to increase the earth’s surfacetemperature above natural cycles.

■ Current concentrations and recent increaserates exceed that of the last 420,000 years.

Carbon Dioxide as aGreenhouse Gas

■ Carbon dioxide is one of five maingreenhouse gases, which retain heat byallowing short-wave radiation (light) to passthrough, but act as a barrier to long-waveradiation (heat).

■ Next to water vapor, carbon dioxide is themost prevalent greenhouse gas.

■ Arrhenius in 1896 hypothesized that carbonfrom burning fossil fuels could increase theearth’s surface temperature; Keeling since1958 showed the trend in increasingconcentrations.

The Global Carbon Cycle

■ Carbon Pools. Carbon is stored ingeologic, biologic and atmospheric“depositories.”

■ Carbon Cycle and Time Scales. Thegeologic cycle is examined over millions ofyears. The biologic cycle, from less than ayear to hundreds of years, is more relevantto managing atmospheric carbon dioxide inthe next 100-200 years.

■ Human Effects on the Carbon Cycle.Processes that remove carbon dioxide from

the atmosphere are not increasing enough toremove all the carbon added by humans.

Measurements of AtmosphericCarbon Dioxide

■ A global network of 40 stations measurescurrent concentrations.

■ Precise historical measurements werederived recently from snow and ice in glacialdeposits

■ Current levels are higher than any time inlast 420,000 years; unprecedented rate ofincrease.

Historical Changes in AtmosphericConcentrations of Carbon Dioxide

■ Great fluctuations in the past were causedby natural sources such as volcanoes.

■ Human release since 1850 increased carbondioxide more than 90 times that of pastcycles.

■ Human inputs are currently so high thatnatural processes cannot change theincreases.

Future Trends

■ Ocean and land capacity to store carbon isexpected to remain about the same.

■ Humans have the potential to enhancecarbon sequestration.

■ Management actions on forestland arelimited, but not to be ignored.

■ Pattern of atmospheric carbon dioxideincrease is strongly dependent on speed ofuse of alternative energy.

■ Overall outlook is one of increased carbonconcentrations for foreseeable future.

CHAPTER TWOHIGHLIGHTS:

ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE

Chapter Two Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Systhesis of Science Findings

21

CHAPTER TWOATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE

Mark E. Harmon

Introduction

Carbon is not particularly abundant onearth (of all elements, it ranks 50th ), yetit is a key component of all living

organisms. As part of several greenhouse gases,such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, andmethane, it also plays a critical role in regulatingthe surface temperature on earth. With therelease of carbon dioxide through the burningof fossil fuels, cement production, and changingland use, humans have been increasing theconcentration of this gas in the atmosphere forover 150 years. Although these concentrationsare still relatively small, they are sufficient towarm the earth’s surface temperature. Carbondioxide is a natural part of the atmosphere.However, both the current concentrations, andrate of increase observed in recent decades,exceed that observed in the past 420,000 years.

This chapter reviews what is generally knownabout carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, how itis measured, and how it is changing.

Carbon Dioxide as aGreenhouse Gas

Although carbon dioxide can be deadly toanimals at high concentrations, the currentatmospheric levels of 0.037% (or 370 parts permillion) are far below lethal levels. The currentconcern about rising carbon dioxideconcentration stems from the ability of carbondioxide to act as a greenhouse gas. These gasesenhance the retention of heat by allowing short-wave radiation (light) to pass through, butacting as a barrier to long-wave radiation (heat).There are five main greenhouse gases: carbondioxide, methane, nitrogen oxide and watervapor (all naturally occurring) andchlorofluorocarbons (man-made). Whilecarbon dioxide is not the strongest greenhouse

gas (methane is 30 times more effective), next towater vapor it is by far the most prevalent.

Greenhouse gases have different strengths and lifespans. They are not static; they are formed andthen they break down. To analyze the effect of therelease of a greenhouse gas, its “instantaneous,” orinitial, strength, and the rate that the gas breaksdown, are averaged over time. Because of carbondioxide’s prevalence, it is often used to indicate theoverall greenhouse forcing (or effect) on climate.Thus, the effect of all other greenhouse gases, isexpressed in carbon dioxide units. (Ramanathan etal., 1985, Lashof and Ahuja 1990).

The ability of carbon dioxide to act as agreenhouse gas has been known for over 100 yearsand can be readily determined in a laboratory.Indeed, in 1896 the Swedish scientist Arrheniusused this knowledge to predict the warming effectof greenhouse gases on earth’s temperaturecompared to a planet without these gases.Performing thousands of calculations by hand, hewas able to predict the earth’s temperatureremarkably well (Arrhenius 1896, Hayden 1998).It was also Arrhenius who hypothesized that therelease of carbonic acid (or carbon dioxide) fromthe burning of fossil fuels might increase thetemperature of the earth’s surface. CharlesKeeling’s measurements of concentrations ofcarbon dioxide in the atmosphere during and afterthe 1957-1958 International Geophysical Yearshowed an increasing trend in concentrations,renewing interest in Arrhenius’s hypothesis(Keeling 1960, Baes et al. 1977).

The Global Carbon Cycle

Carbon Pools

Carbon is stored on Earth in several major“pools” (depositories) — geologic, biologic andatmospheric.


22

Geologic carbon stores are by far the largest.Geologic deposits such as calcium carbonatehold approximately 65,000,000 Pg (a petagramis 1.1 billion U.S. tons) of carbon. There is alsoa concentrated store in fossil fuels of 4,000 to5,000 Pg, but the majority of fossil carbon(15,000,000 Pg) is stored in very diluteconcentrations within geologic strata in a formof carbon known as kerogen. (As an aside,kerogen plays another significant role in thedynamics of the atmosphere. Comprised ofplants that photosynthesized millions of yearsbut did not fully decompose, leaving an excessof oxygen in the atmosphere, kerogen has led tothe current high level of oxygen in theatmosphere. Interestingly, this means theoceans and tropical forests are not the source ofmost of the atmosphere’s current oxygen, aspopularly envisioned.) Biologic carbon storesare less, but significant. The largestbiologically-related store of carbon is in theoceans. Deeper zones of the ocean hold 38,100Pg of carbon, surface ocean holds 1020 Pg andsediments contain 150 Pg. Marine biota are aparticularly trivial store of carbon (3 Pg), butplay a critical role as a biological pump,removing carbon dioxide from the surfaceocean. Carbon is also stored terrestrially. Non-living organic matter such as dead wood, soilsand peat store at least 1,580 Pg of carbon, andplants hold 610 Pg. (Figure 1)

The atmosphere, by comparison, currentlystores 750 Pg of carbon. Relative to the otherpools, the atmosphere stores little carbon, sosmall changes in those other pools can have aprofound effect on the carbon in theatmosphere and therefore its effect on climate.

To illustrate this: Imagine that all the terrestrialstores were instantaneously consumed in a fire.This would lead to 292% increase in carbonconcentrations of the atmosphere. Suppose allthis carbon was then absorbed by the oceans.The store in that pool would only increase by6%. While neither scenario is realistic, thesecalculations demonstrate how sensitiveatmospheric carbon concentrations are tochanges in the other pools.

Carbon Cycle and Time Scales

The carbon cycle is studied at two very differenttime scales, depending on whether geologicprocesses or biologic processes are dominatingthe processes in the cycle. Neither the geologicor biologic carbon cycles are purely geologic orpurely biologic.

The geologic carbon cycle is examined overmillions of years. It involves the formation ofcarbonate deposits, as well as the weathering ofcarbonate and aluminum-silicate minerals, andthe release of carbon to the atmosphere viavolcanism (Berner and Lasaga 1989). At thistime scale, volcanic activity has a highcorrelation with atmospheric carbon dioxideconcentrations. But while it is called thegeologic carbon cycle, biology plays a role. Thecycle is largely thought of as controlled byabiotic processes (i.e., the absence of livingorganisms), yet the weathering of carbonatesand minerals does involve living organisms to asignificant degree.

The biological carbon cycle is typicallyexamined over time periods from less than ayear to hundreds of years (Post et al. 1990). Theprimary processes involve photosynthesis inremoving carbon dioxide from the atmosphere,

Figure 1The biologic carboncycle. Adapted fromIPCC TAR 2001 (http://www.ipcc.ch/).


23

and respiration in releasing carbon dioxide backagain. While the biological carbon cycle isdominated by biological processes, a number ofabiotic geologic and physical processes areongoing, and control some of the fluxes. Theseinclude fires, river and ocean transport, andturbulent mixing of ocean waters by waves,diffusion and a host of other processes.

While the geologic and biologic cycles areoccurring simultaneously, the biological carboncycle is the one most relevant to management ofatmospheric carbon dioxide in the next 100 to200 years. Thus, while it is probably true thatmuch of the carbon released by humans willeventually be absorbed by the oceans, thisprocess is likely to take thousands of years.

Human Effects on the Carbon Cycle

Humans release carbon dioxide through burningfossil fuels, manufacturing cement (i.e., carbondioxide released as limestone is heated to formcement), and converting land cover types withhigh carbon stores (forest) to those with lowerstores (agricultural land). For thousands of yearsbefore the industrial revolution, humans wereclearing forests for agriculture (Williams 2003),but at a rate that could generally be absorbed byother carbon pools. At the start of the industrialrevolution, changes in land use comprised themajor human-related release of carbon dioxide tothe atmosphere (0.5 Pg/year). Although land use-related releases have quadrupled to a current valueof approximately 2 Pg/year, release from fossil fuelsand other industrial uses has increased fromvirtually zero to over 6.5 Pg/year in the same timeperiod. Carbon dioxide release from fossil fuelscurrently amounts to 75 % of the total, whichplaces some rough limits on how much futurealteration of land use could offset future releases.

Approximately 50% of the carbon that has beenreleased by these human-related activities hasaccumulated in the atmosphere; the remainderhas been either “absorbed” by the oceans orstored terrestrially. The proportion going toeach of these “sinks” has been the subject of

ongoing debate and highly dependent on thetime period being considered. In the past, giventhe size of the oceanic pool, it was difficult todirectly measure increases in carbon stores.Now, increases are large enough that this isbecoming possible. Models of current oceanuptake indicate that approximately 1.5-2 Pg ofcarbon is annually “absorbed” by oceans.Although this process is too slow to keep upwith the current increase of atmospheric carbondioxide, the oceans are potentially capable ofremoving much of the carbon dioxide added byhumans once emissions from fossil fuels end. Itis anticipated that either fossil fuel reserves willbe depleted in the next 200 years (depending onthe rate of use) or policies will be implementedto decrease use before that time. Either way, theocean will gradually remove the human-releasedcarbon dioxide but very slowly; it willpotentially take many thousands of years(Archer 2005). There is estimated to be a netterrestrial sink of 2 to 3 Pg per year, which isslowing the rate of atmospheric increases, butcannot at this time eliminate it (Houghton2003). This is why changes in land usemanagement are not the ultimate solution foreliminating atmospheric carbon dioxideconcentrations.

Thus, these sinks absorb approximately 3.5 to 5Pg of carbon per year, while human activities arereleasing approximately 8.5 Pg per year. Byreleasing carbon tied up in fossil fuels, humansare, in a sense, speeding up the geologic cycle andmaking it interact with the biologic cycle. Whilewarmer temperatures and longer growing seasonsmay enhance photosynthesis, which removescarbon dioxide from the atmosphere, this processis currently not increasing quickly enough toremove all the carbon added by humans.

Measurements of AtmosphericCarbon Dioxide

Starting with the observations of CharlesKeeling in 1957, there has been a concertedeffort to measure concentrations of carbondioxide and other greenhouse gases in the


24

Figure 2

Location of atmospheric sampling stations to determine concentrations of carbon dioxideand other greenhouse gases. Source: http://www.ogp.noaa.gov/mpe/gcc/2000/tans.html.

atmosphere. A ground-based global network ofover 40 stations now exists to periodically measurethese concentrations, as well as gases that can beused to determine global atmospheric circulationpatterns (Figure 2). These observations are

primarily made at sites where well-mixed airsamples can be taken, often locations on islandsor on the margins of continents. Additionalmeasurements are also taken from ascendingballoons, tall towers, aircraft, and oceangoingvessels.

While it is possible to directly measure currentatmospheric concentrations (often referred to asthe mixing ratio) of carbon dioxide, determiningpast concentrations has involved a good deal ofingenuity. When Charles Keeling began toobserve increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide,the concentration at the start of the industrialrevolution was not clear. Attempts were initiallymade to sample gas trapped in items created inthe past, including—of all things—metalbuttons. Other efforts sought to deduce pastatmospheric concentrations using proxies, such asthe density of stomata on leaves.

More recently, measurement of gases trapped insnow and ice in glacial deposits have yieldedvery precise and accurate measures of pastcarbon dioxide concentrations going back over420,000 years. These measurements provide

very certain evidence that whileatmospheric concentrations ofcarbon dioxide have fluctuated, thecurrent levels are higher than haveoccurred at any time in the past420,000 years, and are increasing atan unprecedented rate (Figure 3).

Historical Changes inAtmosphericConcentrations of CarbonDioxide

Concentrations of carbon dioxide inthe atmosphere have fluctuatedgreatly in the past. It is thought thatin the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras,50 to 500 million years ago,concentrations ranged between 1,200and 4,000 ppm (parts per million).

Figure 2

Figure 3

Changes inatmosphericcarbon dioxideconcentrationsin the past 450thousand yearsas indicated bygases trapped inice at Vostok.Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/


25

In large part, the greater concentrations werecaused by a higher level of volcanic release ofcarbon dioxide than in recent times. Theselevels were far above today’s level of 370 ppm.However, temperatures were considerablyhigher, with strong evidence that sea surfacetemperatures in the tropical latitudes averaged89 to 97oF, or 9 to 14 degrees higher than today(Schouten et al., 2003).

In the past 420,000 years, carbon dioxideconcentration has cycled between 175 and 300ppm with approximately 100,000 years betweenthe peaks in cycles. The cycles are thought to beassociated with glacial activity, with lowerconcentrations occurring during the height ofglacial advances. Starting in approximately 1850,clearing of forests by humans and release of fossilfuel-related carbon have caused an upwardincrease in carbon dioxide concentrations from285 ppm to 370 ppm today — a 30 percentincrease. This concentration is 70 ppm higherthan the cycle peaks in the recent geologic pastand is increasing at greater than 90 times the rateobserved in past cycles.

In addition to these long-term trends, recentobservations show a seasonal cycle of carbondioxide concentrations. Fifty years ofmeasurement at Mauna Loa in Hawaii illustratea fluctuation through the seasons averaging 5.7ppm (Figure 4a). Globally, the range of such afluctuation varies, depending on the latitudewhere the measurements are made. It tends tobe higher near the northern pole, as measured atPoint Barrow, Alaska, with an averagefluctuation of 17 ppm. At the southern pole it islower, an average of 2.2 ppm (Figure 4b). Forall observation stations, carbon dioxideconcentration is higher in winter and lower insummer due to the seasonal cycles of respirationand photosynthesis.

This latitudinal variation and rate of increase ofcarbon dioxide have been used to identifypossible areas that are absorbing carbon, using atechnique known as “inverse modeling.” Spatial

and temporal patterns of carbon dioxideconcentrations are combined with modeledpatterns of human release, plant production,ecosystem respiration, and atmosphericcirculation patterns to infer the location ofpossible carbon sinks. These studies havegenerally suggested a terrestrial sink in northernlatitudes (Tans et al. 1990), although otherlocations, such as tropical forests and the southernPacific Ocean, may also be sinks. Attempts have

Figure 4a

Figure 4b

Observed recentchange inatmosphericcarbon dioxideconcentrations.(a) Long-termrecord at MaunaLoa; (b) typicalseasonal cycles atPoint Barrow, AK;Mauna Loa, HI;and South Poleobservatorystations. Source:Keeling andWhorf (2003).


26

also been made to infer longitudinal sinks (forexample, North America versus Eurasia), but giventhe limited density and distribution ofmeasurement stations and the uncertainties ofmodeling atmospheric circulation, the results arefar less definitive.

The rate of increase of carbon dioxide has notbeen constant from year to year. As more data aregathered, the role of short-term climatic cyclessuch as El Niño is becoming clearer. For example,drier years in the tropics associated with El Niñocan lead to increased incidence of fire in thatregion, resulting in larger-than-average increases inatmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations (Joneset al. 2004). On the other hand, some years thereis a slower rate of increase, which might beexplained by two possible factors, both arisingfrom volcanic activity. First, volcanic activityreleases dust and sulfur dioxides that lead to theformation of aerosols that increase light scattering,which leads to greater diffuse radiation, and coolertemperatures. A greater proportion of diffuseradiation is hypothesized to enhance thephotosynthesis, which increases uptake fromterrestrial plants lowering the rate of increase (Guet al. 2003). The other mechanism is that coolertemperatures create a lower rate of respiration,which also leads to slower rates of release fromplants and soils.

Finally, despite the presence of these veryinteresting changes in the rate of increase, it shouldbe noted that human-related inputs of carbondioxide are so high at this point that these naturalcycles cannot change the resulting overall increasein atmospheric concentrations.

Future Trends

Predictions, by their very nature, are uncertain. Itis therefore most useful to present a “predictionenvelope,” or a specific range. For future carbondioxide concentrations, uncertainties stem fromimperfect knowledge about the system and thehuman potential to alter it, depending on thepolicies adopted.

The oceans’ capacity to store carbon is expected toremain about the same. Increases in atmosphericcarbon dioxide concentrations are likely to increasethe net rate that the carbon dioxide is diffusedonto the ocean surface and absorbed. On theother hand, increases of carbon dioxideconcentration in the deep ocean are likely to causethe dissolving of the calcium carbonate shellsassociated with small organisms, such as plankton.Currently the shells of these organisms fall to theocean floor when they die, so their dissolution maydecrease amount of carbonate-rich sedimentsbuilding up on the ocean floor. As a result,upwelling of deeper waters may release morecarbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. Ifclimate does change, it is likely to alter oceaniccirculation patterns, and this may also alter the netrate of oceanic uptake.

Enhanced rates of uptake by the terrestrial systemare possible, but limited in amount and duration.Laboratory and field research have produceddiffering results. Laboratory experiments haveshown that when carbon dioxide concentrationsare increased to twice the current level, someplants exhibit enhanced photosynthesis and netuptake of carbon. However, field studies nearcaves in limestone regions, where carbon dioxideconcentrations are naturally higher than average,indicate that plant growth is not necessarilyenhanced, in part because plants physiologically“down regulate” when carbon dioxide is moreabundant (Tognetti et al. 2000). In at least oneterrestrial experiment in forests where carbondioxide concentrations were doubled in a free-aircarbon dioxide enhancement (i.e., FACE)experiment, indicators pointed to other factors likenitrogen that can limit forest response (Oren et al.2001, Schlesinger and Lichter 2001). While thecarbon dioxide fertilization effect is not completelyunderstood for all forests, the median response offour such doubling-carbon-dioxide experiments inthe temperature zone was a 23% increase in plantuptake of carbon (Norby et al. 2005).

Regardless of the amount of increase in plantuptake with higher carbon dioxide concentration,if there is an associated warming of climate, thenan increase in plant and soil respiration will occur,


27

which is more than likely to offset many of thegains in plant uptake.

While all these factors introduce uncertainty, theyare unlikely to change the overall pattern set byhuman activities. Humans have the potential toinfluence the rate fossil fuels are released, and toalter land use to enhance carbon sequestration (seeChapter 5). Because all biological systems tend tosaturate in terms of carbon uptake (i.e., eventuallycarbon uptake approaches the rate of carbonrelease), the ability of management actions onforest and agricultural lands is limited, but not tobe ignored. Moreover, while carbon storage wouldincrease at the time of management change, thoseincreases would decline over time unlessadditional changes are made to increase carbonuptake.

Reducing future concentrations depends on howquickly fossil fuel use is curtailed. For example, inone “high” scenario (A1F1, Figure 5a), if carbondioxide emissions increase at the current rate untilthe year 2050, then slow to eventually stabilize at28 Pg/year in 2075, carbon dioxide concentrationcould reach 960 ppm by 2100 (A1F1, Figure 5b).This would represent more than a tripling ofconcentrations since the industrial revolutionbegan. In a contrasting scenario (B1, Figure 5a), ifthe rate the of CO2 emissions eventually peaks at10 Pg/year in 2050 and decreases to zero by 2100,

then atmospheric concentration could be as low as520 ppm by 2100 (B1, Figure 5b). This veryoptimistic scenario still reflects an increase of 40percent over today’s level of 370 ppm, and 73percent over the 300 ppm level at the beginning ofthe industrial revolution. An intermediate scenarioof carbon dioxide emissions (B2, Figure 5a)assumes an increase to a rate of 16.5 Pg/year until2050 and a decrease to 14 Pg/year in 2100. Thismore realistic scenario leads to a predicted carbondioxide concentration in 2100 of 660 ppm —over twice that before the industrial revolution.

While the future range of atmospheric carbondioxide concentration is high, from 520 to 960ppm, and the pattern of increase is stronglydependent on how quickly alternative energysources are used, the overall outlook is one ofincreased carbon dioxide concentrations for theforeseeable future.

AcknowledgmentsThis manuscript was funded in part by theRichardson Endowment, the Harvard UniversityBullard Fellowship program and the Oregon ForestResources Institute.

Figure 5Projected trendsin fossil fuel useand atmosphericcarbon dioxideconcentrationsfrom 2000 to2100. Source:IPCC TAR 2001.http://www.ipcc.ch/


28

Literature CitedArcher, D. 2005. Fate of fossil fuel CO

2 in

geologic time. Journal of Geophysical Research110:doi:10.1029/2004JC002625.

Arrhenius, S. 1896. On the influence ofcarbonic acid in the air upon the temperatureon the ground. Phil. Mag. J. Sci. 41 (251):237-276.

Baes, C.F., H. E. Goeller and J.S. Olson. 1977.Carbon dioxide and climate- The uncontrolledexperiment. American Scientist 65: 310-320.

Barnola, J.-M., D. Raynaud, C. Lorius, andN.I. Barkov. 2003. Historical CO

2 record from

the Vostok ice core. In Trends: A Compendiumof Data on Global Change. Carbon DioxideInformation Analysis Center, Oak RidgeNational Laboratory, U.S. Department ofEnergy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A. (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm)

Berner, R.A. and A.C. Lasaga. 1989. Modelingthe Geochemical Carbon Cycle. ScientificAmerican 260:74-81.

Gu, L., D. D. Baldocchi, S. C. Wofsy, J. W.Munger, J. J. Michalsky, S. P. Urbanski, and T.A. Boden. 2003. Response of a deciduousforest to the Mount Pinatubo Eruption:Enhanced photosynthesis. Science 299:2035-2038.

Hayden, B. P. 1998. Ecosystem feedbacks onclimate at the landscape scale. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society of London353:5-18.

Houghton, R. A. 2003. Why are estimates ofthe terrestrial carbon balance so different?Global Change Biology 9:500-509.

Jones, C. D., M. Collins, P. M. Cox, and S. A.Spall. 2004. The Carbon Cycle Response toENSO: A Coupled Climate–Carbon CycleModel Study. Journal of Climate 14:4113-4129.

Keeling, C. D. 1960. The concentration andisotopic abundances of atmospheric carbondioxide in rural areas. Geochimica etCosmochimica Acta:13(4):322-334.

Keeling, C.D. 1960. The concentration andisotopic abundance of carbon dioxide in theatmosphere. Tellus 12:200-203.

Keeling, C.D. and T.P. Whorf. 2003. Monthlyatmospheric CO

2 records from sites in the SIO

air sampling network. In Trends: ACompendium of Data on Global Change.Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center,Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S.Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn.,U.S.A. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.htm.

Lashof, D. and D. R. Ahuja. 1990. Relativecontributions of greenhouse gas emissions toglobal warming. Nature 344:529-531.

Norby, R. J., E. H. DeLucia, B. Gielen, C.Calfpietra, C. P. Giardina, J. S. King, J. Leford,H. R. McCarthy, D. J. P. Moore, R. Ceulemans,P. De Angelis, A. C. Finzi, D. F. Karnosky, M.E. Kubiski, M. Lukac, K. S. Pregitzer, G. E.Scarascia-Mugnozza, W. H. Scheslinger, and R.Oren. Forest response to elevated CO

2 is

conserved across a broad range of productivity.Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences 102:18052-18056.

Oren, R., D.S. Ellsworth, K.H. Johnsen, N.Phillips, B.E.Ewers, C. Maier, K.V.R. Schäfer,H. McCarthy, G. Hendrey, S.G. McNulty andG.G. Katul. 2001. Soil fertility limits carbonsequestration by forest ecosystems in a CO

2-

enriched atmosphere. Nature 411:469-472.

Pacala, S. and R. Socolow. 2004. Stabilizationwedges: Solving the climate problem for thenext 50 years with current technologies. Science305:968-972.


29

Post, W.M., T-H. Peng, W.R. Emanuel, A.W.King, V.H. Dale and D.L. DeAngelis. 1990.The Global Carbon Cycle. American Scientist78:310-326.

Ramanathan, V.; Cicerone, R. J.; Singh, H. B.;Kiehl, J. T. 1985. Trace gas trends and theirpotential role in climate change. Journal ofGeophysical Research 90(D3):5547-5566.

Schlesinger, W.H. and J. Lichter. 2001.Limited carbon storage in soil and litter ofexperimental forest plots under increasedatmospheric CO

2. Nature 411:466-469.

Schouten, S., E. C. Hopmans, A. Forster, Y. vanBreugel, M.M.M. Kuypers, and J. S. SinningheDamsté. 2003. Extremely high sea-surfacetemperatures at low latitudes during the middleCretaceous as revealed by archaeal membranelipids Geology 31:1069-1072.

Tans, P.P., I.Y. Fung and T. Takahashi. 1990.Observational Constraints on the GlobalAtmospheric CO

2 Budget. Science 247:1431-

1438.

Tans, P. P. and Thomas J. Conway. 2003.Monthly Atmospheric CO

2 Mixing Ratios from

the NOAA CMDL Carbon Cycle CooperativeGlobal Air Sampling Network, 1968-2002. InTrends: A Compendium of Data on GlobalChange. Carbon Dioxide Information AnalysisCenter, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S.Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn.,U.S.A. (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/cmdl-flask/cmdl-flask.html).

Tognetti, R., P. Cherubini, and J. L. Innes.2000. Comparative stem-growth rates ofMediterranean trees under background andnaturally enhanced ambient CO

2

concentrations. New Phytologist 146:59-74.

Williams, M. 2003. Deforesting the Earth: Fromprehistory to global crisis. University of ChicagoPress, Chicago, 686 pp.

Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings Chapter Three

30

Introduction

■ Climate change is a key driver of historicvegetation change.

■ Understanding climate change is importantto the stewardship of forests.

The Natural Climate System —Overview

■ New tools, computing capacity and researchhave revealed much about past climate.

■ Climate naturally cycles, with major warmand cold periods, and shorter nested cycles.

■ Climate often changes abruptly, and oftenvegetation response is dramatic.

The Natural Climate System — APrimer on Past Climates

■ The earth has experienced more than 40warm and cold cycles during the QuaternaryPeriod, i.e., the past 2.5 million years ago.

■ Climate changes in multiple cycles, frommulti-millennial to those that last a fewyears or decades, and worldwide evidenceshows life on earth has responded on eachscale.

Implications of Natural ClimateChange for Vegetation Ecology

■ Ecological conditions constantly change inresponse to climate, and species shift even inthe absence of human influence.

■ Currently, species ranges and demographicsare expected to be highly unstable.

The Human-Dominated ClimateSystem

■ Recent global average temperature is higherthan the past 1,000 years.

■ Trends since 1975 can only be explained bynon-natural forces.

■ Future scenarios depict increases ofapproximately 2.7 to 10.4 oF by 2100 andan increase in carbon dioxide concentrationsof 575-1000 parts per million.

■ Even with CO2

decreases, atmospherewould not stabilize for 100 to 300 years.

Potential Impacts of ClimateChange on Oregon Ecosystems

■ Most scenarios show temperature increasesfrom about 7 to 8 oF from the present timeto the end of the 21st century.

■ The growing season could lengthen at leastfour to six weeks.

■ In models, precipitation decreases 10-40%in summer; in winter has a range from 10%decrease to 24% increase.

■ Biomes could change dramatically;shrubland/grassland could disappear.

■ Vegetation distribution could havesignificant decreases and expansions.

■ Wet maritime forests would lose carbon,while dry ecosystems gain carbon.

■ Suppression of fire vs. uncontrolled firesgreatly alters all the scenarios.

Summary

■ Even with the latest techniques, projectionsabout future climates are difficult toforecast.

CHAPTER THREEHIGHLIGHTS:

CLIMATE CHANGE AT MULTIPLE SCALES

Chapter Three Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings

31

CHAPTER THREECLIMATE CHANGE AT MULTIPLE SCALES

Constance Millar, Ron Neilson,Dominique Bachelet, Ray Drapek and Jim Lenihan

Introduction

Concepts about the natural worldinfluence approaches to forestmanagement. In the popular press,

climate change inevitably refers to global warm-ing, greenhouse gas impacts, novel anthropogenic(human-induced) threats, and internationalpolitics. There is, however, a larger context thatinforms our understanding of changes that areoccurring – that is, Earth’s natural climate systemand its variability.

Climate change is a central focus of paleoecology,the study of past vegetation dynamics. Climatelooms large because it is a key driver of historicvegetation change at multiple spatial and tempo-ral scales, the force that sends species migratingup and down mountain ranges, expanding acrossbasins, or contracting into fragmented popula-tions. Large climate changes over thousands ofyears have triggered speciations (lineage-splittingevents that produce two or more species), and theevolution of major adaptations among andwithin species. On scales of decades and centu-ries, smaller climate changes have driven mixingand re-mixing of plant communities and cata-lyzed shifts in population size. Much as we havecome to terms in vegetation ecology with theconcepts of dynamism, such as the roles of fire,flood, and insects, we tend to view these succes-sional changes against a static background.Significant historic climate changes are oftenconsidered events of the past with little relevanceto the present or future. To the contrary, climatechanges, often abrupt and extreme, characterizethe ongoing stream of natural climate.

Without understanding these natural climateprocesses and the ways in which forest species areadapted to climate changes, decisions may bemade that are counter-productive to the forests

we wish to steward. Further, greater awareness ofthe natural climate system can put in perspectivethe specific effects of human-induced climatechanges. In the past decade, scientists haverecognized that a new, human-dominated climatesystem has emerged that diverges in significantways from the natural system (IPCC 2001). Thisbrings additional challenges to forest manage-ment beyond coping with natural changes inclimate. Because of the long residence time ofcarbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the humaninfluences on the current trajectory appear to beirreversible for decades to centuries, even withmitigation. Thus, given the dynamics of thenatural climate system and the superimposedchanges humans are causing, the 21st century isan important transitional time for undertakingboth mitigation and adaptation actions.

Given this, what can forest and resource manag-ers of private and public forest lands do toaddress these challenges responsibly? While webegin here to outline new management strategiesfor a climate context, detailed case studies anddemonstrations haven’t yet been fully developed.These will be wrought from collaborative discus-sion among colleagues – scientists, resourcemanagers, planners, and the public – and theywill be case-, location-, and project-specific.While general principles will emerge, the bestpreparation is for managers and planners toremain informed about the emerging climatescience in their region, and to use that knowledgeto shape effective local solutions. The goal of thispaper is to outline natural climate patterns andmechanisms as important context for under-standing current and future changes. Further, weprovide an update on conditions of the human-dominated climate system, especially in thePacific Northwest, and finally, briefly introducefive general principles for vegetation managementin the face of the climate change.


32

The Natural Climate System —Overview

Changes in weather are familiar features ofEarth’s surface, readily recognizable as dailyvariations, seasonal cycles, and annual differencesthat irregularly include extremes of drought, wet,heat, and cold. All forms of life are influenced bythis variability in how and where they live, andmitigate adverse weather effects through condi-tioned responses and evolved adaptations. Untilrecently our knowledge of climate processes overlonger time frames, however, was rudimentary.Understanding came mostly from interpretingindirect effects of climate on the earth’s surface –e.g., glacial moraines as evidence of past ice ages,coastal terraces as clues to former sea levels – andthese gave a view of slow change over time.Without direct methods for understanding pastclimate variability, there was no reason tobelieve that the past climate was relevant tothe present. All this changed with the adventof new methods.

Climate Oscillates

In the past two decades, new tools withhigh precision and resolution, newtheory based on high-speed computingcapacity, and a critical mass of empiri-cal research have revolutionizedunderstanding of earth’s climatesystem. Historic climate is nowunderstood as being far morevariable and complex than previ-ously imagined (Bradley 1999,Cronin 1999, Ruddiman 2001).Several key insights haveemerged. First, climate natu-rally changes over time and thechanges cycle, or oscillate,rather than wander randomlyor follow pervasive lineartrends (Figure 1). So, it isimportant when consideringhuman-dominated climatechange to recognize thatchange itself is natural and

precedented, and to use this natural variability asa reference for evaluation. Because climate iscyclic, distant periods in the past may be moresimilar to the present than the immediate orrecent past. Similarly, past variability may givebetter insight into the future than do currentconditions. For instance, the 20th century andespecially the middle of the 20th century (whenmany of us grew up) were the least variable andwettest decades in the past 1000 years(Graumlich 1993), and thus may inform uspoorly about future variability and potential fordrought.

Figure 1

Globaltemperaturecycles. a)Decadal cyclesdriven by oceancirculation andsea tempera-tures, b)Century cyclesdriven by solarvariability, c)Millennial cyclesdriven bychanges inearth’s orbitaround the sun.These and othercycles interactcontinually and,in combination,result in ongoinggradual andabrupt changesin earth’s naturalclimate system.Source: Millar,2003.


33

Climate Cycles at Multiple Scales

A second major insight is that climate has variedsimultaneously at multiple and nested scales,operating at multi-millennial, millennial, century,decadal, and interannual scales (Figure 1), andwhich are caused by independent physical mecha-nisms. Major interglacial (warm) and glacial(cold) periods cycle on multi-millennial scales.These are caused by oscillations in earth’s orbitaround the sun, which in turn, control significanttemperature changes. At the century scale, recur-ring variations in the sun’s activity drive cycles ofabout 1200-year periods. The now familiar El-Niño/La Niña cycle (called ENSO, for El-NiñoSouthern Oscillation) is an example of changes atthe interannual scale, and a similar 30 to 40 yearoscillating pattern in the Pacific Decadal Oscilla-tion (PDO) affects the west coast of NorthAmerica. These shorter cycles result from mecha-nisms internal to earth, that is, the cyclic patternsof ocean circulation and ocean temperature. Theseparate mechanisms of these various cyclesinteract and feed back to one another, creatinggradual as well as abrupt changes. Climate at anyone time is the cumulative expression of allmechanisms operating together.

Climate Often Changes Abruptly

Third, the science of past climate informs us thatmajor and minor transitions in climate state oftenoccur abruptly (a few years to decades). Climatestates are highly sensitive, catalyzed by thresholdand feedback events, triggered by random effects,and especially vulnerable during times of highvariability such as the present (NRC 2002). Forexample, although glacial/interglacial periods arelong, changes between states can be abrupt, withswitches to glacial climates occurring in only a fewdecades. A recent example at a different scale isthe western North America regime shift at 1975-1976. Abrupt, coincidental changes in the climateof the previous two decades occurred in manyvariables, including surface air temperature,precipitation, snowpack, and ocean temperature toconditions that have characterized western U.S.since the mid 1970s (Ebbesmeyer et al., 1991).

Vegetation Responds Complexly to ClimateChange

Finally, ecological and physical systems respond toclimate change at each scale. Temperature andprecipitation directly affect water availability inthe form of rain, snow, ice, and glacier, resultingin changes in streamflow, groundwater, aquifers,soil moisture, and erosion. Plants and animalsreact to climate and changes in the hydrologicsystem with shifts, often dramatic, in populationsize, range distributions, and community compo-sitions and dominances. These are often accom-panied by changes in fire regimes and insect/pathogen relations.

In the following sections, we give additional detailson basic principles of natural climate variability.

The Natural Climate System – APrimer on Past Climates

The most widely applied new method for under-standing past climates — studying core samples— was first derived from long ice cores drilledinto polar ice caps (Cuffey et al. 1995). Gasesand atmospheric particles trapped in ice faithfullyrecord atmospheric conditions at the time ofdeposition. Due to annual layering and theability to date layers accurately, analysis of thinsections at regular intervals yields high-resolutionhistoric climate data in a continuous time series.Cores drilled to the bottom of continental icesheets (e.g., Greenland) have yielded high-resolution information on more than 40 climatevariables that extend over 200,000 years (Loriuset al., 1990). The most important are isotopes ofoxygen. Ratios of heavy to normal oxygenisotopes (18O) quantify the relative amount ofoxygen stored in land ice relative to seawater, andprovide strong indicators of surface air tempera-ture at the time the isotopes were trapped in theice. Analysis of these and other climate-relatedisotopes are now routinely extracted from othersituations where undisturbed deposition occurs,such as lake beds, coral reefs, and sea floorsediments. Depending on the depth of the


34

deposition and the time interval between sectionsanalyzed, such sediment cores yield detailedclimate information at multi-millennial tointerannual scales, as we summarize below.

Multi-Millennial Climate Cycles

Taken together, these long records collectivelydocument the repeating, cyclic nature of climateduring the Quaternary, or past 2.5 million years(Figure 2, Wright 1989; Raymo and Ruddiman1992). Unlike earlier assumptions of persistentice ages, oxygen-isotope records show a repeatingpattern of over 40 glacial (cold) /interglacial

(warm) cycles, with global temperature differencesbetween cycles averaging 11 to 15oF (Petit et al.1999). A startling insight revealed by the oxygen-isotope records is the overall similarity of our past10,000 years to similar warm interglacial periodsthroughout the Quaternary. Recent climate cyclesare not wholly novel after all.

The oxygen-isotope data further reveal a repeatingstructure of climate variability within glacial andinterglacial phases (Lorius et al., 1990). Extensivecold glacial periods were interrupted by warmperiods. A pattern emerged: interglacials beganabruptly, peaked in temperature in early to middlecycle, and ended in a series of steps, each with

abrupt transitions, into the cold of another glacialperiod. The cumulative effect is a sawtoothpattern typical of Quaternary climate recordsaround the world (Figures 1, 2).

Importantly, the pattern of historic temperaturechange synchronizes with changes in carbondioxide and methane. Concentrations of carbondioxide (CO

2) during previous warm interglacial

periods were about the same as the peak naturallevels of the Holocene (the past 10,000 years),about 300 ppm, while during cold glacial periods,concentrations lowered to 190-200 ppm. Thetightly synchronous changes in temperature and

greenhouse gases suggest a mecha-nistic relationship. Althoughvariable CO

2 concentrations are

not the primary cause of cold –warm cycles, it is thought thatthey played a role. There weretimes when changes in CO

2

concentration preceded changesin temperature and vice versa.

The leading theory is that asglaciers advance, the CO

2 concen-

tration is reduced through in-creased carbon sequestration inthe oceans and ocean sediments,creating a negative feedbackinducing further cooling. How-ever, when the planet begins towarm, CO

2 is released from the

oceans, creating a positive feedback and increasingthe rate of warming. It is estimated that about halfof the glacial – interglacial temperature change isdue to the greenhouse gas feedbacks (Petit et al.,1999). This may help explain the asymmetryobserved in glacial – interglacial cycles, with slowcooling and rapid warming. The potential CO

2

increase through the 21st century may be sufficient(at the upper end of the uncertainty bounds) toinduce a temperature increase that is of themagnitude of a full glacial – interglacial cycle(IPCC 2001).

A mechanistic cause for the overall glacial/intergla-cial climatic oscillations was proposed by Serbian

Figure 2Temperaturefluctuationsbetween glacialand interglacialperiods of thepast 2.5 millionyears. Derivedfrom oxygen-isotope analysis ofice cores from theGreenland icesheet. Currentinterglacial period(Holocene) is atthe far left, from0-10,000 yearsago. FromWright, 1989.


35

mathematician Milatun Milankovitch(Milankovitch 1941) long before detailed past-climate variability had been documented.Milankovitch integrated knowledge about earth’sorbit around the sun into a unified theory ofclimate oscillations. This has been revised subse-quently into a modern orbital theory that is widelyaccepted as the mechanism that controls the iceages (Imbrie et al., 1992, 1993).

Three major cycles of orbital variability recur overtime (Figure 3, Hays et al. 1976): (1) change in theshape of earth’s orbit around the sun from ellipticalto circular (100,000 years), (2) change in the angleof earth’s tilt on its axis (41,000 years), and, (3)change in time of year when the earth is closest tothe sun (23,000 years). The amount of heat fromthe sun reaching the earth at any point in timevaries with the earth’s position in each cycle.Integrating the three cycles mathematically resultsin a curve over time of predicted temperature onearth that corresponds to the observed changes inoxygen-isotope concentration, and thus thesawtooth pattern of periods of warm and cold.(e.g., Figures 1, 2).

Century- to Millennial-Scale Climate Cycles

Within these cycles that extend over tens tohundreds of thousands of years are shorter,orbitally-driven climate cycles or “events” —extremely cold or warm intervals — that last fromone hundred to a thousand years. These climateevents are increasingly understood as part of apervasive oscillation pattern, now called “Bondcycles,” documented for at least the last 130,000years (Bond et al., 1997). Bond cycles average1300-1500 years, meaning that each warm or coldphase lasts about 700 years, and the peak warmand cold phases last about 350 to 450 years (Figure4). Climate intervals during the Holocene thatexemplify Bond cycles include the Little Ice Age, asignificant ice advance and global cold period from1450-1920 (Grove 1988; Overpeck et al. 1997);the Medieval Climate Anomaly, a warm, dryinterval from 900-1350 (Hughes and Diaz 1994,Stine 1994, Esper et al., 2002); and the so-called8200 year (ago) cold event (Alley et al., 1997).

Painstaking analysis at high resolution of severalwell-known Bond intervals has documented thatoscillations often begin and end extremelyabruptly. For example, a study of the majorcollapse of ice at the end of the Younger Dryascold event (11,500-12,500 years ago) revealed thata 27oF warming occurred in two 10-year periodsseparated by a 20-year plateau of no detectabletemperature change (White et al., 2001).

Of particular interest at this time scale is thewarming of the 20th century. During the Little IceAge (1450-1920) temperatures in western North

Figure 3Primary orbitalcycles of theearth. Thefundamentalmechanism foroscillatingclimates of thepast 2.5 millionyears. Tempera-tures on earthvary dependingon how muchheat from thesun (solarinsolation)reaches earth’ssurface. This inturn variesdepending onthe exactposition of earthwithin each ofthree orbitalcycles. Math-ematicalintegration ofthe three curvesproduces a graphof temperatureover time thatcloses matchestemperaturereconstructionsfrom 18O, e.g.,Figure 1. Datasource: Science,Variations in theEarth’s Orvit:Pacemaker of theIce Ages. 1976.


36

America were on average 2oF colder than present;glaciers in many western North Americanmountain ranges were at their greatest extentsince the end of the Pleistocene over 10,000 yearsago (Clark and Gillespie 1997). Warming sincethe late 1800s has been about 1.3 oF globally(IPCC 2001). Increases in the early part of thecentury are now widely accepted as naturalclimate forcing, whereas continued warmingsince mid-20th century can be explained onlyfrom recent human-induced greenhouse gases(IPCC 2001, and see section below).

The natural mechanisms driving climate oscilla-tions at the 100 to 1,000 year scale are a topic ofcurrent interest. The relationship of extremelycold intervals within glacial periods to suddensurges of polar ice into high-latitude oceans, andresulting abrupt changes in global ocean salinity,first led climatologists to believe these intervalswere driven by ice and ocean-circulation dynam-ics (Broecker et al., 1990, Clark et al., 2001).Recently, however, millennial cycles in the sun’sintensity have also been shown to match thetiming of the Bond cycles over the last 130,000years with high precision (Figure 4, Bond et al.,2001). This has led climatologists to speculatethat a trigger for 100 to 1,000 year climatechanges comes from outside the earth – that is,

changes in the sun – and subsequent changes inocean circulation and temperature.

Interannual- to Decadal-Scale Climate Change

In recent years, climatologists have defined high-frequency climate cycles from a few years to severaldecades. The best known of these is the El-Niño/La Niña pattern (ENSO; Diaz and Markgraf2000). Every several years, hemispheric tradewinds that typically blow warm tropical oceanwater westward across the Pacific Ocean stall andinstead, warm water accumulates in the easternPacific Ocean. This leads to the presence ofunusual water temperatures offshore from Northand South America. Each year there is somedegree of El Niño or its opposite effect, La Niña.Extreme events cycle on a 2 to 8 year basis (Figure5). El Niño events bring different conditions todifferent parts of the world. For instance, theyportend unusually cold and dry weather in thePacific Northwest but unusually warm and wet falland winters in central and southern California.The reverse occurs during La Niña events.

Climate oscillations on multi-decadal (20 to 60year) periods have also been described recently. LikeENSO, these act regionally but have effects ondistant locations. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation

Figure 4100-1,000 yearoscillations.Bond cycles havebeen pervasive atleast through theHolocene and lastmajor glacial age.Individual eventshave long beenrecognized, such asthe Little Ice Age(1450-1900 CE)and the YoungerDryas (11.5-12.5ka). From Bondet al., 1997, 2001.


37

(PDO, Figure 5) affects western North America. Itappears to be regulated by decadal changes in oceancirculation patterns in the high-latitude PacificOcean (as opposed to ENSO’s tropical locus), andyields climate effects and regional patterns similar toextended ENSO effects (Mantua et al., 1997,Zhang et al., 1997). Warm (or positive) phases areextensive periods (10 to 25 years) of El Niño-likeconditions that alternate with cool (or negative)phases of La Niña-like conditions. Other suchmulti-decade, ocean-mediated patterns affect otherparts of the world (Cronin 1999).

Climate as a Force of Ecological Change

Abundant evidence worldwide indicates that lifeon earth has responded to climate change at eachof these scales. Changes in biota over time can bemeasured in many ways, such as from sedimentcores taken from wet areas including meadows,bogs, lakes, and ocean bottoms. In dry environ-ments, packrat middens preserve macrofossils,while in temperate forests, tree-ring recordsarchive annual tree growth.

At multimillennial scales, ecological records of thepast collectively document that, at any one place,compositions of species changed significantly in

correspondence with major climate phases.Often, changes showed complete species turn-over. In relatively flat terrain, such as in north-eastern United States, eastern Canada, parts ofScandinavia, and northern Asia, species shiftednorth and south hundreds of miles, as modeled,for example, for spruce (Picea) in eastern NorthAmerica (Figure 6, Jackson et al., 1987). Bycontrast, in mountainous regions, plant species

PDO and ENSO. PositiveENSO (El-Niño)and PDOperiods bring warm, wetconditions to certain parts ofthe world, while negativeENSO (La Niña) and PDObring cool, dry conditions.From Mantua et al., 1997 andENSO website: http://tao.atmos.washington.edu/pdo/

Figure 5

Figure 6

Shift in ranges ofspruce (Picea)forests in easternNorth America.

Changingtimes (ka isthousands ofyears ago)from the LastGlacialMaximum topresent .From Webbet al., 1987.


38

responded primarily by moving in elevation, asindicated by conifers of the Great Basin andsouthwestern desert region, which shifted as muchas 4500 ft (Figure 7, Thompson 1988, 1990,

Grayson 1993). Before temperature proxiessuch as oxygen isotopes provided independentmeasures of historic climate, millennial-scaleabrupt climate events were inferred fromchanges in flora and fauna. For instance, theYounger Dryas cold interval was known fromchanges in abundance of the arctic tundraplant Dryas octopetala (Jensen 1935).

Significant and rapid response of vegetation tocentury scale climate change is also well-documented, although elevation shifts arelower and migration distances smaller than forlonger time scales. Many examples now showfluctuating changes of vegetation correspond-ing to Bond cycles, which average 1300-1500years. An illustrative example is the abruptchange in pine versus oak vegetation insouthern Florida that corresponds to Heinrichevents (extremely cold intervals 100 to 1,000years ago) (Figure 8, Grimm et al., 1993). InCalifornia, abrupt changes in the dominanceof oak versus juniper corresponded to rapidclimate oscillations of the last 160,000 years(Heusser 2000). In the Great Basin of NorthAmerica, major changes in population sizeand extent of pinyon pine (P. monophylla)

correspond to Bond-scale cycles (Tausch et al.2004). Whereas recurring patterns emerge atcoarse scales, species responses are individualistic,lags are common, and nonlinear patterns frequent,

so that population increases or decreases maynot appear to be “in synch” with climate change,especially when climate changes are extreme andabrupt (Jackson and Overpeck 2000)

Vegetation responds also to interannual anddecadal variability. At the ENSO scale, changesoccur primarily in plant productivity andabundance within populations. The oscillationscontribute to regional fire regimes, where fuelloads build during wet years and burn duringdry years (Swetnam and Baisan 2003). Theselead to mid-scale vegetation changes as ENSOitself cycles, and thus fire regimes change overtime (Swetnam and Betancourt 1998,Kitzberger et al., 2001). Decadal climate andvegetation oscillations have been well-docu-

Glacial/interglacialshifts inelevation forplant species ofthe SheepRange,southernNevada.Current (solidline) and past(dots) elevationlimits, andindividualisticresponses ofspecies. FromThompson,1990.

Figure 7 Figure 8

Abundance of pine from Lake Tulane, Florida (indicated by pollen%, left panel) correlates with millennial scale cold, or Heinrich, eventsof the last glacial period (indicated by % lithics, or ice-rafted rockdebris, right panel). Data from Grimm et al., 1993.


39

mented in secondary growth of trees, such asrecurring droughts over the past 2,000 years thatled to reduced ring-widths in ponderosa pine inNew Mexico (Grissino-Mayer 1996). Otherexamples are the recurring pattern of ring-widthsin bigcone Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga macrocarpa;Biondi et al., 2001), mountain hemlock (Tsugamertensiana; Peterson and Peterson 2001) andsubalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa; Peterson et al. 2002)that correlate with PDO for up to 400 years in thepast. Vegetation-type conversions from meadow toforest, changes in species growth rates and crownmorphology, and changes in forest density wereassociated with PDO cycles in conifer forests of theSierra Nevada, California (Millar et al., 2004).

In perspective, a key characteristic of Quaternarypaleoecology for the past million years is that eachplant species responds to specific climatic cues withits own unique rate and sensitivity. Individualspecies follow their own ecological trajectories asclimates cycle, leading to changes in communitycompositions that themselves form, dissolve, andmay reform over time. Often non-analog commu-nities (that is, species combinations that do not existcurrently) have formed. From this perspective, plantcommunities exist as transient assemblages; speciesmove individually through time and space followingfavorable climates and environments.

Implications of Natural ClimateChange for Vegetation Ecology

This brief background of natural climate cyclingand its effects on vegetation provides insights intoconcepts of forest dynamics and vegetationecology. We offer a few examples below.

Sustainability

Ecological sustainability is a dominant operatingparadigm for forest management. It implies theendurance of species, communities, and ecosys-tems over time, and is often used as implicit orexplicit forest management and restoration goals(e.g., Jordon et al., 1990, Lele and Norgaard1996). In practice, sustainability has been difficultto describe or to recognize. Generally, it is ac-

cepted to exist when natural species diversity ismaintained, species are abundantly distributedthroughout their recent historic native range,community associations are maintained, naturalprocesses occur at reference intervals and condi-tions, and human disturbance is minimized(Lackey 1995, Hunter 1996).

The complex and recurring cycles of ecologicalchange in response to climate cycling challengethis interpretation of ecological sustainability.Species ranges have, and will — even in theabsence of human influence — shift naturally andindividualistically over small to large distances asspecies follow, and attempt to equilibrate with,changes in climate. In the course of adjustment,plant demography, dominance and abundancelevels change, as do the relationships of plant andanimal species in local communities.

A major conclusion from past records is that, atscales from years to millennia, ecological conditionsare not in equilibrium, do not remain stable, nor arethey sustained, but, by contrast, are in ongoing stateof change (Jackson and Overpeck 2000).Paleorecords challenge interpretations of ecologicalsustainability that have emphasized persistence ofspecies and stability of communities within currentranges. As widely used, such concepts ofsustainability do not adequately accommodatenatural dynamics, and promote misinterpretationsabout the behavior of natural systems.

It is important to note that the time scales underdiscussion are short relative to the lifespans of mostexisting plant species. Many native North Ameri-can plant species originated 20 to 40 million yearsago, and thus have been subjected to the demandsof shifting climates, at both large scales and small,throughout their histories. This implies thatadaptation to abrupt climate changes has hadmany opportunities to evolve. Resilience andsustainability, at least in terms of species persis-tence, appear to have been met through thecapacity of plants to track favorable environ-ments as they shift over time, and throughadjustment in range distribution, habitat,associates, and population characteristics.


40

Population Size, Population Abundance, andNative Species Range

Changes in population size and abundance, and inoverall range – observed through monitoring orother measures – are often assumed to be human-induced, whereas these may be natural speciesresponses to climate change. For instance, speciesof oak (Quercus) and juniper (Juniperus) expandand contract in complementary fashion: oakpopulation and range distribution expandedrepeatedly during warm climates and contractedduring cool climates while the opposite occurredfor juniper species (Adam and West 1983, Heusser1995). Although oaks in general are widespreadand common in southern Oregon and Californianow, during repeated long glacial periods theywere rare in the region. Although these changesare most obvious between long-term glacial andinterglacial times, significant changes in abun-dance occur at climate scales as short as a decade(Heusser and Sirocko 1997).

This perspective of vegetation dynamics over thepast million years compels us to evaluate causes forchanges in population size, abundance, and nativerange more carefully. Rather than interpretingchange as resulting from undesired human-induced threat, we might investigate insteadwhether these are natural species adaptations. Forinstance, Juniperus expanding in Great Basinrangelands has been considered an exotic invasive,and measures have been taken to remove plants.However, this expansion appears to be an adaptiveresponse to climate change (Nowak et al., 1994).Other things being equal, an ecologically-in-formed resource management action might be toencourage and not thwart juniper expansion.

Although changes in population size and distribu-tion may be natural responses to climate change,causes are often difficult to discern in practice.Lags in adjustment and other imbalances betweenpopulation distributions and climate mean thatpopulation changes may not be synchronous withclimate change, especially when rapid climatechanges occur over short times, making the searchfor mechanistic causes difficult (Jackson and

Overpeck 2000). Because individual plants,unlike animals, cannot “pick up and move,” theymigrate by dying in some areas while expanding inothers. These may appear poorly segregated onthe landscape – with patchiness and irregularitycharacteristic – making the effects difficult toevaluate while they’re happening. Causes may beattributed readily to other proximal factors, such asto insects and pathogens, or human-inducedeffects such as fire suppression, even where climateis the underlying, ultimate factor.

A challenging question for vegetation ecologybecomes, “what is the native range of a species?”The native range is the basis for monitoring itscondition, understanding favorable habitat andecological interactions, diagnosing threats andrisks, determining restoration targets, and indict-ing species as “exotic” (Jackson 1997). Viewedagainst historic changes in distribution andnatural flux, the native range of a species must beconsidered a transient and dynamic process itself,readily capable of moving in space as climateshifts over the landscape.

Population abundances and species’ distributionranges may be relatively stable whenever climate isin a more stable phase, or if the environment of aspecies offers considerable local diversity (Thomp-son 1988, Jackson and Overpeck 2000). In thesecases, shifts in climate may be tracked with rela-tively minor overall geographic changes.

By contrast, in situations that are sensitive tochange, for instance landscapes with little topo-graphic diversity, even small shifts in climate maybring large changes in population condition.Given that the 20th and 21st centuries are undergo-ing rapid change in climate with high variability,we would expect population demographics andspecies ranges to be now highly unstable.

Reference Conditions and Restoration Targets

“Pre-disturbance” or “pre-EuroAmerican impact”conditions are used routinely as reference modelsand descriptions of desired targets for ecologicalrestoration. This assumes, however, that climate


41

hasn’t changed between the historic targettime and the present.

In western North America, the distur-bance period is regularly assumed to startat European/Asian contact with nativepeoples and their landscape, about 1840-1860, and the centuries prior are used aspre-disturbance reference conditions. Asthat period coincides with the coldest partof the Little Ice Age, however, it makes apoor model for 21st century restoration.Even in eastern North America, whereEuropean contact with the landscape wasseveral centuries earlier, the dominantclimate was Little Ice Age, with ecologicalconditions very different from present.Although “pre-modern contact” timesdiffer around the world, the point re-mains: because of climate change, historicconditions are likely to be very differentfrom present, and thus poor models forforest management or restoration.

The Human–Dominated Cli-mate System

Given the dynamics of the natural climate systemin the past, it is not surprising that climate wouldbe changing now as well. Considering the past1,000 years, the amplitude of natural temperaturecycles has been about +/- 2oF from the average ofthe mid-20th century. It was warmer by thisamount during the Medieval centuries and colderduring the Little Ice Age. The natural mechanismsthat led to the Little Ice Age reversed in the late1800s, and by 1900, temperatures again beganwarming. So where do humans begin to influencethe climate system and global warming?

The Global Perspective

In 1988, the World Meteorological Organizationand the United Nations Environment Programmeformed the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC). The role of the IPCC is to assesson a comprehensive, objective, open, and transpar-ent basis the scientific, technical and socio-eco-

nomic information relevant to understanding therisk of human-induced climate change, its poten-tial impacts and options for adaptation andmitigation. The IPCC’s Scientific AssessmentReports, issued in 1990, 1995, 2001, with afourth anticipated for 2007, are widely accepted asrepresenting a synthesis of the world’s scientificconsensus on recent climate change.

A key question the IPCC addresses is: how hasglobal temperature changed over the last 100 years,and how has this compared to the past 1,000 years?Answers to the first question came from compila-tions of instrumental data across earth’s surfaceand indicate a temperature increase of 1.3oF overthe 20th century (Figure 9, IPCC 2001). Tem-perature increase relative to the past 1,000 yearshas resulted in a number of interpretationsdepending on the nature of the climate indicator(such as tree rings, corals, ice cores, etc.) and thestatistical interpretation. The global average

Figure 9Global meansurface airtemperaturechanges (°C)over the past140 and 1000years. FromIPCC, 2001.


42

temperature in the late 20th century was higherthan global averages over the last 1,000 years,although some regions experienced significantlywarmer conditions. Regardless of relative changein the earlier centuries, the trend of increasingtemperature late in the 20th century is clear in allinterpretations.

Another key question for the IPCC analyses is:are globally observed 20th-century warming trendsthe result of natural processes or human influencesvia greenhouse gas emissions? This question is nowanswered with high confidence: the trends inglobal climate since about 1975 can only beexplained by non-natural forces. Without humaninfluence, the models indicate that the naturalclimate systems would be cooling slightly, as aresult of solar activity and atmospheric dimmingfrom volcanic aerosols. The observed warmingtrends are duplicated in models only whenhuman-induced greenhouse gas emissions(carbon dioxide, methane and others), and theirfeedback effects, are added to the models (IPCC2001).

The IPCC also has been charged to generatemodels of future climates, called scenarios, whichrely on an increasing array of General CirculationModels. Diverse models are used to generate arange of results that derive from different ap-proaches, as well as starting assumptions. Theseinclude, for instance, different emissions condi-tions, such as “business as usual” (no changefrom current practices), doubled, and tripledCO

2 levels. The ensemble of scenarios depict a

global average temperature increase of approxi-mately 2.7 to 10.4oF by 2100 (Figure 10) and arange in CO

2 concentrations of 575 to 1000

ppm. Considering the extreme values in theseranges, the last time global temperature was thiswarm was during the last interglacial period,about 120,000 years ago, and the last time CO

2

concentrations were this high was about 120million years ago when earth was in a radicallydifferent atmospheric, tectonic, and environmen-tal condition than present (Berner 1990).

Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 have direct

effects on ecosystems in addition to influencingclimate. Some of these arelikely to be detrimental,such as affecting thesuccess of unwantedinvasive species (Ziaska2003), and increasingacidification of oceanswith cascading effects onocean biota. The role ofincreased efficiency ofphotosynthesis by plantshas been touted as benefi-cial for the fertilizingeffect on tree growth andchanges in water-useefficiency. Increasingly,studies show this is not auniversal effect, and thatthe additional photosyn-thate is not always storedin wood nor does itnecessarily result in

accelerated growth. Depending on species, age,and time since exposure, CO

2 may be stored in

Figure 10 Global mean surface air temperatures (°C) projected for the 21st

century and plotted with the observed temperature trend prior to 2001.Multiple lines after 2100 indicate different results from climate models;bars show ranges for each model. From IPCC, 2001.


43

stems, roots, or fruits. Old-growth forests mayrespond less than young trees, and all forestsstudied show a capacity to acclimate to the highlevels of CO

2 such that growth increases initially,

then declines (Körner et al., 2005).

Cascading environmental effects from a continu-ally warming world are already widely docu-mented and projected to accelerate. Theseinclude decreased arctic ice cover (down 23%since first monitored in 1979); increasing sealevel as sea ice and ice caps melt (CCSP 2005);changes in earth surface albedo (surface reflec-tance) as bare ground is exposed in the Arctic,and especially as shrubs invade (Chapin et al.,2005); worldwide retreat of mountain glaciersand ice caps (averaging approximately 50%decline over the western U.S. during the 20th

century, Mennis and Fountain 2001); decreasedsnowpack accumulation and associated decreasesin streamflow (Dettinger and Cayan 1995);increases in amplitude of extreme weather events(hurricanes, drought, flood, CCSP 2005);“greening up” (i.e., increases in density) oftemperate lowland and montane forests, followedby “browning down” (mortality) as a result ofepic forest dieback and uncharacteristically severewildfires (Westerling et al., 2003, Breshears et al.,2005); and loss of alpine ecosystems as high-elevations species move upward off the tops ofpeaks (Pauli et al., 2003).

An important take-home message from the IPCCanalyses is the time required for the climatesystem to equilibrate reductions in CO

2. Assum-

ing greenhouse gas emissions peak and could berestored to early 20th-century levels within thenext 50 years, the residence time of CO

2 in the

atmosphere is such that it would not stabilize for100 to 300 years, and temperature would notstabilize for the same amount of time (IPCC,2001). Thus, the scenarios for the 21st centuryshow best-case assumptions for greenhouse gasemissions; if they are not controlled, climatechanges will be significantly amplified. Theeffects of human-caused emissions on climate,

combined with land-use changes that affectclimate, give rise to the recognition that a hu-man-dominated climate system is characteristicof the new millennium.

Potential Impacts of Climate Changeon Oregon Ecosystems

The potential future impacts of climate changeon ecosystems in the Northwest have beenestimated using a variety of climate and vegeta-tion models. Following are new estimates thatbuild upon earlier work that contributed to aNational Assessment of the potential impacts ofclimate change, which was sponsored by the U.S.Global Change Research Program (Bachelet etal., 2001).

Temperature and Precipitation

The future climate scenarios presented here usethree general circulation models, coupled withdynamic ocean models, each simulating twoIPCC greenhouse gas emissions scenariosthrough the 21st century, moderately high (A2)and moderately low (B2).1 The three globalclimate models were developed in Canada(CGCM2), the United Kingdom (HADCM3),and Australia (CSIRO).

The scenarios show temperature across Oregonincreasing from the present time to the end of the21st century from about 7 to 8 oF, which canlengthen the growing season by at least four to sixweeks (Figure 11). For precipitation, the sce-narios show a range in winter of 10% decrease to24% increase, but decreases of 10 to 40 % insummer (a relatively small amount since sum-mers are generally dry). The potential winterdecrease is important because previous studieshad shown significant increases in Northwestprecipitation (NAST 2000).

1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, IPCC SRES A2 and B2 were used in a new andongoing assessment of the impacts of climate change over North America (Price et al., 2004).


44

The VINCERA Project

A new class of ecosystem model called DGVMs,or Dynamic General Vegetation Models, combinesadditional types of data for improved forecasts ofprojected climate changes on natural ecosystems.These new models combine two traditionallyseparate fields within ecology — the distributionof vegetation, and biogeochemical cycling (hownutrient cycling affects plant productivity). Inaddition, DGVMs also include a third element,wildfire simulation, which can be a large compo-nent of the flux of carbon back to the atmosphere.

Three Dynamic General Vegetation Models —simulating changes in vegetation distribution,carbon balance, and disturbances from droughtand fire — were analyzed more broadly in aproject known as VINCERA, Vulnerability andImpacts of North American Forests to ClimateChange: Ecosystem Responses and Adaptation.

Results from one of these vegetation models,MC1 (MAPSS-CENTURY, version 1), arepresented here.

a. Impacts of Climate on Future Distribution ofVegetation

Figure 12 shows Observed (current) vegetationfor the Northwest, compared with two simula-tions under Historical Climate (1961 to 1990,with and without fire suppression) and sixscenarios of Future Vegetation Distributionsimulated for the end of the 21st century (2070to 2099). This figure depicts six future climatescenarios developed by the three climatemodeling groups, each using two differentassumptions of future greenhouse gas emissions(A2, medium high; B2, medium low).

The two historical simulations are reasonablerenditions of the observed current natural

Historical andsimulated futuretrends intemperature andprecipitationover Oregon.The scenarioswere producedfrom three globalclimate models(GCM), theAustralianClimate Center(CSIRO), theCanadianClimate Center(CGCM2) andthe HadleyCenter of theUnited KingdomMeteorologicalOffice(HADCM3).Each GCM wasrun with twodifferent assumedtrajectories ofgreenhouse gasemissions, amoderately highscenario (A2) anda moderately lowscenario (B2).The emissionsscenarios aredesignated with‘a’ for A2 or ‘b’for B2, coupledwith the GCMdesignation todistinguish eachof the sixscenarios. Seetext for additionalexplanation ofscenarios.

Figure 11


45

vegetation distribution. Theapparent overabundance ofboreal forest (blue) is not amajor problem, since theboreal trees are functionallyvery similar to the temperateconifer forest shown in theobserved map. The histori-cal simulations demonstratethe effect of fire suppression,implemented in the modelin 1950, on the expansion ofwoodlands and savannas(juniper and ponderosapine) into the sagebrushvegetation in eastern Oregonin recent decades. This is awell-described phenomenonand is currently threateningnumerous sagebrush habitatsfor wildlife.

The simulations of futurevegetation distributioninclude no fire suppressionand yet in all scenarios, theinterior shrublands/grass-lands are overtaken byexpansion of woodlands (e.g.juniper), savannas (e.g.Ponderosa pine), or conti-nental conifer forests (e.g.Douglas-fir), due to in-creases in precipitation,enhanced water use effi-ciency from elevated CO

2

and a lengthened growingseason. The maritime forestsalong the wet coastal regions are displaced inmany future climate scenarios by the “warmtemperate-subtropical mixed forest,” or theinterior conifer forests. Overall, there is anincrease in broadleaf vegetation amidst theconifer forests, both along the coast andinland, suggesting expansions of species suchas alder, maple, madrone, oak, pines andother Klamath region and California species.

Figure 12Vegetation distribution. Observed, simulated historical and future vegetationdistribution. The two historical simulations (with and without fire suppres-sion) show a reasonable comparison to the ‘observed’ current vegetationdistribution. The primary features to note are the maritime forests along thewet coastal regions (dark green) and the interior, dry sagebrush regions (gray).The maritime forests are displaced in many future climate scenarios by the‘Warm Temperate-Subtropical Mixed forest’, or the interior conifer forests. Inall scenarios, the interior shrublands/grasslands are overtaken by expansion ofwoodlands (e.g. Juniper), savannas (e.g. Ponderosa Pine), or continental coniferforests (e.g. Douglas-fir). See text for further details.


46

b. Impacts of Fire on Future Distribution ofVegetation

Figure 13 shows future climate scenarios withpercent change in biome area in Oregon,without (13a) and with (13b) fire suppression.

The fourteen vegetation types shown in Figure12 were aggregated into four vegetation classes(Table 1).

With Full Fire across all six scenarios (Figure13a), maritime forest either increased in areaslightly by about 12%, or showed a range ofdecreases in area from nil to over 70%. Themaritime forests were displaced either by thewarm temperate/subtropical mixed forest orthe continental temperate forest. The formercarries more broadleaf species such as oak andmadrone whereas the latter is typified more byDouglas-fir and both types are accustomed tomore fire. With suppressed fire continentalforest increased in area by about 40% tonearly 60%; while, savanna/woodlandincreased by about 150% to over 300%, asthey both encroached upon the drier shruband grasslands. Shrubland/grassland showeddecreases in area from about 80% to over90%. (Figure 13a).

In contrast, with Suppressed Fire (Figure13b), continental forest increased even more,as it took over the role of savanna/woodlandin displacing shrubland/grassland, whichdisappeared entirely, being largely replaced bythe continental forest.

The simulated future distribution of vegeta-tion, shows a significant increase in woodyvegetation in the interior dry ecosystems(Figure 12). With increases in temperature,there would be significant reductions in alpinevegetation, as the upper treeline moves upwardin elevation, as shown in previous higherresolution simulations (Bachelet et al., 2001).The simulations show some increase in warmtemperate/subtropical mixed forest in thecoastal mountains of both Oregon andWashington. This implies an increase inbroadleaf deciduous and evergreen species,perhaps such as present in the Klamath regionwith madrone, tanoak and other oak species inthe drier sites, and maple and alder in thewetter sites. More southerly conifers couldalso be favored, such as possibly redwood or

Figure 13 Percent change in biome area in Oregon, without and withfire suppression, under six future climate scenarios, comparing(2070 – 2099) with (1961 – 1990). The 14 different vegetationclasses shown in Figure 12 have been aggregated to four majorbiome types. See Table 1 for definitions of biomes.


47

even some pines. However, slow migratoryrates of southerly (California) species wouldlikely limit their presence in Oregon throughthe 21st century (Neilson et al., 2005). Thedrier interior vegetation shows a large increasein savanna/woodland types, suggesting possi-bly juniper and yellow pine species rangeexpansions. Also, if winter temperatures warmsufficiently, then hard frosts could become lessfrequent and open the door to an entire floraof frost-sensitive species from the Southwestpotentially displacing many native easternOregon species over the course of decades tocenturies (Neilson et al., in press).

Hotter temperatures would enhance evapora-tive demand, tending to drought-stress thevegetation. However, that is somewhat

countered, or even reversed, if it is also accom-panied by increases in precipitation, as well asthe increased water use efficiency of thevegetation from elevated CO

2 concentrations.

Decreases in summer precipitation, accompa-nied by a longer growing season, would tendto increase the drought stress. However, thefuture scenarios show an increase in winterprecipitation. There is speculation that asglobal oceans warm, the world could shift into amore positive PDO regime, similar to anextended El Niño (Mote et al., 2003). Theseconditions often shift storms away from theNorthwest, creating dry conditions.

Fire increases significantly in the coast rangeand Willamette Valley in Oregon in the absence

Table 1.MC1 vegetation type aggregation scheme andregional examples of the vegetation classes

Vegetation Class Vegetation Type Regional Examples

Maritime Forest

Continental Forest

Savanna / Woodland

Shrubland / Grassland

Maritime Temperate Conifer ForestCool Temperate Mixed ForestWarm Temperate/Subtropical

Mixed ForestTemperate Deciduous Forest

TundraBoreal ForestContinental Temperate Coniferous

Forest

Temperate Conifer SavannaTemperate Conifer XeromorphicWoodland

Temperate Arid ShrublandC3 GrasslandC4 Grassland

Sitka Spruce – WesternRed Cedar – WesternHemlock - Douglas-fir ForestAlder – Maple – Oak ForestsMixed Conifer ForestPonderosa Pine ForestTanoak–Madrone–Oak ForestCoastal Redwood Forest

Alpine MeadowsAspenSubalpine Forest – True firs –

Mountain HemlockDouglas-fir – Western Hemlock

Forest

Yellow Pine SavannaDouglas-fir–TanoakSavannaMixed Conifer Savanna

Sagebrush SteppePalouse


48

of fire suppression in all scenarios, especially thedrier Hadley (HADCM3) and Australian(CSIRO) scenarios (Figure 15). The WillametteValley and east slopes of the coast range appear tobe most at risk of increased fire. Much of thisincrease in fire can be mitigated by fire suppres-sion, but would likely require significant mobili-zation of fire fighting resources above currentlevels

However, the coastal forests are heavily managedand have a very complex harvest history and age-class structure. Much of the region is recoveringfrom clear-cut logging and is likely still below thewater-limited carrying capacity and may yet be ina position to benefit from the warmer wintersand elevated CO

2. These younger ecosystems,

with lower stature and less “rough” canopies, mayuse less water and be less likely to experiencedrought stress followed by fire.

c. Extended Growing Season

The increases in temperature would advancethe onset of spring growth, bringing it closerin line with the spring precipitation peak thatis characteristic of the Northwest. Most of thevegetation growth is accomplished in thespring, before the long, dry summer. How-ever, Northwest vegetation, particularly in thedrier interior, tends to be deeply rooted andcan take advantage of the winter rains forpersistence throughout the summer, due to thewinter and spring recharge of the deep soillayers.

Even though the percentage decreases insummer rainfall are large, the summers aregenerally dry in any case, so the absolutemagnitude of the change is not as great as itseems. The effects of increased summertemperatures on evaporative demand are likelyof greater importance. However, since thegrowing season would be longer on bothspring and fall ends, the vegetation woulddemand more water overall, unless the impactof elevated CO

2 concentrations on water use

efficiency and the increased winter precipita-tion are sufficient to offset the demand.

It is not easy to anticipate whether, for ex-ample, the sagebrush ecosystem would in-crease or decrease in certain domains in theNorthwest, as illustrated in Figure 12, sincethere are so many counter-acting forces. Theoverall changes in area of the different aggre-gated ecosystems, specifically for Oregon,simplify the complex changes expressed in themaps and are shown in Figure 13. Theshrubland/grassland vegetation type decreasesdue to woody encroachment. The lengthen-ing of the growing season is especially impor-tant in the interior dry ecosystems, where thetraditionally very cold winters prevent signifi-cant photosynthesis until late spring when therains are typically waning. Thus, even withthe drier scenarios, the interior vegetation canmuch more effectively utilize the winterprecipitation.

Difference inbiomassconsumed byfire (carbon g/m2), comparingthe future averageecosystembiomassconsumed by fire(2070 – 2099)with the current(1961 – 1990)biomassconsumed,without firesuppression(upper panel)and with firesuppression(lower panel).The six futurescenarios arearrayed by GCM(columns) andemissionsscenarios (rows).The GCMdefinitions are asin Figure 11.

Figure 14


49

The greater the effectiveness of fire suppres-sion, the greater will be the woody expansion,even moving toward a closed canopy in manyregions of the interior (Figure 13). The effect ofthe delicate balance between all the contrastingforces can best be observed in the changes invegetation and ecosystem carbon and onwhether fire consumes more or less biomass.

d) Change in Vegetation Carbon

With climate change, the wet maritime foreststend to lose carbon, even under scenarios withincreased precipitation, (Figure 15). Interiordry ecosystems tend to gain carbon. Theinterior conifer forests lose carbon without firesuppression, but gain carbon with fire suppres-sion. The wet maritime forests are uniqueamong Northwest ecosystems in that thehistorical fire return interval is sufficiently longthat the simulated ecosystems have grown up totheir water-limited carrying capacity. Thus, theincreases in temperature lengthen the effectivegrowing season of the maritime forest, as well asproduce a much higher evaporative demand.The result is that the trees, with their currentleaf area, withdraw more water during the hotsummer than is available in the soil. Therefore,the leaf area is reduced via dieback of leaves,branches and trees, augmented in some cases byincreases in fire With a lower leaf area, imply-ing a less dense forest (as shown by the reducedvegetation carbon), the forest is again able tomaintain a positive water balance throughoutthe summer.

The interior forests show an increase in leaf areaunder the future climate, due to a more favor-able synchrony between their growing seasonand the precipitation, and are also normallymaintained by fire at a lower leaf area thancould be maintained by the water balance. Theincrease in the vegetation density in theseinterior ecosystems is also driven by increases inwinter precipitation and enhanced water useefficiency from elevated CO

2. The interior

savanna/woodland ecosystems are able to puton more biomass even with an increase in fireand without fire suppression. However, the

Percent changein vegetationcarbon,comparing thefuture averageecosystemcarbon density(2070 – 2099)with current(1961 – 1990)carbon density,without firesuppression(upper panel)and with firesuppression(lower panel).The six futurescenarios arearrayed byGCM(columns) andemissionsscenarios(rows). TheGCMdefinitions areas in Figure 11.

Figure 15

presence or absence of fire suppression serves tomodulate whether the interior conifer forestecosystems become carbon sources or sinks(Figures 14, 15).

Summary

With climate change, all ecosystems in the North-west show significant changes in species composi-tion, fire disturbance and carbon balance. Thecomplexities and nuances of counteracting forcescannot be minimized. Even with the newestmodeling techniques, the balances in the real worldare difficult to forecast. However, colder ecosystems(alpine) will be threatened while warmer ecosystemswill increase. Fire is likely to increase, even in wetcoastal ecosystems. Ecosystem carbon gains andlosses will be mixed, but fire suppression or exclu-sion could have a profound positive influence onecosystem carbon sequestration.


50

In the context of changing climates and increas-ing atmospheric carbon, basic concepts andoverall strategies frame the discussion. These canbe categorized as mitigation, adaptation, andconservation. Mitigation practices aim to reduceemissions of new greenhouse gases, as well as toremove existing CO

2 from the atmosphere.

Adaptation practices include actions to increasethe capacity of forests, ecosystems, and society tofunction productively under changing climatesand greenhouse atmospheres. Conservationpractices include all those actions that reduceenergy use and dependence on fossil-fuels, andthereby relieve stress on forests, ecosystems, andecosystem services. For forest management tomeet these three principles, we outline fivedecision-making strategies. They are ReduceGreenhouse Gases, Resist Change, Create Resil-ience After Disturbance, Respond to Change, andConduct Triage (Millar 2006). While theseguidelines pertain to many situations, the discus-sion here addresses production forest manage-ment on private and public lands. For similardiscussion specific to restoration ecology, conser-vation practices, and lands managed primarily forbiodiversity, see Millar and Brubaker 2006.

(1) Reduce Greenhouse Gases.

To date, discussion in western forestry and land-management circles regarding climate hasfocused on adaptation to anticipated changes. Apriority, however, must be to contribute activelyto mitigation of human-induced climate andatmospheric effects by reducing greenhouse gasemissions. The forestry sector is especially calledto action because the potential for positiveeffects through deliberate forest management islarge, and, conversely, there is great potential fornegative impacts when forests are mis-managedor carbon issues ignored. While the U.S. hasfallen far behind other countries in developingstringent federal standards and emissions caps,many U.S. states including Oregon are takingsteps to establish standards that compare to

Kyoto-protocol countries. These fall under thecategory of sequestering greenhouses gases,reducing unnecessary emissions, and maintain-ing a “house in order.”

Sequester Greenhouse Gases. Plants remove CO2

from the atmosphere during the process ofphotosynthesis, and, with water, convert carbonto wood and other plant parts. Under naturalconditions, carbon is stored in plant parts above-and below-ground until it is returned to theatmosphere via burning (combustion) or decom-position, or further stored in the soil. Carbon isstored, or sequestered, in live plant tissues asstems, leaves, and roots, in dead tissue as stemsand litter, and in soil pools in diverse forms. Thisprocess can be exploited as a mitigation strategy.

Forest management practices designed to achievegoals of removing and storing CO

2 are diverse. A

recent study on carbon sequestration optionsidentified that “afforestation provides the biggestterrestrial sequestration opportunity in Oregon,Washington, and California,” (Kadyszewski et al.2005). Afforestation involves converting non-forest land into forested condition, either restor-ing native forests (e.g., forest that had beencleared) or establishing plantations on land thatwas not previously forested. Other approaches tosequestering carbon duplicate long-recognizedbest forest management practices where the goalsare to maintain healthy, vigorous growing stock,keep sites fully occupied with minimal spatial ortemporal gaps in non-forest conditions, andminimize disturbance by fire, insects, and disease.Responsible sequestration practices delay returnof CO

2 to the atmosphere, both in situ (in the

forest or plantation) and post-harvest.

Once fiber is removed from the forest or planta-tion, its path through the utilization cyclecontinues to affect its carbon emissions status.Options include storing carbon in wood andfiber form as buildings, paper, fiberboard, etc., orused for biomass to fuel electricity production.

Forest Management in the Face of Changing Climates


51

The latter provides a tremendous opportunity forthe future, as wood removed from the forest notonly reduces greenhouse gas emissions by reduc-ing fire vulnerabilities but provides alternativeenergy to replace fossil-fuel and other highgreenhouse gas-emitting forms of energy.

Reduce Unnecessary Emissions. Wildfire andextensive forest mortality as a result of insect anddisease are primary sources of unintentionalcarbon emissions from forests in western U.S.,and represent catastrophic loss of decades tocenturies worth of carbon storage. This situationis likely to be worsening, in the near term at least,in that forest growth has increased during the20th century due to warming and wetter climatesas well as decades of fire suppression (“green-up”), priming overdense stands for wildfireduring dry years and droughty periods (Lenihanet al., 2005, Westerling and Bryant 2005,Westerling et al., 2003). This effect will exacer-bate in coming decades under continued warm-ing, with increasing catastrophic fire years leadingto what has been modeled as widespread “brown-downs” for many western and eastern forest types(Ron Neilson, results in prep).

Management practices that lower forest vulner-abilities to wildfire and non-fire mortality shouldbe widely implemented. On public forest lands,while there is support for fuel and fire reduction,there has been public pressure to minimizeharvest (thinning) and to use managed firesinstead. While this may be important forecological values, from a carbon-accountingstandpoint it is less desirable. Removing trees(thinning or chipping) from dense or dead standsis appropriate where this practice lessens fire risk,and especially if the fiber is subsequently used asbiomass to fuel energy co-generation or storedlongterm.

Maintain House in Order. While not directlyrelated to vegetation management, energyconservation and reduction of emissions fromresource-related activities should be a priority forforestry and environmental institutions. For

example, based on a 2005 Presidential Memoran-dum, the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service issued adirective on energy and fuel conservation thatrequires 10% agency-wide reductions in energyuse, travel, and use of gas-fueled vehicles. Hefurther proposed changes in agency fleets toinclude hybrid and other clean-fueled transporta-tion, and outlined employee incentives totelecommute, use public transportation, etc.(Bosworth 2005). Many state and utility pro-grams offer rebates and incentives to install solarpanels, wind-generators, and to reduce gas andelectricity usage. Energy audits are readilyperformed and many types of carbon calculatorsare available online. Green tag programs, such asthat run by the Bonneville EnvironmentalFoundation, encourage trading of energy debt(paid by individuals to offset greenhouse gasemissions) to entities that provide clean energysources. Many other businesses and organizations(e.g., Carbon Neutral Company, TerraPass) havebeen developed with missions to mitigate climateeffects by promoting positive and practical actionsto reduce emissions.

(2) Resist Effects of Climate Change.

On the adaptation side of management options,one approach is to resist the influence of climatechange on forest resources. From high-valueplantation investments near rotation to rarespecies with limited available habitat, maintainingthe status quo may be the only option. InOregon, this will almost always involve protectingresources from fire, insect, and disease. Optionsinclude traditional fuel breaks, strategically placedarea treatments, defensible fuel profile zones,group selection, and individual tree removal.Intensive and complete fuel breaks may benecessary around highest risk areas, such aswildland-urban interfaces and valuable planta-tions, while mixed approaches may best protecthabitat for biodiversity.

Abrupt invasions, changes in behavior, and long-distance movements of non-native species areexpected in response to changing climates.


52

Monitoring non-native species and taking earlyactions to remove and block invasions are impor-tant. This applies to invasive plants, animals(vertebrate and invertebrates), and pathogens.Aggressive early resistance is critical.

Resisting climate change influences on naturalforests and vegetation may require additionalinvestments, intensive management, and arecognition that one is “paddling upstream”against nature. For instance, climate change insome places will drive site conversion so that sitecapacities shift from favoring one species toanother. Maintaining prior species may requiresignificant extra and repeated efforts to supplyneeded nutrients and water, remove competingunderstory, fertilize young plantations, developa cover species, thin, and prune.

(3) Create Resilient Vegetation.

Resilient forests and plantations are those thatnot only resist change but resile (verb: to returnto a prior condition) after disturbance. Resil-iency of vegetation can be increased by manage-ment practices similar to those described forresisting change. These include practices toreduce fire risk, and also aggressive actions toencourage return of the site to desired speciespost-disturbance. Given that the plant estab-lishment phase tends to be most sensitive toclimate-induced changes in site potential,intensive management at young ages may enableretention of the site by a commercially desiredspecies, even if the site is no longer optimal forit. Practices include intensive site preparation,replanting with high-quality stock, diligentstand improvement practices, and minimizinginvasion by non-native species. Unfortunatelymany examples are accumulating where resil-ience is declining in natural forests, and retain-ing resiliency will become more difficult aschanges in climate accelerate.

(4) Respond to Climate Change.

Another adaptation option for management isto anticipate the effects of projected future

climate on vegetation and plan protective andopportunistic measures in response. For this tobe useful requires that climate and responsemodels yield useful projections. While regionalmodeling is becoming increasingly sophisti-cated, outcomes should be considered highlyuncertain at the local spatial and temporal scalesused in forest management. This is partlybecause large uncertainties exist at globalclimate scales that translate and amplify asmodels are downscaled to regional levels.Rather than viewing models as forecasts orpredictions of the future, they are better usedfor attaining insight into the nature of potentialprocess and about generalized trends. Focusingon results that are similar across diverse modelsshould indicate areas of greater likelihood.Ecological response (including fire and insect/disease) to climate is even more difficult thanclimate to model accurately at local scalesbecause threshold and non-linear responses, lagsand reversals, individualistic behaviors, andstochastic and catastrophic events are common.Models typically rely on directional shiftsfollowing equilibrium dynamics of entire plantcommunities, whereas especially in mountain-ous regions, patchy environments increase thelikelihood of complex individualistic responses.Once a forest manager obtains regional infor-mation about future climate scenarios, eitherfrom sophisticated modeling or qualitativeextrapolations, options for managing resourcesin response to anticipated change can be devel-oped. Depending on management goals andthe environmental context, different approachesmay be taken. A sample of these includes thefollowing:

Follow Climate Change. Use coupled anddownscaled climate and vegetation models toanticipate future regional conditions and projectfuture forest stands and plantations into newhabitat and climate space.

Anticipate and Plan for Indirect Effects. Evalu-ate potential for indirect effects, such as changesin fire regimes and exotic insects and pathogen


53

responses, and plan management accordingly.

Increase Redundancy. While some situationsmay implicate “putting your eggs in one basket”and trusting that climate and vegetation modelsaccurately project the future, for other situa-tions, bet-hedging practices may be a betterchoice. Essentially this group of actions plansfor uncertainty in the future rather than acertain (modeled) scenario, and promotesdecisions that spread risk rather than concen-trating it.

Expand Genetic Diversity Guidelines. While inthe past several decades, genetic guidelines forreforestation have been increasingly refined tofavor local germplasm and close adaptation,relaxing these guidelines may be appropriateunder changing climates as another bet-hedgingpractice.

Establish “Neo-native” Locations. Informationfrom historic species ranges and responses toclimate change offers a different kind of insightinto the future than modeling studies might.For instance, areas that supported species in thepast under similar conditions to those projectedfor the future might be considered sites for newplantations or “neo-native” stands of the species(Millar, 1998).

Experiment with Refugia. Plant ecologists andpaleoecologists recognize that some environ-ments appear more buffered against climate andshort-term disturbances while others are sensi-tive. If such environments can be identifiedlocally, they could be considered sites forlongterm retention of plants, or even for newplantations.

Promote Porous Landscapes. A capacity tomove in response to changing climates is key toadaptation and long-term survival of plants innatural ecosystems. Plants migrate, or “shiftranges,” by dying in unfavorable sites andcolonizing favorable edges including internalmargins. Capacity to do this is aided by porouslandscapes, that is, landscapes that containcontinuous habitat with few physical or bioticrestrictions, and through which plants can movereadily (recruit and establish). Promoting largeforested landscape units with flexible manage-ment goals that can be modified as conditionschange will encourage species to respondnaturally to changing climates and enablemanagers to work with rather than against theflow of change.

(5) Conduct Triage.

Species, plant communities, regional vegetation,and plantations will respond to changingclimates individualistically. Some species andsituations will be sensitive and vulnerable.Depending on their value or risk level, thesemay be targeted either for aggressive interven-tion, or, conversely, intentionally relinquishedto their fates. By contrast, there will be otherspecies and situations that are buffered, at leastinitially, from effects of climate changes orresilient to climate-influenced disturbances.These may need little attention or minimalmodifications of management plans, at least inthe near future. Decision-support tools thathelp managers weigh risk levels, project ex-pected benefits or impacts from intervention,evaluate priorities, and develop simple manage-ment alternatives must be developed.


54

Conclusions

Change is a natural and ongoing aspect ofearth’s complex climate system, and forms thecontext against which current human effects onclimate can be evaluated. Natural cycles inclimates occur at millennial, century, decadal,and interannual time frames. Climate statesmay shift abruptly over times as short as years ordecades. Over historic time, species haveadapted to climate changes by shifting rangesand (over long time spans) adapting throughgenetic change. Since the 1970s, the interac-tion of climate-driving mechanisms has shiftedto become dominated by anthropogenic influ-ence, predominantly greenhouse gas emissions.As a result, climate of the 21st century andbeyond will react in different ways than in thepast, and will increasingly extend beyondrelevant historic ranges of variation. Directeffects of CO

2 on plants will have both detri-

mental and beneficial effects, depending onspecies and context. Current projections forOregon’s climate future suggest warmingtemperatures by 7 to 8.5oF and somewhatwetter. If these result, more precipitation willfall as rain rather than snow, mountain snow-packs will be greatly reduced, winters will beshorter, streamflows will decline, and the already

extensive summer drought will be longer andmore severe. Significant shifts in forest, shrub,and grasslands, as well as fire regimes, areanticipated.

Perhaps most importantly, regardless of historicprecedence, rapid changes in climate, increasingtemperatures, and increases in extreme events aremuch more difficult for modern society (includ-ing the forestry sector) to cope with than in timeswhen human population was smaller and moreadaptable Our dependence on stable and pre-dictable conditions has led to situations whereeven historically natural levels of climate variabil-ity will have increasingly serious health andeconomic consequences worldwide. Globalpolitical opinion, with some exceptions, is inagreement that the next 50 to 100 years must bea period when greenhouse gas emissions andatmospheric concentrations are brought intocontrol. Managing carbon and coping withclimate changes will be the tacit context forvegetation management in the coming century.

In the face of these changes, forest managers canhelp to mitigate ongoing climate changes andgreenhouse gas emissions, plan strategies to adaptto change, and take actions to conserve energyuse and relieve stress on ecosystems.


55

Adam, D.P. 1988. Palynology of two upperQuaternary cores from Clear Lake, Lake County,California. USGS Professional Paper 1363.

Adam, D.P. and G.J. West. 1983. Temperatureand precipitation estimates through the lastglacial cycle from Clear Lake, CA. Pollen data.Science 219: 168-170.

Alley, R.B., P.A. Mayewski, T. Sowers, M. Stuiver,K.C. Taylor, and P.U. Clark. 1997. Holoceneclimatic instability: A prominent, widespreadevent 8200 years ago. Geology 25 (6): 483-486.

Bachelet, D., R.P. Neilson, T. Hickler, R.J.Drapek, J.M. Lenihan, M.T. Sykes, B. Smith, S.Sitch, K. Thonicke. 2003. Simulating past andfuture dynamics of natural ecosystems in theUnited States. Global Biogeochemical Cycles17(2):14-1 - 14-21.

Bachelet, D., R.P. Neilson, J.M. Lenihan, andR.J. Drapek. 2001. Climate change effects onvegetation distribution and carbon budget in theUnited States. Ecosystems 4:164-185.

Berner, R.A. 1990. Atmospheric carbon dioxidelevels over Phanerozoic time. Science 249 (4975):1382-1386.

Biondi, R., A. Gershunov, and D.R. Cayan.2001. North Pacific decadal climate variabilitysince 1661. Journal of Climate 14: 5-10.

Bond, G., W. Showers, M. Cheseby, R. Lotti, P.Almasi, P. deMenocal, P. Priore, H. Cullen, I.Hajdas, and G. Bonani. 1997. A pervasivemillennial-scale cycle in North Atlantic Holoceneand glacial climates. Science 278: 1257-1266.

Bond, G., B. Kromer, J. Beer, R. Muscheler, M.Evans, W. Showers, S. Hoffmann, R. Lotti-Bond,I. Hajdas, G. Bonani. 2001. Persistent solarinfluence on North Atlantic climate during theHolocene. Science 294: 2130-2136.

Bosworth, D. 2005. President’s memorandum onenergy and fuel conservation. Internal agencyletter to all employees, October 18, 2005, filecode 1340.

Bradley, R.S. 1999. Paleoclimatology. Reconstruct-ing Climates of the Quaternary. 2nd edition.Academic Press. 610 pages.

Breshears, D.D., N.S. Cobb, P.M. Rich, and 10others. 2005. Regional vegetation die-off inresponse to global-change-type drought. Proceed-ings of the National Academy of Science 102 (42):15144-15148

Broecker, W.S., G. Bond, M. Klas, G. Bonani,and W. Wolfli. 1990. A salt oscillator in theglacial Atlantic? I. The concept. Paleoceanography4: 469-477.

Cayan, D.R., S. Kammerdiener, M.D. Dettinger,J. M. Caprio, and D.H. Peterson. 2001. Changesin the onset of spring in the western UnitedStates. Bull. Am. Met. Soc. 82(3): 399-415.

CCSP (Climate Change Science Program).2005. Our changing planet. The U.S. ClimateChange Science Program for fiscal year 2006. Areport by the Climate Change Science Programand the Subcommittee on Global ChangeResearch. 215 pp.

Chapin, F.S. M. Sturm, M.C. Serreze, and 18others. 2005. Role of land-surface changes inArctic summer warming. Science 310: 657-660.

Clark, D.H. and A.R. Gillespie. 1997. Timingand significance of late-glacial and Holocenecirque glaciation in the Sierra Nevada, California.Quaternary Research 19:117-129.

Clark, P.U., S.J. Marshall, G.K. Clarke, S.Hostetler, J.M. Licciardi, and J.T. Teller. 2001.Freshwater forcing of abrupt climate changeduring the last glaciation. Science 293: 283-287.

Literature Cited


56

Cronin, T.M. 1999. Principles of paleoclimatol-ogy. Columbia University Press. 560 pages.

Cuffey, K.M., G.D. Clow, R.B. Alley, M. Stuvier,E.D. Waddington, and R.W. Saltus. 1995. LargeArctic temperature change at the Wisconsin-Holocene glacial transition. Science 270:455-458.

Daly, C., D. Bachelet, J. Lenihan, W. Parton, R.Neilson, and D. Ojima. 2000. Dynamic simula-tions of tree-grass interactions for global changestudies. Ecological Applications 10:449–469.

Dansgaard, W., S.J. Johnsen, H.B. Clausen, et al.1993. Evidence for general instability of climatefrom a 250-kyr ice-core record. Nature 364: 218-220.

Davis, M.B., K.D. Woods, S.L. Webb, and R.P.Futyma. 1986. Dispersal versus climate: Expan-sion of Fagus and Tsuga into the Upper GreatLakes region. Vegetatio 67: 93-103.

Dettinger, M. D. and D. R. Cayan. 1995. Large-scale atmospheric forcing of recent trends towardearly snowmelt runoff in California. Journal ofClimate. 8(4) 606-623.

Diaz, H.F. and V. Markgraf (eds.). 2000. El Niñoand the Southern Oscillation: Multiscale Variabil-ity, Global, and Regional impacts. CambridgeUniversity Press.

Ebbesmeyer, C.C., D.R. Cayan, D.R. McClain,F.H. Nichols, D.H. Peterson, and K.T.Redmond. 1991. 1976 step in Pacific climate—Forty environmental changes between 1968-1975 and 1977-1984: Proceedings of the 7th

Annual Pacific Climate (PACLIM) Workshop(Betancourt and Tharp, eds.), InteragencyEcological Study Program Technical Report 26,115-126.

Esper, J., E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber.2002. Low-frequency signals in long tree-ringchronologies for reconstructing past temperaturevariability. Science 295: 2250-2253.

Graumlich, L. J. 1993. A 1000-year record oftemperature and precipitation in the SierraNevada. Quaternary Research 39, 249.

Grayson, D.K. 1993. The Desert’s Past. ANatural Prehistory of the Great Basin.Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington.356 pgs.

Grimm, E.C., G.L. Jacobson, W.A. Watts, B.C.Hansen and K.A. Maasch. 1993. A 50,000 yearrecord of climate oscillations from Florida and itstemporal correlation with Heinrich events.Science 261: 198-200.

Grissino-Mayer, H.D. 1996. A 2129-year recon-struction of precipitation for northwestern NewMexico, USA. In Tree Rings, Environment, andHumanity, J.S. Dean, D.M. Meko, and T.W.Swetnam (eds.) 191-204. Radiocarbon. Tucson,AZ.

Grove, J.M. 1988. The Little Ice Age. MethuenPublishing, London. 498 pages.

Hays, J.D., J. Imbrie, and N.J. Shackleton. 1976.Variations in the earth’s orbit: Pacemaker of theice ages. Science 194: 1121-1132.

Heinrich, H. 1988. Origin and consequence ofcyclic ice rafting in the northeast Atlantic Oceanduring the past 130,000 years. QuaternaryResearch 29: 142-152.

Heusser, L. 1995. Pollen stratigraphy andpaleoecologic interpretation of the 160 k.y.record from Santa Barbara Basin, Hole 893A. InProceed. Of the Ocean Drilling Program, ScientificResults. J.P. Kennet, J.G. Baldauf, and M. Lyle(eds) 265-277.Vol. 146 Pt. 2. College Station,TX (Ocean Drilling Program).

Heusser, L.E. 2000. Rapid oscillations in westernNorth America vegetation and climate duringoxygen isotope stage 5 inferred from pollen datafrom Santa Barbara Basin (Hole 893A).Palaeogeo,Palaeoclim. and Palaeoecol. 161: 407-421.


57

Heusser, L.E. and F. Sirocko. 1997. Millennialpulsing of environmental change in southernCalifornia from the past 24 k.y.: A record ofIndo-Pacific ENSO events?. Geology 25:243-246.

Hughes, M.K. and H.F. Diaz. 1994. Was there a“Medieval Warm Period?” and if so, where andwhen? Climate Change 26: 109-142.

Hunter, M.L. 1996. Fundamentals of Conserva-tion Biology. Blackwell Science. Cambridge,Massachusetts. 482 pgs.

Imbrie, J., E. Boyle, S. Clemens, et al.,1992. Onthe structure and origin of major glaciationcycles. 1. Linear responses to Milankovitchforcing. Paleoceanography 7: 701-738.

Imbrie, J., A. Berger, E. Boyle,et al., 1993. Onthe structure and origin of major glaciationcycles. 2. The 100,000 year cycle.Paleoceanography 8:699-735.

IPCC. (International Panel on Climate Change).2001. Climate change 2001. Third AssessmentReport of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange. 3 reports and overview for policymakers. Cambridge University Press.

Jackson, S.T. 1997. Documenting natural andhuman-caused plant invasions using paleoeco-logical methods. In Assessment and Managementof Plant Invasions, J.O. Luken and J.W. Thieret(eds.) 37-55 Springer-Verlag.

Jackson, S.T. and J.T. Overpeck. 2000. Re-sponses of plant populations and communities toenvironmental changes of the late Quaternary.Paleobiology 25: 194-220.

Jensen, K. 1935. Archaeological dating in thehistory of North Jutland’s vegetation. ActaArchaeologica 5: 185-214.

Jordan, W.R., M.E. Gilpin, J.D. Aber (Eds.). 1990.Restoration Ecology: A Synthetic Approach to EcologicalResearch. Cambridge University Press. 352 pgs.

Kadyszewski , J, S. Brown, N. Martin, A.Dushku. 2005. Opportunities for terrestrialcarbon sequestration in the West. WinrockInternational. Presented at the Second AnnualClimate Change Research Conference, Sept 14-16, 2005, Sacramento. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/events/2005_confer-ence/presentations/2005-09-15/2005-09-15_KADYSZEWSKI.PDF

Kennett, J.P. 1990. The Younger Dryas coolingevent: An introduction. Paleoceanography 5:891-895.

Kitzberger, T., T.W. Swetnam, and T. T. Veblen.2001. Inter-hemispheric synchrony of forest firesand the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. GlobalEcology and Biogeography 10:315-326.

Körner Ch. et al., 2005: Carbon flux and growthin mature deciduous forest trees exposed toelevated CO

2. Science 309:1360-1362.

Küchler, A. 1975. Potential natural vegetation ofthe United States. 2nd ed. Map 1:3,168,000.American Geographic Society, New York.

Lackey, R.T. 1995. Seven pillars of ecosystemmanagement. Landscape and Urban Planning40(1/3): 21-30

Lele, S. and R.B. Norgaard. 1996. Sustainabilityand the scientist’s burden. Conservation Biology10: 354-165.

Lenihan, J.M., C. Daly, D. Bachelet, R.P.Neilson. 1998. Simulating broad-scale fireseverity in a Dynamic Global Vegetation Model.Northwest Science 72: 91-103.

Lenihan, J.M., R. Drapek, R.P. Neilson, and D.Bachelet. 2005. The response of vegetation,distribution, ecosystem productivity, and fire inCalifornia to future climate scenarios simulatedby the MC1 dynamic vegetation model. In,Climate Action Team Report to the Governorand Legislators. www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/


58

Lorius, C., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, J. Hansen, andH. LeTreut. 1990. The ice-core record: Climatesensitivity and future greenhouse warming. Nature347: 139-145.

Mantua, N.J., S.R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J.M.Wallace, and R.C. Francis. 1997. A Pacificinterdecadal climate oscillation with impacts onsalmon production. Bull. Amer. Meteorolog. Soc.78:1069-1079.

Mennis, J.L., and A.G. Fountain. 2001. A spatio-temporal GIS database for monitoring alpineglacier change. Journal of Photogrammetry andRemote Sensing, 67, 967-975

Milankovitch, M. 1941. Canon of insolation andthe ice-age problem. Royal Serbian AcademySpecial Pub. No. 132. (Translated from theGerman by the Israel Program for ScientificTranslations, Jerusalem, 969).

Millar, C.I. 1998. Reconsidering the conserva-tion of Monterey pine. Fremontia 26(3): 12-16.

Millar, C.I. 2003. Climate change; Detectingclimate’s imprint on California forests. SciencePerspectives. USFS Pacific Southwest ResearchStation. Spring issue.

Millar, C.I. 2006. Climate change; Confrontingthe global experiment. In Cooper, S and SFrederickson (eds), Proceedings of the 27th AnnualForest Vegetation Management Conference, Grow-ing the Future, S.L. Cooper (Compiler). January17-19, 2006, Redding, California. University ofCalifornia, Shasta County Cooperative Exten-sion, Redding, California.

Millar, C.I. and L.B. Brubaker. 2006. Climatechange and paleoecology: New contexts forrestoration ecology. In M. Palmer, D. Falk, and J.Zedler (eds) Foundations of Restoration Science.Island Press.

Millar, C.I., R.D. Westfall, D.L. Delany, J.C.King, and L.J. Graumlich. 2004. Response ofsubalpine conifers in the Sierra Nevada, Califor-nia, USA to twentieth-century warming anddecadal climate variability. Arctic, Antarctic, andAlpine Research 36 (2): 181-200.

Mote, P. W., E. A. Parson, A. F. Hamlet, K. N.Ideker, W. S. Keeton, D. P. Lettenmaier, N. J.Mantua, E. L. Miles, D. W. Peterson, D. L.Peterson, R. Slaughter, and A. K. Snover. 2003.Preparing for climatic change: The water, salmon,and forests of the Pacific Northwest. ClimaticChange 61:45-88.

NAST (National Assessment Synthesis Team).2000. Climate Change Impacts on the UnitedStates - Overview Report. Cambridge UniversityPress. Cambridge.

Neilson, R.P., J.M Lenihan, D. Bachelet and R.Drapek. In press. Climate Change ImplicationsFor Sagebrush Ecosystems. In: Transactions of the70th North American Wildlife and Natural Re-sources Conference. Washington D.C., WildlifeManagement Institute.

Neilson, R.P., L.F. Pitelka, A.M. Solomon, R.Nathan, G.F. Midgley, J.M.V. Fragoso, H.Lischke and K. Thompson. 2005. ForecastingRegional to Global Plant Migration in Responseto Climate Change. Bioscience 55: 749-759.

Nowak, C.L., R.S. Nowak, R.J. Tausch, and P.E.Wigand. 1994. Tree and shrub dynamics innorthwestern Great Basin woodland and shrubsteppe during the Late-Pleistocene and Holocene.American Journal of Botany 81: 265-277.

NRC (National Research Council), 2002.Abrupt climate change. Inevitable surprises. Na-tional Research Council, National AcademyPress, Washington, D.C.


59

Overpeck, J., K. Hughen, D. Hardy, et al., 1997.Arctic environmental change of the last fourcenturies. Science 278: 1251-1256.

Pauli, H., M. Gottfried, T. Dirnboeck, S.Dullinger, and G. Grabherr. 2003. Assessing thelong-term dynamics of endemic plants at summithabitats. Ecological Studies 167: 195-207.

Petit JR, Jouzel J, Raynaud D, Barkov NI,Barnola JM, Basile I, Bender M, Chappellaz J,Davis M, Delaygue G, Delmotte M, KotlyakovVM, Legrand M, Lipenkov VY, Lorius C, PpinL, Ritz C, Saltzman E, Stievenard M (1999)Climate and atmospheric history of the past420000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarc-tica. Nature 399: 429-436

Peterson, D. W. and D.L. Peterson, D. L. 2001.Mountain hemlock growth responds to climaticvariability at annual and decadal time scales.Ecology, 82(12): 3330-3345.

Peterson, D. W., D. L. Peterson, and G. J. Ettl.2002. Growth responses of subalpine fir toclimatic variability in the Pacific Northwest.Canadian Journal of Forest Resources 32: 1503-1517.

Price, D.T., D. W. McKenney, P. Papadopol, T.Logan, and M. F. Hutchinson. 2004. Highresolution future scenario climate data for NorthAmerica. Proc. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 26th Confer-ence on Agricultural and Forest Meteorology,Vancouver, B.C., 23-26 August, 2004, 13 pp.CD-ROM.

Raymo, M.E. and W.F. Ruddiman. 1992.Tectonic forcing of late Cenozoic climate.Nature 359: 117-122.

Ruddiman, W.F. 2001. Earth’s Climate: Past andFuture. W.H. Freeman Publishers. 465 pages.

Stine, S. 1994. Extreme and persistent drought inCalifornia and Patagonia during Medieval time.Nature 369: 546-549.

Swetnam, T. W. and C. H. Baisan. 2003. Tree-ring reconstructions of fire and climate history inthe Sierra Nevada and Southwestern UnitedStates. Pp 158-195, In, T. T. Veblen, W. Baker,G. Montenegro, and T. W. Swetnam (eds.), Fireand Climatic Change in Temperate Ecosystems ofthe Western Americas. Springer, New York. 444pp.

Swetnam, T.W. and J.L. Betancourt. 1998.Mesoscale disturbance and ecological response todecadal climatic variability in the AmericanSouthwest. Journal of Climate 11: 3128-3147.

Tausch, R, S. Mensing, and C. Nowak. 2004.Climate change and associated vegetation dy-namics during the Holocene - The paleoecologi-cal record 24-48. In. Great Basin RiparianEcosystems: Ecology, Management and Restoration,Jeanne C. Chambers and Jerry R. Miller (eds.)Island Press.

Thompson, R.S. 1988. Western North America.In Vegetation History, B. Huntley and T. WebbIII (eds.) 415-459. Kluwer Academic Press

Thompson, R.S. 1990. Late Quaternary vegeta-tion and climate in the Great Basin. In PackratMiddens. The Last 40,000 Years of Biotic Change,Betancourt, J.L., T. van Devender, and P.S.Martin 201-239. University of Arizona Press.467 pages.

Webb, T. 1986. Is vegetation in equilibrium withclimate? How to interpret Late-Quaternarypollen data. Vegetation 67: 75-91.

Webb, T., III, Bartlein, P.J. and Kutzbach, J.E.,1987. Climatic Change in Eastern NorthAmerica During the Past 18,000 Years: Compari-sons of Pollen Data with Model Results. In: W.F.Ruddiman and H.E. Wright, Jr. (Editors), NorthAmerica and Adjacent Oceans During the LastDeglaciation. Geological Society of America,Boulder, pp. 447-462.


60

Westerling, A. and B. Bryant. 2005. Climatechange and wildfire in and around California:Fire modeling and loss modeling. In, CaliforniaClimate Action Team Report to the Governor andLegislators. www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/

Westerling, A.L., T.J. Brown, A. Gershunov,D.R. Cayan and M.D. Dettinger. 2003. Climateand wildfire in the western United States. Bulle-tin of the American Meteorological Society 84(5):595-604.

White, J.W., T. Popp, S.J. Johnsen, V. Masson, J.Jouzel. 2001. Clocking the speed of climatechange: The end of the Younger Dryas as re-corded by four Greenland ice cores. Abstract.Fall Meeting of the American GeophysicalUnion, December 10-14, 2001. San Francisco,CA. Pg. F22.

Wright, H.E. 1989. The Quaternary. The Geologyof North America. Geolog. Soc. America. A: 513-536.

Zachos, J., M. Pagaini, L. Sloan, E. Thomas, andK. Billups. 2001. Trends, rhythms, and aberra-tions in global climate 65 Ma to present. Science292: 686-693.

Zhang, Y., J.M. Wallace, and D.S. Battisti. 1997.ENSO-like interdecadal variability: 1900-1993.Journal of Climate 10: 1004-1020.

Ziska, L.H. 2003. Evaluation of the growthresponse of six invasive species to past, presentand future atmospheric carbon dioxide. Journal ofExperimental Botany 54: 395-404.


61

Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings Chapter Four

62

Is There Global Warming?

■ The world has warmed within the last 100years, but probably not over the last 5,000years.

■ Over a millennial time scale, currentconditions are comparable to and evencooler than past temperatures.

■ There is a human influence on climate, butnatural variations may be the mostdominant factors.

Scientific Consensus

■ Organizations that have issued policystatements may be representing a smallworking group without input from thebroader membership.

■ Consensus may be wrong. Recent theoriesabout Continental Divide, El Niño and theMissoula Floods were ridiculed and laterproven correct.

Glaciers

■ Glaciers are often considered goodindicators of climate change.

■ At Glacier National Park, most of the glacialreduction occurred prior to moderngreenhouse gas buildup and must be due tonatural effects.

Polar Regions

■ Arctic climate changes have regionaldifferences. Alaska temperatures haveremained steady since 1976 and Greenlandtemperatures have generally cooled.

■ Antarctic ice is growing and the overalltrend is positive, with considerable year-to-year variation.

Climate of Oregon and thePacific Northwest

■ Current temperatures are cooler than the1930s.

■ Snowpack has declined since 1950, but the1950s were exceptionally snowy.

■ Sea level is rising on the central andnorthern coast and lowering on thesouthern coast; both may be due to geologicfactors.

■ Other decadal-scale variability like El Niñomay explain most of Oregon’s warming andcooling.

Summary

■ While the world is warming, it has beenwarmer in the past.

■ There remain strong climate influences thatwe do not yet understand.

CHAPTER FOURHIGHLIGHTS:

GLOBAL WARMING: A SKEPTIC’S VIEW

Chapter Four Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings

63

CHAPTER FOURGLOBAL WARMING: A SKEPTIC’S VIEW

George Taylor

Introduction

I have worked as Oregon’s StateClimatologist since 1991. During that time,I have studied long-term climate trends as

well as climate “forcings” — factors which causeclimate to change. In particular, I have focusedon Oregon and the Northwest, but sinceglobal climate patterns affect Oregon, I havespent considerable time studying larger-scalefactors as well.

The opinions expressed here are my own and donot necessarily represent those of the State ofOregon or Oregon State University, where I amemployed.

Is There Global Warming?

There are three questions we should be asking:(1) Is the world warming? (2) Are we seeingunprecedented conditions? (3) Are humansinfluencing climate?

1. Is the world warming?

The answer depends largely on the startingand ending points analyzed. In the past

30 years, the world has probably gottenwarmer. Maybe it’s warmer than the last70 years. It’s definitely warmer than thatpast 100, or the past 300 years. But lookingback further than that, to 1,000 years, it’snot so clear. And the earth is probably notwarmer than it was 5,000 years ago.

Has the world warmed in the last 30, 70,100 years? YES.

The Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC 2001) says that globalaverage surface temperatures have increasedover the 20th century by about 1oF. Glo-bally, IPCC says it is very likely that the1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 thewarmest year. But the record shows a greatdeal of variability, rather than a steady rise;for example, most of the warming occurredduring two periods, 1910 to 1945 and 1976to 2000. In between those periods, therewas widespread cooling; this is especiallynotable in data for the U.S. and for Oregon.

Figure 1 shows estimated annual tempera-tures from 1880 to 2000 for the U.S. (left)and world (right). The U.S. graph shows Figure 1


64

warm conditions in the 1930s-40s, coolerbefore and after, and recent warming. Thewarmest decades in the last 100 years in theU.S. were the 1930s and the 1990s and thewarmest years were 1934 and 1998. In theglobal chart the recent temperature rise ishigher.

Has the world warmed in the last 300 years?YES.

Three hundred years ago the Little Ice Agemarked a time of very low temperatures,certainly much cooler than modernconditions.

Has the world warmed in the last 1,000years? MAYBE.

The thermometer was invented about 300years ago. Since we have no direct measure-ments of temperatures 1,000 years ago,earlier conditions are estimated based oninferences from “proxy” data – measurableparameters that approximate or mimictemperature. These include such things astree rings, sediments, ice cores and isotopemeasurements. Figure 2 (IPCC 1990) is anexample of the “accepted” history of tem-peratures of the last millennium, whichdepicts the Medieval Warm Period. Histories

such as this suggest that earlier temperatureswere as warm as, or warmer than, thoseobserved in recent times.

Goosse et al., (2005) studied the climatehistory of the last millennium and comparedestimated data with model simulations. Theirassessment is that “the Medieval WarmPeriod was a hemispheric-scale phenomenon,at least, since the temperature averaged overthe northern hemisphere was generally higherduring the period 1000-1200 AD thanduring the following centuries,” and that“this is the consequence of a global forcing,external to the climate system itself.” Thissuggests that changes in sunlight, for ex-ample, led to the changes in climate.

Refereed journals offer insights into historicalclimate. Some articles have suggested thatcurrent temperatures are unique – higherthan any since the last ice age. Others differ.For example, according to Soon and Baliunas(2003), “the assemblage of local representa-tion of climate establishes both the Little IceAge and Medieval Warm Period as climaticanomalies with worldwide imprints, extend-ing earlier results by Bryson et al., (1963),Lamb (1965), and numerous interveningresearch efforts.” In addition, they find that“across the world, many records reveal that

Figure 2


65

the 20th century is probably not the warmestnor a uniquely extreme climatic period of thelast millennium.” This would imply thatcurrent temperatures may be due in largepart to natural climate variations.

Has the world warmed in the last 5,000years? PROBABLY NOT.

During the period between 4,000 and 7,000years ago, a period often referred to as theHolocene Maximum, global temperaturesreached as high as 3.6°F warmer than atpresent. Figure 3 above, from IPCC (1990),shows the approximate temperature historyof the Holocene. Recent journal articles, suchas Levac (2001), Kaplan, et al. (2002), andMayewski et al. (2004), confirm the warmertemperatures during that epoch.

Thus, to answer the original question, “Is theworld warming?” the answer is “It dependson the starting point.” Looking at the last100 years, there has been global warming,but when the starting point for analysis is5,000 years, the answer is not so definitive.

2. Are we seeing unprecedented conditions?

To predict the future, one must understandthe past. Climate history helps us definecause and effect relationships pertaining to

climate, and also to place today’s conditionsin historical perspective.

Mayewski et al. (2004) identify six periods of“Rapid Climate Change” during the Ho-locene: calendar years BP [before present]9000-8000, 6000-5000, 4200-3800, 3500-2500, 1200-1000 and 600-150, the last twoof which intervals are, in fact, the “globallydistributed” Medieval Warm Period andLittle Ice Age, respectively. In speakingfurther of these two periods, they say that“the short-lived 1200-1000 BP RapidChange Climate event coincided with thedrought-related collapse of Maya civilizationand was accompanied by a loss of severalmillion lives, while the collapse ofGreenland’s Norse colonies at approximately600 years ago coincides with a period ofpolar cooling.”

They go on to state, “of all the potentialclimate forcing mechanisms, solar variabilitysuperimposed on long-term changes ininsolation (exposure to the sun’s rays) seemsto be the most likely important forcingmechanism.” In addition, they note that“negligible forcing roles are played by CH

4

and CO2,” and that “changes in the concen-

trations of CO2 and CH

4 appear to have been

more the result than the cause of the rapidclimate changes.”

Figure 3


66

Are today’s temperatures unprecedented?Compared to conditions over the last severalhundred years, temperatures have increased.But in the longer viewpoint (millennial timescale), current conditions are comparable toand even cooler than global temperatures inthe past.

3. Are humans influencing climate?

The issue is not “do humans affect climate?”Clearly there is a human influence. Thequestion is, “how much?” In my opinion,natural variations have dominated theclimate system, and continue to do so.

Modeling the earth’s climate is not an exactscience. General Circulation Models (GCMs)vary by a factor of three in their forecasts; theyrequire arbitrary adjustments and they cannotproperly simulate clouds. Their forecasts ofsubstantial warming depend on a positivefeedback from atmospheric water vapor. Manyof the natural variations, such as sunlight,

El Niño, volcanoes, and so on, cannot bepredicted with any skill in the future.

The argument that “since 1975 the warmingis best explained by human-caused changes ingreenhouse gases” (Governor’s Task Force2005) is based on climate simulations usingclimate models. GCMs suggest that tempera-tures in the next century will rise signifi-cantly, mostly due to greenhouse gas in-creases. However, there are many variablesknown to affect climate which global climatemodels are unable to adequately simulate —for example black carbon from fossil fuelburning, or stratospheric ozone. For most ofthese variables, as illustrated below, there is a“very low” degree of scientific certainty.

Figure 4 (IPCC 2001) shows the level ofscientific understanding of variables known toaffect climate. The level of understanding ofthe effects of greenhouse gases (CO

2, CH

4,

N20, Halocarbons) on climate are listed as

“high.” Stratospheric and tropospheric ozoneeffects are at a “me-dium” level of under-standing. The remain-ing nine factors areunderstood at a “low”or “very low” level.

It is my belief thatfactors other thangreenhouse gases havebeen, and will con-tinue to be, theprimary influence onclimate change.According to theNational ResearchCouncil (2005), thereare at least 12 signifi-cant short-terminfluences (“forcings”)on climate, includingchanges in land useand land cover and theeffects of aerosols.

Figure 4


67

Finally, a significant (though very intermit-tent) influence on temperatures involvesmajor volcanic eruptions. Mount Pinatuboin the early 1990s caused global cooling formany months.

Are humans influencing climate? Yes, Ibelieve that they are, to a degree. But Ibelieve that natural variations have domi-nated climate change in the past. Attribut-ing climate change mainly to human causesis incorrect, in my opinion. Doubtless thereremain strong influences on climate that weas yet do not understand.

Scientific Consensus

Several organizations, including The NationalAcademy of Science, the AmericanMeteorological Society (AMS), and the AmericanGeophysical Association have issued policy state-ments that address human-induced global warm-ing. The following is an excerpt from the state-ment of the AMS (of which I am a member):

“Human activities have become a major sourceof environmental change. Of great urgency arethe climate consequences of the increasingatmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases andother trace constituents resulting primarily fromenergy use, agriculture, and land clearing. Theseradiatively active gases and trace constituentsinteract strongly with the Earth’s energy bal-ance, resulting in the prospect of significantglobal warming.”1

The document referenced above was created bya small working group without input from thebroader society membership. The statementdrew a response from some members whoquestioned whether it reflected the consensus ofAMS members.

Is there really a consensus?

European climate scientists Stehr and vonStorch (2005) stated that “a significant numberof climatologists are by no means convincedthat the underlying issues have been adequatelyaddressed. Last year, for example, a survey ofclimate researchers from all over the worldrevealed that a quarter of respondents stillquestion whether human activity is responsiblefor the most recent climatic changes.”

That survey (Bray 2004) involved responsesfrom 530 scientists worldwide. They wereasked: “To what extent do you agree or disagreethat climate change is mostly the result ofanthropogenic causes?” Only 9.4% stronglyagreed, while 9.7% strongly disagreed. Another19.3% were in general disagreement.

But even if there actually was a consensus onthis issue, it may very well be wrong. In the1600s, Galileo was imprisoned for espousingthat the earth revolved around the sun. In morerecent times, three examples are Alfred Wegener(Continental Drift), Gilbert Walker (El Niño),and J. Harlan Bretz (Missoula Floods). None iswell-known now among members of the public,and all of them were ridiculed, rejected, andmarginalized by the “consensus” scientists. Eachof the three was later proven to be correct, andthe consensus wrong.

Wegener suggested that the continents were allconnected at one time but had drifted apart, aphenomenon we now call continental drift.Among his critics was Dr. Rollin T. Chamberlinof the University of Chicago who said,“Wegener’s hypothesis in general is of thefootloose type, in that it takes considerableliberty with our globe, and is less bound byrestrictions or tied down by awkward, ugly factsthan most of its rival theories” (UCMP n.d.).Chamberlin also said “Can geology still callitself a science, when it is possible for such a

1 Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences. Adopted by AMS Council on 9 February 2003. Bull. Amer. Met. Soc ., 84, 508 —515


68

2 http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ImpactsMountainsWesternMountains.html

theory as this to run wild?” (NMNH n.d.). In time,though well after his death, Wegener’s “footloose”theory became dominant.

Walker was chided for his belief that climaticconditions over widely separated regions of theglobe could be linked, and that fluctuations in thetropical Pacific affected the Indian Monsoon andother climatic features. We now call those Pacificfluctuations the “El Niño-Southern Oscillation,”and recognize that it has a profound effect on worldweather.

Bretz postulated that massive floods had trans-formed the landscape of the Pacific Northwest atsome time in the past. Geologists, who believed inslow, uniform processes, called Bretz a“catastrophist” because he believed in large-scaleevents not currently seen. Bretz engaged in “flaunt-ing catastrophe too vividly in the face of the unifor-mity that had lent scientific dignity to interpretationof the history of the earth,” according to one fellowscientist (Allen and Burns, 1991). Decades after hisresearch began, it was shown that post-ice age floodshad indeed scoured the landscape, and that Bretz’stheories were correct.

Is there a consensus among scientists regardingglobal warming? Perhaps – it depends on howthat is measured, and by whom. But does this tellus much about the truth of human influence onclimate? I suggest that it does not. In the wordsof Brian David Josephson, Nobel Laureate inPhysics, “if scientists as a whole denounce an ideathis should not necessarily be taken as proof thatthe said idea is absurd: rather, one should exam-ine carefully the alleged grounds for such opin-ions and judge how well these stand up todetailed scrutiny.” (Josephson n.d.)

Glaciers

Glaciers are often considered as good indicators ofclimate change. According to IPCC (2001), “Workon glacier recession has considerable potential tosupport or qualify the instrumental record oftemperature change and to cast further light onregional or worldwide temperature changes beforethe instrumental era.”

Glacier dynamics are quite complex. Glaciers areaffected by changes in precipitation as well astemperature; temperatures during the warm “melt”

season are especially critical. Somescientists have suggested that globalwarming will cause significant influ-ences on glaciers in the future, based onobserved changes in the past. Aptly-named Glacier National Park (GNP)may be moving toward “not so aptlynamed” if the glaciers continue toshrink. According to the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA n.d.):

“The area of [GNP] covered byglaciers declined by 73 percent from1850-1993. The cause? A regionalwarming trend that some scientistsbelieve may be related to globalclimate change. If scientists’ predic-tions are accurate, Grinnell and all ofthe park’s other glaciers will disap-pear entirely within the next 30years.”2

Figure 5


69

In a journal article, fourMontana scientists attemptedto understand the history ofglacier behavior in GNP overthe last several hundred years(Pederson et al. 2004). Whiletheir report acknowledgesthat glaciers are shrinking,they note that the dynamicsof glacier changes may bepoorly understood, and thatthe glacial shrinkage mayreflect regional climatevariations. For example:

“Little Ice Age (14th–19th centuries AD)glacial maxima and 20th century retreathave been well documented in GlacierNational Park, Montana, U.S. However,the influence of regional and Pacific Basindriven climate variability on these events ispoorly understood. We use tree-ringreconstructions of North Pacific surfacetemperature anomalies and summerdrought as proxies for winter glacial accu-mulation and summer ablation (reductionin size) respectively, over the past threecenturies.”

“These records show that the 1850s glacialmaximum was likely produced by 70 yearsof cool/wet summers coupled with highsnowpack. Post 1850, glacial retreat coin-cides with an extended period (approxi-mately 50 years) of summer drought andlow snowpack culminating in the excep-tional events of 1917 to 1941 when retreatrates for some glaciers exceeded 100 m/yr.”

In commenting on glacier histories since the 1850s,the authors say:

“The maximum glacial advance of the LIA(Little Ice Age) coincides with a sustainedperiod of positive MBP (Mass Balance Poten-tial) that began in the mid-1700s and wasinterrupted by only one brief ablation phase(approximately 1790s) prior to the 1830s,”

after which they report that “the mid-19thcentury retreat of the Jackson and Agassizglaciers (Figure 5) then coincides with a periodmarked by strong negative MBP.”

Glacier became the country’s tenth national park in1910 and the glaciers remained approximately thesame size, with a modest retreat (approximately 3 to14 meters/year) until 1917. For the next 25 years,glaciers retreated at a rate of greater than 100meters/year, the period of greatest glacial retreat inrecent centuries. From the mid-1940s through the1970s, the glaciers began to advance, but after that,from the late 1970s through the 1990s, warmerconditions resulted in a “continuous, modestretreat” of the glaciers (Pederson et al., 2004).

Pederson et al., suggest that the primary reason forthe variability is a combination of the PacificDecadal Oscillation (PDO), which affects bothtemperature and precipitation during winter, andMean Summer Deficit (MSD) from tree rings.PDO is a term for multidecadal shifts in NorthPacific Ocean temperatures, while MSD is an indexrelating to annual precipitation conditions. Theobserved PDO for the last century is shown in 5A.,and a reconstructed PDO in 5B.

Figure 6 from their report shows estimated GMP(glacier mass potential, an index that represents thegrowth or shrinkage of glaciers) since 1700 usinga combination of PDO and MSD. The 1917-

Figure 6


70

1940 ablation period is clearly the largest in thelast 300 years, while the greatest accumulationperiods were in the late 18th and early 19thcenturies. While glaciers have shrunk since the1850s, most of the reduction occurred prior tothe modern greenhouse gas buildup and thusmust be due primarily to natural effects.

Polar Regions

Global climate models suggest that polar regionsshould warm more quickly than temperate ortropical regions in a greenhouse-enhanced worldfor several reasons: (1) water vapor dominates theglobal greenhouse effect, but there is much lesswater vapor in the cold, dry polar regions than inwarmer regions, so the relative effect of CO

2 and

other greenhouse gases is higher near the poles; (2)there is an ice-albedo feedback mechanism inwhich warming leads to a reduction of ice andsnow coverage, decreasing albedo (reflectivity),resulting in further snow and sea ice retreat. Thelow amounts of water vapor, the most significantgreenhouse gas, cause the relative effects of othergases, notably carbon dioxide, to be greater. Thusclimate change caused by an increase in the lattershould be most evident in the polar regions.

According to IPCC (2001), “Climate change inpolar regions is expected to be among the largestand most rapid of any region on the earth. Oncetriggered, [it] may continue for centuries, longafter greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilized,and cause irreversible impacts on ice sheets, globalocean circulation, and sea-level rise.”

Arctic

Granted, temperatures have changed in most ofthe world in the last several decades. The 1960sand 1970s were generally cool decades. However,for the Arctic and elsewhere, they were precededby a much warmer period — the 1930s and1940s. Figure 7 shows a graph of annual averagetemperatures in the Arctic, based on temperaturemeasurements. Note the very warm period, the1930s and early 1940s, which exceeded recenttemperatures.

Figure 8 shows temperatures in Alaska from 1949to 2003. On the one hand, temperatures areconsiderably higher at present than they were atthe beginning of the periods shown. On the otherhand, this was the result of a one-year step intemperatures at the time of the now-famousPacific Climate Shift of 1976-77, when a signifi-cant ocean atmosphere regime shift occurred inthe Pacific. According to Hartmann and Wendler

(2005), “Shifts andmultiyear anomaliesresult in temperaturetrends over periodsthat can differsubstantially (even insign) from the trendof the full timeperiod. The coolingtrend throughoutmuch of Alaska since1977, though notstatistically signifi-cant, is in contrast tosome theoriesregarding theatmospheric

Figure 7

Courtesy of American Meteorological Society


71

warming in an increasing green-house gas environment.” Thoughcurrent temperatures are higherthan they were 35 years ago, all ofthe increase occurred in a one-yearperiod attributable to a large-scaleclimate shift unrelated to green-house gas forcing. Further, sincethe 1976-77 shift, temperatureshave actually declined.

In Greenland, according toChylek et al., (2004),

“The Greenland surface airtemperature trends over thepast 50 years do not showpersistent warming, in con-trast to global average surfaceair temperatures. TheGreenland coastal stations’temperature trends over thesecond half of the past centurygenerally exhibit a cooling tendency withsuperimposed decadal scale oscillationsrelated to the NAO [North AtlanticOscillation]. At the Greenland ice sheetsummit, the temperature record shows adecrease in the summer average tempera-ture at the rate of about 2.2 C/decade,suggesting that the Greenland ice sheet athigh elevations does not follow the globalwarming trend either.”

A significant and rapid temperature increase wasobserved at all Greenland stations between 1920and 1930. The average annual temperature rosebetween 2.6 and 7.2oF in less than ten years.Since the change in anthropogenic productionof greenhouses gases at that time was consider-ably lower than today, this rapid temperatureincrease suggests a large natural variability of theregional climate.

In summary, high-latitude northern hemispheredata show a slight increase in temperatures in thelast several decades, but with regional differences:Alaskan temperatures since 1976 have remained

steady (in some areas increased and in othersdecreased); Greenland temperatures have generallycooled; and data suggest that the 1930s-40s was awarmer period than currently.

Antarctic

Figure 9 shows the ice extent around Antarcticathrough 2005 (NSIDC, 2006). While there isconsiderable year-to-year variation, the overalltrend (diagonal line) is positive: Antarctic iceis growing.

Doran et al., (2002) conducted a study of tem-peratures and ecosystem response in Antarctica’sdry valleys. They acknowledge that “climatemodels generally predict amplified warming inpolar regions,” which would suggest that Antarctictemperatures should have warmed in response toincreases in greenhouse gases.

However, “although previous reports suggest slightrecent continental warming,” they declare that“our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorologicaldata” demonstrated “a net cooling over the entire

Figure 8


72

Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000,particularly during summer and autumn,” whenice melt would be most likely to occur. A study oftemperatures and ecosystem response in theMcMurdo Dry Valleys indicated a cooling of1.26oF per decade between 1986 and 2000.

Antarctic ecosystems show clear evidence ofcooling, suggesting that the temperature measure-ments reported by Doran et al., are occurringwidely. Among those effects are “decreased primaryproductivity of lakes (6-9% per year) and declin-ing numbers of soil invertebrates (more than 10%per year). The authors conclude by saying,“continental Antarctic cooling, especially theseasonality of cooling, poses challenges to modelsof climate and ecosystem change.”

Climate of Oregon and the PacificNorthwest

Oregon climate history goes back to the 19thcentury, but early records are sparse and

discontinuous. Overthe last 100 years or so,we have long-term datafrom several dozenweather stations. Thehighest-quality stationshave become part ofNOAA’s HistoricalClimate Network(HCN).

Temperature

In Oregon there aremany long-termtemperature stations.Forty-one of them areamong the HCN dataset, a high-qualitydata set of monthlyaveraged maximum,minimum, and meantemperature, and totalmonthly precipita-

tion, developed to assist in the detection ofregional climate change. For most of theOregon HCN stations, the warmest decade ofthe last 100 years was the 1930s, and 1934 wasgenerally the warmest year of that decade.Although most HCN stations are in rural areas,some of them are in areas which have under-gone significant land use change. For example,Figure 10 shows two charts of mean annualtemperatures from HCN stations. Corvallis isand has always been a rural station, and showsthe common “warmer in the thirties thancurrently” trend. The other site shown, ForestGrove, is in a growing suburb of Portland,Oregon and shows a very different trend, withthe highest temperatures in recent years.

The difference between the Corvallis and ForestGrove trends is almost certainly due to land usedifferences. Hale et al., (2006) studied long-termclimate stations which had seen land use landcover (LULC) changes nearby. They concludedthat temperature trends were “mostly insignificant”

Figure 9


73

prior to LULC change, but that this “contrastedsharply with trends in temperature after periodsof dominant LULC change, when 95% or moreof the stations that exhibited significant trends inminimum, maximum, or mean temperatureexhibited a warming trend.”

It is very difficult to correct for the “data con-tamination” caused by LULC change. The onlyreliable way to assess long-term climate trendsdue to large-scale climate change is to use ruralstations. And in Oregon, at nearly every ruralstation, the trends are similar: the warmestdecade was the 1930s, the 1950s through early1970s were cooler, and since the mid-1970s there

has been a warming trend, but current tempera-tures remain below those observed 70 years ago.

Snowfall

According to the Governor’s Task Force onGlobal Warming (2004),

“Between 1950 and 2000, the April 1snowpack declined. In the Cascades, thecumulative downward trend in snow-waterequivalent is approximately 50% for theperiod 1950–1995. Timing of the peaksnowpack has moved earlier in the year,increasing March streamflows and reducing

June streamflows. Snow-pack at low-to-midelevations is the mostsensitive to warmingtemperatures.”

An examination of snow-pack data for Oregon (andfor limited areas in Wash-ington) suggests that thedeclines described are atleast partly a function of theperiod of record studied.What is true for a 30- or 50-year period may be verydifferent if a longer periodof data is examined. Theearly 1950s were an excep-tionally snowy period inOregon and the PacificNorthwest. The 1930s and1940s had much less snow.Including those earlierdecades in trend analysesproduces much differentresults; for example, the1935-2000 trend is ratherflat in much of Oregon, incontrast to the 1950-2000trend which shows bigdeclines.

Figure 10


74

Sea Level

Sea level rise is often mentioned as an adverseconsequence of global warming, due to acombination of thermal expansion of seawaterand melting of glaciers and icecaps. Some saythat sea level rise to due global warming hasalready begun. According to the Governor’sTask Force on Global Warming (2004),

“Land on the central and northern Or-egon coast (from Florence to Astoria) isbeing submerged by rising sea level at anaverage rate of 0.06 – 0.08 inches (1.5–2mm) annually, as inferred from data forthe period 1930–1995.”

There are three long-term sea level measure-ment sites along the Northwest coast: Neah Bay,Washington; Astoria, Oregon; and CrescentCity, California. None of them has shown sealevel rises over that period; however, accordingto the Institute of Natural Resources (INR,2006) some areas of Oregon are seeing relativerises in sea level.

Figure 11 shows the effects of uneven “geodeticleveling” along the Oregon coast. On the northcoast, the land is moving downward relative to sealevel, while on the south coast it is rising.

According to White and Church (2005), globalclimate models “show an increase in the rate ofglobal average sea level rise during the 20thcentury.” However, they note that for Oregon, theapparent rise in sea level on the northern Oregoncoast is due to large-scale sea level rise, while thelowering of sea level on the south coast resultsfrom tectonic uplift. In general, they state thatthere is “no significant increase in the rate of sealevel rise during this 51-year period.”

Decadal-scale variability

In the Northwest and around the Pacific Rim,there are two natural long-term effects thatinfluence climate, called the El Niño-SouthernOscillation (ENSO) and Pacific Decadal Oscilla-tion (PDO). These are warming or coolingtrends involving sea surface temperatures, windpatterns, and moisture that occur annually

Figure 11


75

(ENSO) , or by decade (PDO), that vary fromthe average climate temperatures. Precipitationis also affected. Records show that the years thePacific Decadal Oscillation has been positiveoccur in conjunction with warm and dryperiods in Oregon, while negative PDO occurswith (and probably helps cause) the cooler andwetter decades.

Gedalof and Smith (2001) compiled a transectof six tree ring-width chronologies from standsof mountain hemlock growing near the treelinethat extends from southern Oregon to the KenaiPeninsula, Alaska, from 1599-1983. Theircomment:

“Much of the pre-instrumental record in thePacific Northwest region of North America ischaracterized by alternating regimes ofrelatively warmer and cooler SST [sea surfacetemperature] in the North Pacific, punctu-ated by abrupt shifts in the mean backgroundstate,” which were found to be “relativelycommon occurrences.” From their study itwould appear that PDO-type effects are afixture of Northwest climate.”

In fact, PDO trends explain most of the warmingand cooling in Oregon in the last century. The1920-1945 period, a very warm one, was charac-terized by positive PDO conditions; the 1945-1975 years, with generally negative PDO, werecool; and the 1975-1998 period, another warmone, saw positive PDO values.

Summary

While the world is currently warming, warmerperiods have occurred in the past. Looking atclimate at time periods longer than a few decadesgives a different perspective. The current warm-ing may be largely the result of natural cyclicalchanges. The United States and Oregon haveexperienced warming in the past 100 years, butthe 1930s were as warm as current years. Sincethe thermometer was invented only 300 yearsago, “proxy” methods are used to estimate earlierconditions, and they may not be accurate.Modeling the earth’s climate is not an exactscience and General Circulation Models can varyand be arbitrary, but changes in greenhouse gasesare based on these models. There is clearlyhuman influence on climate, but in my opinion,natural variations have dominated the climatesystem and continue to do so, and doubtless,there remain strong influences on climate that weas yet do not understand.


76

Allen, J.E. and M. Burns, 1991. Cataclysms onthe Columbia. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.

Bray, D., 2004. The Not So Clear Consensuson Climate Change. GKSS ForschungszentrumGeesthacht, Germany

Carrara, P. E., and R. G. McGimsey (1981),The late neoglacial histories of the Agassiz andJackson Glaciers, Glacier National Park, Mon-tana, Arctic and Alpine Research 13, 183–196.

Chylek, P., Box, J.E. and Lesins, G. 2004.Global warming and the Greenland ice sheet.Climatic Change 63: 201-221.

D’Arrigo, R. D., R. Villalba, and G. Wiles(2001), Tree-ring estimates of Pacific decadalclimate variability, Climate Dynamics 18,219– 224.

Doran, P.T., Priscu, J.C., Lyons, W.B., Walsh,J.E., Fountain, A.G., McKnight, D.M.,Moorhead, D.L., Virginia, R.A., Wall, D.H.,Clow, G.D., Fritsen, C.H., McKay, C.P. andParsons, A.N. 2002. Antarctic climate coolingand terrestrial ecosystem response. Nature 415:517-520.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), n.d.http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ImpactsMountainsWesternMountains.html

Gedalof, Z. and Smith, D.J. 2001.Interdecadal climate variability and regime-scaleshifts in Pacific North America. GeophysicalResearch Letters 28: 1515-1518.

Goddard Institute of Space Science (GISS), n.d.Temperature trend information.http://www.giss.nasa.gov.

Goosse, H., Renssen, H., Timmermann, A. andBradley, R.S. 2005. Internal and forced climatevariability during the last millennium: a model-data comparison using ensemble simulations.Quaternary Science Reviews 24: 1345-1360.

Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming,2004. Oregon Strategy for Greenhouse GasReductions. Salem, Oregon.

Hale, R.C., K.P. Gallo, T.W. Owen and T. R.Loveland, 2006. Land use/land cover changeeffects on temperature trends at U.S. climatenormals stations. Geophysical Research Letters 33,L11703, doi:10.1029/2006GL026358.

Hall, M. P., and D. B. Fagre (2003). Modeledclimate-induced glacier change in GlacierNational Park, 1850– 2100, BioScience 53(2),131– 140.

Hartmann, B. and G. Wendler, 2005. TheSignificance of the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift inthe Climatology of Alaska. J. Climate, 18, 4824-4839.

Institute of Natural Resources (INR), 2006.Graph of sea level rise on the Oregon coast.Personal communication. Oregon State Univer-sity, Corvallis, Oregon.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), 1990. First Assessment Overview andPolicymaker Summaries. IPCC, Geneva,Switzerland.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), 2001. Third Assessment Report: ClimateChange 2001. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.

Josephson, B., n.d. Home page at http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10.

Literature Cited


77

Kaplan, M.R., Wolfe, A.P. and Miller, G.H.2002. Holocene environmental variability insouthern Greenland inferred from lake sedi-ments. Quaternary Research 58:149-159.

Levac, E. 2001. High resolution Holocenepalynological record from the Scotian Shelf.Marine Micropaleontology 43: 179-197.

Lloyd, J. 1999. The CO2 dependence of photo-

synthesis, plant growth responses to elevatedCO

2 concentrations and their interaction with

soil nutrient status, II. Temperate and borealforest productivity and the combined effects ofincreasing CO

2 concentrations and increased

nitrogen deposition at a global scale. FunctionalEcology 13: 439-459.

Luckman, B. H. (2000), The Little Ice Age inthe Canadian Rockies, Geomorphology, 32,357– 384.

Mantua, M., and S. Hare (2002), The Pacificdecadal oscillation, Journal of Oceanography 58,35-44.

Mayewski, P.A., Rohling, E.E., Stager, J.C.,Karlen, W., Maasch, K.A., Meeker, L.D.,Meyerson, E.A., Gasse, F., van Kreveld, S.,Holmgren, K., Lee-Thorp, J., Rosqvist, G.Rack, F., Staubwasser, M., Schneider, R.R. andSteig, E.J. 2004. Holocene climate variability.Quaternary Research 62: 243-255.

Meyerson, E.A., Gasse, F., van Kreveld, S.,Holmgren, K., Lee-Thorp, J., Rosqvist, G.Rack, F., Staubwasser, M., Schneider, R.R. andSteig, E.J. 2004. Holocene climate variability.Quaternary Research 62: 243-255

National Museum of Natural History (NMNH,n.d.). “Continents Adrift?” http://www.mnh.si.edu/earth/text/4_1_2_1.html

National Research Council (NRC), 2005.Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expandingthe Concept and Addressing Uncertainties. Boardon Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. NationalAcademies Press, Washington, D.C.

National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC),2005. Web site at http://nsidc.org. University ofColorado, Boulder, CO.

Pederson, G.T., Fagre, D.B., Gray, S.T. andGraumlich, L.J. 2004. Decadal-scale climatedrivers for glacial dynamics in Glacier NationalPark, Montana, USA. Geophysical ResearchLetters 31: 10.1029/2004GL019770.

Polyakov, I.V., Alekseev, G.V., Bekryaev, R.V.,Bhatt, U., Colony, R.L., Johnson, M.A.,Karklin, V.P., Makshtas, A.P., Walsh, D. andYulin A.V. 2002. Observationally based assess-ment of polar amplification of global warming.Geophysical Research Letters 29: 10.1029/2001GL011111.

Schneider, R.R. and Steig, E.J. 2004. Holoceneclimate variability. Quaternary Research 62: 243-255

Soon, W. and Baliunas, S. 2003. Proxy climaticand environmental changes of the past 1000years. Climate Research 23: 89-110.

Stehr, N. and H. von Storch, 2005. The Slug-gishness of Politics and Nature. FrankfurterAllgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurt, Germany.

University of California Museum of Paleontol-ogy (UCMP), n.d. Biography of AlfredWegener. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html

White, N.J., Church, J.A. and Gregory, J.M.2005. Coastal and global averaged sea level risefor 1950 to 2000. Geophysical Research Letters32: 10.1029/2004GL021391.

Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings Chapter Five

78

Introduction

■ Forests play a major role in the globalcarbon cycle. Stored carbon in live biomass,dead plant material and soils represents thebalance between absorbing CO

2 from the

atmosphere and releasing throughrespiration, decomposition, and burning.

■ A solid body of knowledge demonstrateshow patterns of forest harvest, regenerationand growth control the carbon balance onforest lands.

Assessment of the Role of Forests

■ Major recent scientific advances help withunderstanding the role of forests.

■ A consensus is evolving about global carbonpatterns from deforestation and regrowth.

■ Technological advances employ satelliteobservations and more sophisticatedresearch.

■ Overlooked carbon fluxes and other impactson climate are being analyzed.

Forest Management and CarbonStorage: A conceptual overview

■ Disturbances such as timber harvest and firehave a profound effect.

■ Options to increase on-site carbon storesinclude longer rotations.

■ Net effects depend on initial conditions, forexample, agricultural land or old growth.

■ In the Pacific Northwest, carbon patternsare complex and shift rapidly.

Carbon Storage and OtherManagement Objectives:Synergies, Trade-offs andAdditional Considerations

■ Objectives such as recreation, improvedfisheries and biodiversity are compatiblewith increasing carbon stores on-site.

■ Gains from accelerated tree growth may beoffset by declines in density and decay.

■ Fire and disease prevention can result inmaintaining carbon stores.

Protecting Carbon Gains againstthe Impacts of Future ClimateChange

■ Species can be selected for potential growthand resilience in warmer climates.

■ Stand and landscape architecture can bedesigned to increase stability.

■ Plans for coping with large-scale disturbanceevents can ensure optimal results.

Forest Management and CarbonStorage: Pacific Northwest Forests

■ Potential for additional carbon storage inPacific Northwest forests is among thehighest in the world; altering managementpractices offers considerable potential.

■ Protecting remaining old growth, creatingmore protected areas and using longerrotations may be more effective than inother forest regions.

■ Forest management can contributesignificantly to addressing the globalproblem of ongoing rise of carbon dioxidein the atmosphere.

CHAPTER FIVEHIGHLIGHTS:

Forest Management Strategiesfor Carbon Storage

Chapter Five Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings

79

CHAPTER FIVEForest Management Strategies

for Carbon StorageOlga N. Krankina and Mark E. Harmon

Introduction

Forests play a major role in the globalcarbon cycle by storing carbon in liveplant biomass (approximately 50% of dry

plant biomass is carbon), in dead plant material,and in soils. Forests contain three-fourths of allplant biomass on earth, and nearly half of allsoil carbon. The amount stored represents thebalance between (1) absorbing CO

2 from the

atmosphere in the process of photosynthesis and(2) releasing carbon into the atmospherethrough live plant respiration, decomposition ofdead organic matter, and burning of biomass(Figure 1). Forests that are managed for timberproduction also generate a flow ofcarbon into the forest products pool,which includes manufactured prod-ucts at all stages of use and disposal,and manufacturing waste. In theproducts pool carbon is stored andgradually released through decompo-sition and combustion; furthermore,the use of forest products may con-tribute to the reduction of carbonemissions in other sectors if forestproducts substitute more energy-intensive materials such as concreteand metals (see Chapter 7 for details).

While large-scale assessments andfuture projections of the role offorests in carbon exchange with theatmosphere (Chapter 2) are contra-dictory and uncertain, there is a solidbasic understanding of how this rolecan be modified by forest manage-ment. This understanding is sup-ported by the body of knowledge ofthe effects of management practiceson forest ecosystems, including the

patterns of forest harvest, regeneration, andgrowth. These processes are among the principaldriving forces controlling the carbon balance onforest lands and causing predictable changesover time in response to management practicesand natural disturbance events (Figure 2). Thegoal of this chapter is to show how this richlocal knowledge and experience can be appliedto evaluate forest management practices interms of carbon storage in the forest (hereafterreferred to as on-site storage) and how theobjective of increasing carbon storage on-sitecan be integrated with other diverse objectivesof forest management.

Figure 1

Carbon stocks and flows in terrestrial ecosystems. Carbon is withdrawn from the atmo-sphere through photosynthesis (vertical down arrow), and returned by oxidation processes thatinclude plant respiration, decomposition, and combustion (vertical up arrow). Carbon is alsotransferred within ecosystems and to other locations (horizontal arrows). Both natural processesand human activities affect carbon flows (Kauppi et al., 2001). http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/fig4-2.htm).


80

Assessments of the Role of Forests

The contribution of forests to greenhouse gasemissions and removals from the atmosphereremains the subject of active research, which hasproduced a very extensive body of literature.Detailed summaries of peer-reviewed literatureare compiled regularly by the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change1 with the new FourthAssessment Report expected in 2007. Majorrecent scientific advances in our understandingof the role of forest and forest management inglobal climate change are related to:

(1) An evolving consensus on broad globalpatterns of carbon sources and sinks onland. Deforestation in the tropics and forestregrowth in the temperate and parts of theboreal zone are major factors responsible forcarbon emissions and removals, respectively.While the rates of forest expansion andregrowth in the temperate and boreal zonesappear relatively well constrained by avail-able data and are consistent across publishedresults, the rates of tropical deforestationremain uncertain and hotly debated(Fearnside and Laurance 2004, Mayauxet al., 2005).

(2) Technological advances that have im-proved observational data. Over the lastthree decades, earth observation satelliteshave increased in number and sophisticationand tremendous progress has been made inmethods for extraction of thematic informa-tion, such as global forest cover, leaf areaindex, surface albedo (surface reflectance),etc. (Janetos and Justice 2000; Belwardet al., 2003). Studies based on remotesensing of forest cover report lower rates oftropical deforestation than the UN-ECE/FAO (2000) and imply lower emissions ofcarbon than previously reported (Achardet al., 2002, DeFries 2002).

Remote sensing methods are expected toplay an increasing role in future assessments,especially as a tool for mapping land coverand its change over time, however, convert-ing these maps into estimates of carbonsources and sinks remains a challenge andwill continue to depend on in-situ measure-ments and modeling. The experimental useof LIDAR (LIght Detection And Ranginginstrument) shows promise for improvedmapping of several important forestattributes including height and biomass.

The exchange of carbon dioxide between aforest stand and the atmosphere can becalculated from continuous measurementsof CO

2 concentration at different heights

within forest canopy and above it using fluxtowers. The measurements of CO

2 exchange

using flux towers provide a wealth of infor-mation on environmental controls oncarbon exchange of terrestrial vegetation(including forests) over relatively smallspatial scales (Law et al., 2002). Convertingthese measurements into large area estimatescan be problematic because flux towersgenerally miss the major carbon emissionevents (e.g., following fires, clearcut harvest,blowdown, and insect outbreaks) that tendto be short-lived and stochastic, or random,in forest ecosystems (Körner 2003). Becauseof the high cost of flux towers, their numbercannot increase significantly and severalstudies that used flux tower measurementsin regional analyses have had to rely heavilyon other types of measurements such asforest and land inventories (Law et al., 2004,Janssens et al., 2003).

(3) Consideration and in some cases quanti-fication of previously overlooked fluxes ofcarbon, such as carbon export through riversystems, volcanic activity and other geologi-cal processes, outgassing, transfers of mate-rial in and out of the forest products pool,and uptake in freshwater ecosystems.

1 (IPCC; http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/online.htm)


81

Together these relatively small flows wereshown to be quite significant for the overallcarbon budget of the U.S. (Pacala et al.,2001).

(4) Improved understanding of limitationsand uncertainties of current estimates andthe need for an integrated approach toevaluating the impact of terrestrial ecosys-tems on climate. To formulate the policyfor climate change mitigation in the forestsector it is important to consider the impactof forest management on carbon stores inthe context of other effects on climate,including the role of the albedo, the fluxesof sensible and latent heat, evaporation, andother factors, however, methods for such anintegrated assessment are yet to be devel-oped (Marland et al., 2003).

The opportunities to store additional carbon interrestrial ecosystems are strongly influenced byhistorical land-use changes and the associatedlosses of carbon. Because forests tend to containmore carbon per unit area than agriculturalland, historic process of forest clearing foragriculture over thousands of years contributedto carbon accumulation in the atmosphere.Clearing of the European Mediterranean regionbegan approximately 5000 years ago; in CentralEurope and in China deforestation occurred inearly Medieval times; and in North Americaclearing occurred mainly in the 19th century(Foster et al., 1998, Mather 1990). Globally,between 1850 and 1998 an estimated 136± 55Pg (a petagram is 1.1 billion U.S. tons) ofcarbon were released into the atmosphere in theprocess of changing land use, 87% from defor-estation, the rest from cultivation of grasslands(IPCC 2001). This represents about one fourthof all carbon released into the atmosphere byhuman activities; the burning of fossil fuelsrepresents three-fourths. Since the mid-20thcentury the net decline of forest area in thetemperate zone has stopped, and currently inmany temperate regions the forest area isincreasing.

The 2005 Forest Resource Assessment (FAO-FRA 2005) estimated that the world’s forestsstore 283 Pg of carbon in live biomass (includ-ing dead plant material and soils would increasethis number). Carbon in forest biomass de-creased in Africa, Asia, and South America inthe period 1990–2005, but increased in virtu-ally all other regions. For the world as a whole,carbon stocks in forest biomass decreased by 1.1Pg of carbon annually, owing to continueddeforestation and forest degradation, which arepartly offset by forest expansion and an increasein growing stock per hectare in some regions(Key Findings of FAO–FRA 2005). The netloss of carbon by forests estimated by land-basedmeasurements is at odds with the results ofatmospheric inversion models which estimatenet carbon sink on land (e.g., 1.34 PgC/yr,Gurney et al., 2002).

Future changes in the role of forests are difficultto project, especially at the global scale. TheIPCC reports of 1995 and 2001 estimated theglobal potential for additional cumulativecarbon storage on land at 60-87 PgC over 50years, most of it in forests. The recent EPA(2005) report assessed the current growth ofcarbon stores on land in the U.S. at 0.225 PgC/yr (offsetting 12% of U.S. fossil fuel emissions)with forests responsible for 90% of the esti-mated carbon sink. Incentives for additionalcarbon sequestration on land at $55/ton ofcarbon are projected to generate additionalcarbon sink in the U.S. of 0.18 PgC/yr onaverage by 2025 (EPA 2005).

Forest Management and CarbonStorage: A Conceptual Overview

In terrestrial ecosystems, including forests, thecarbon cycle exhibits natural cyclic behavior ona range of time scales. Most ecosystems, forexample, have a diurnal and seasonal cycle (e.g.,a source of carbon to the atmosphere in thewinter and a sink in the summer). The seasonalcycle shows up as fluctuations at the globalscale, as illustrated by the annual oscillations in


82

the global atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Large-scale fluctuations occur at other temporalscales as well, ranging from decades to centuriesand longer. Of relevance for forest managementdecisions are the changes that occur on an annualto centennial time scale, including the harvestcycle of managed forests (Figure 2). In addition,forest management decisions influence thequantity and quality of material that is trans-

ferred into the forest products pool (Figure 3).The strategies for greater overall carbon seques-tration (on-site plus off-site) may differ fromthose that maximize carbon stores on-site only.

The intent of forest management for carbonstorage is to reduce atmospheric CO2 relative tothat which would occur otherwise. A conse-quence of the conservation of mass is that the net

Figure 2

Figure 3

Changes in on-site forest carbonstores following disturbance. (Liveand dead wood only; median valueand 95% confidence interval).Following harvest, the negativechange in carbon stores on-site issmall because much of the wood ismoved off-site. Figures based onfield data and regression equationsreported by Janisch and Harmon(2002). C Mg/ha are megatons ofcarbon per hectare.A. Carbon stores following timber

harvestB. The net change in carbon stores

following harvestC. Carbon stores following forest

fireD. The net change in carbon stores

following forest fire Janisch, J. E.and M. E. Harmon., TreePhysiology, 2002.

Carbon dynamics for a management scenario involving harvest and afforestation (new planting) on 40-year rotation. Included are carbonpools on land, in wood products, and in avoided fossil fuel emissions assuming that wood products substitute more energy-intensive materials(energy for products) and wood waste substitutes fossil fuels in the production of energy (adapted from Marland and Schlamadinger 1999). Notethat the initial carbon store in soil is not shown and the increase in this pool reflects the anticipated increase over the initial soil stores. The validity ofassumed substitutions depends on product supply-and-demand patterns in energy and materials sectors. Printed with permission from Elsevier.


83

tiple stands, or regions comprised of multiplelandscapes. At the stand level, disturbances causeseveral things to occur. First, they redistribute theexisting carbon stock by transferring carbon fromliving material, above- and below-ground, to thedead organic matter pools. As the carbon uptakeby living trees is interrupted and the emissionsfrom decomposition increase, a disturbed foreststand shifts from sink to source of carbon relativeto the atmosphere. It remains in the source phaseuntil carbon uptake by the new generation of treesexceeds emissions from decomposing dead organicmaterial (Figure 2).

Second, disturbance events often transfer some ofthe carbon out of the ecosystem — in the case ofharvest, into the forest product pool, in the caseof fire, into the atmosphere as combustionproducts. Third, the disturbance restarts thesuccessional cycle for new stand development,lasting from many decades to centuries, and

Figure 4Dynamics of carbon stores in a forestecosystem as predicted by a simulationmodel (STANDCARB).A. Carbon stores in various pools following

conversion of an old-growth forest to aharvest system with a 100-year rotation.Upon harvest, a large fraction of livebiomass is converted to dead material,which eventually forms soil. The storeof carbon in live biomass increases oncethe stand regenerates.

B. Total carbon stores (live, dead, and soil)with conversion of old-growth forest tovarious harvest intervals (40-160 years).

C. Landscape average carbon stores withconversion of old-growth forest tovarious harvest intervals (40-160 years).

balance of all of thecarbon flows (measured inunits such as tons ofcarbon/year (tC/yr) ortons of carbon/hectare/year (tC/ha/yr) into andout of a forest stand,landscape, or regionduring a period of timemust equal the change inthe stock during thatperiod. Conversely, achange in stock of carbonduring a given period mustexactly equal the total of carbon flows into andout of the system during that period. In the forestmanagement context it is often easier to estimatethe net change in carbon stock than individualflows of carbon (e.g., photosynthesis and respira-tion). A gain in on-site carbon stores indicatescarbon is being removed from the atmosphere,whereas a loss in on-site stores indicates carbon isbeing added to the atmosphere and in case ofharvest – transferred off-site. To assess the overallcarbon balance of the forest sector, the changes inoff-site stores and fossil fuel offsets need to beconsidered as well (Chapter 7).

The Role of Forest Disturbance

Disturbance events such as fire, windthrow, insectoutbreak, or timber harvest have a profoundimpact on the carbon balance of forest ecosystems.These impacts may be considered at the level ofindividual stands, landscapes comprised of mul-


84

creating a long-term “echo” of disturbanceevents. Thus, disturbances, both human-inducedand natural, are major driving forces that deter-mine the transition of forest stands, landscapes,and regions from a carbon sink to a source andback. In regions with active forest disturbanceregimes, such as the Pacific Northwest, patternsof carbon sources and sinks are complex and shiftrelatively rapidly over time reflecting the evolvinghistory of disturbance (Cohen et al., 1996).

A significant confusion in literature about theimpact of forest management practices on carbonstores is related to the fact that for an individualstand the impact depends on the selected timeframe. After disturbance, carbon stores in forestsinevitably decline and then increase, so it isimpossible to reach the peak rate of uptakewithout first experiencing the loss of carbon on-site. A landscape-scale analysis can be moremeaningful as it compares the averages of carbonstores over a landscape where a selected manage-ment option is repeated indefinitely (Figure 4,Harmon 2002). The average carbon store in alandscape where the management regime isconstant also equals that of a typical stand overtime when the disturbance interval is regular(Harmon 2002).

At the landscape level, one needs to consider thecharacteristics of the disturbance regime (i.e., thefrequency, size, and severity of many distur-bances). Increasing the average interval betweendisturbances increases the landscape store ofcarbon (Smithwick et al., in press). This isbecause the longer interval allows for a greateraccumulation of carbon in forest stands. Thelandscape store of carbon is also influenced bydisturbance intensity or the amount of carbonremoved by the disturbance: the more severe thedisturbances, the lower the carbon store in thelandscape. If carbon store declines with age invery old forests, then it is also possible for land-scapes to store more carbon with disturbancethan without. However, the optimum age formaximum storage (200-500 years) is much olderthan the typical harvest rotation (30-100 years)in the Pacific Northwest. Finally, random inter-

vals of disturbance lead to greater stores thanregular intervals of disturbance. This is due toseveral factors, one being that regardless of theregularity of the disturbance interval the mini-mum carbon stores is very similar. Another is thefact that random disturbance intervals haveoccasional periods when stands accumulatecarbon for a longer period than the regularintervals (Smithwick et al., in press).

Options to Increase Carbon Storageon Forest Land

The options available to mitigate carbon accu-mulation in the atmosphere by measures withinthe forest sector can be grouped into threegeneral categories: (1) Increasing or maintainingthe forest area by avoiding deforestation. (2)Increasing carbon density (ton of carbon perhectare), either at the forest-stand level, usingsilvicultural techniques that accelerate forestregeneration and growth, or slow decomposition(Figure. 2), or at the landscape level, using longerrotations, conservation, and protection againstfire and insects (Figure 4). (3) Increasing productsubstitution using forest-derived materials toreplace materials with high fossil fuel require-ments, and increasing the use of biomass-derivedenergy to substitute fossil fuels (Figure 3; see alsoChapter 7).

Once these options are implemented, theirimpact on carbon stores lasts for many decadesand changes over time. For example, conserva-tion measures such as protecting forest fromlogging or clearing offer immediate benefits viaprevented emissions, while effects of silviculturalpractices like afforestation (new planting) oftenfollow an S-shaped growth curve: accrual ratesare highest after an initial lag phase and thendecline towards zero as carbon stocks approach amaximum (Figure 2).

Substitution benefits (i.e., emissions preventedby using wood instead of metal, cement, orother energy-intensive materials) often occurafter an initial period of net emission, but thesebenefits may continue almost indefinitely into


85

the future (Figure 3). Clearly, there are impor-tant interactions among the options. For ex-ample, the use of longer harvest rotations notonly increases average landscape-level carbonstores (Figure 4) but also may generate high-value forest products that remain in use longer,thus increasing the carbon pool in forest prod-ucts. However, there are also important trade-offs between increasing carbon stores on-site byconservation measures versus off-site carbonstores in forest products and reduced emissionsrelated to product substitution.

Forest management options for increasing carbonstorage on-site are elaborated below; options formaintaining and increasing forest area are pre-sented in Chapter 6 and the effects of productsubstitution are described in Chapter 7.

The Role of Initial Conditions

The net effect of different forest managementpractices on carbon storage depends on initialconditions (Harmon and Marks 2002). Forexample, on degraded agricultural land, establish-ing forest plantations with a short harvest rota-tion will increase carbon stores on-site and resultin net uptake of carbon from the atmosphere. Inaddition, carbon accumulates in forest productsthat are produced from harvest. Furthermore,there may be potential emission reductions fromfossil fuels when wood products substitute moreenergy-intensive materials, or when wood wasteis used to generate energy (Figure 3).

When the initial condition of land is a produc-tive old-growth forest, the conversion to forestplantations with a short harvest rotation can havethe opposite effect lasting for many decades evenwith all the actual and potential emission reduc-tions accounted for (compare figures 2 and 3).Over the course of 100 years, the cumulativeeffect of afforestation followed by timber harveston a 40-year rotation in a productive Douglas-firforest is estimated at slightly more than 200 tonsof carbon per hectare (tC/ha) (Figure 3). Incontrast, the carbon stores in an old-growthforest of this type would exceed 350 tC/ha on

average (Figure 2). The difference of 150 tC/haexceeds even the most generous assumptionabout the off-site effects from the initial old-growth forest harvest and thus in this example,100 years of rotation forestry system do notappear long enough to offset the losses of carbonfrom harvesting the old-growth forest.

The Role of Woody Debris

The amount of debris left on-site after a forestdisturbance is an important and often overlookedfactor that influences the net effect of manage-ment practices (Janisch and Harmon 2002).Following timber harvest, carbon emissions fromdecomposing slash usually exceed carbon accu-mulation in young trees (in spite of their vigor-ous growth) for about a decade. In contrast, astand disturbed by fire may release carbon intothe atmosphere for over 50 years because higherstores of coarse woody debris increase the lossassociated with decomposition (Figure 2). At firstglance, harvested forest would appear to lose lesscarbon than forest burned by fire, however, muchof the losses from harvested forest occurs off-sitein the forest products manufacturing process(Harmon et al., 1996). As much as 50% of theharvested material is released to the atmospherewithin a few years, while coarse woody debrisdecomposing on-site tends to lose carbon at amuch slower rate. For example, common expo-nential decomposition rates of softwood speciesrange between 0.01 and 0.03 per year (Harmonet al., 2001) suggesting that it takes between 25and 70 years for this material to lose one half ofits carbon to the atmosphere. For species withhigher decomposition rates, such as poplars, thedifferences between carbon losses in manufactur-ing and on-site will be smaller.

Carbon Storage and OtherManagement Objectives:Synergies, Trade-offs, andAdditional Considerations

Over the last two decades Pacific Northwestforest managers showed remarkable adaptabilityas they shifted from singular dominant focus on


86

timber production to balancing a large set ofmanagement objectives including recreationaluse of forests, protecting habitat for endangeredspecies, biodiversity, fire management, water-shed management, forest health, etc. All theseobjectives are generally compatible with the goalof increasing carbon stores on-site in that theyrequire maintenance of forest cover and preven-tion of large-scale catastrophic disturbanceevents that would release large quantities ofcarbon into the atmosphere. However, there arealso significant trade-offs and additional factorsto consider when carbon storage becomes amanagement objective.

The goal of increasing carbon storage on forestlands is fully synergistic with the goal of conser-vation of old-growth forests and endangeredspecies that depend on these ecosystems. Othermanagement objectives that restrict timberharvest (for example, buffers along streams toimprove fisheries or along highways to enhancethe visual appeal for tourists) also lead to greatercarbon stores on-site.

Measures to accelerate the growth of trees mayprovide for faster uptake of carbon from theatmosphere. However, the effect on carbonstorage may be smaller than the increase ingrowing stock volume if the wood densitydeclines, or if the decay resistance of a faster-growing tree is lower, or if the product mix fromfast-growing trees shifts towards shorter-livedwood products. Moreover, if the rotationinterval is shortened as growth rate increases (aprimary goal of increasing growth rates), thenthere will be little net carbon gain on-site.Some of the new genetic engineering researchaims to increase decay-resistance of fast-growingpoplars by increasing the proportion of lignin inwood (Rosenberg et al., 1998); this may en-hance carbon storage in decomposing woodymaterial on-site as well as in wood products.

In addition to creating carbon stores and emissionoffsets in the forest products sector, increasingtimber production may be compatible with thegoal of carbon storage on-site as well, depending

on specific conditions. For example, maintainingthe current harvest rotation and forest productivitywill eventually lead to steady-state carbon stores ina forest landscape (with no net change over time).Salvage of trees killed by fire would reduce carbonstores on land unless the salvage replaces a similarlevel of harvest of live trees elsewhere. Increasingproductive forest area by reducing the lag time ofregeneration or enhancing growth rates increasescarbon storage in a landscape, but these gains needto be balanced against the losses from burningslash (often required for improved regeneration) orthe possibility of increased decomposition causedby fertilization.

The recent effort to design landscapes for fire ordisease prevention can also help in maintainingcarbon stores. Consideration of carbon losses incatastrophic fires may influence the analysis oftrade-offs between maintaining large unroadedareas vs. those accessible to ground-based fire-fighting equipment and evaluation of fuelreduction programs. Fuel reduction measuressuch as prescribed burns reduce carbon stores aswell (at least temporarily), but they can reducethe burning intensity in future fires and thusmaintain higher carbon stores in forest land-scapes in the long run.

Protecting Carbon Gains againstthe Impacts of Future ClimateChange

The risk of future losses of carbon from forestecosystems due to impacts of climate changeand other factors is often used as an argumentagainst carbon sequestration on land in generaland in forests in particular. However, most ofthe technological measures that reduce CO

2

emissions by improving efficiency in industryand energy production imply that the conservedfossil fuels will be used eventually and thus theemissions are strictly speaking only delayed, notpermanently prevented. The possibility offuture losses of carbon sequestered on land alsoimplies delayed emissions creating a similartemporal pattern of the mitigation effect.Moreover, decreases of carbon stores in one


87

stand may be offset by gains in another standcreating a certain permanent mitigation effect atthe landscape or regional level.

Higher carbon stores on land might mean therisk of higher future carbon emissions as thechanging climate is expected to cause a higherrate of forest disturbance. Depending on therate and magnitude of change, the new climaticcondition may exceed the ability of certain treespecies to adapt and lead to large-scale diebackof the most vulnerable ones. Invasion of newpests and pathogens is an additional risk factorwhich might be exacerbated in an alteredclimate. While it is difficult to anticipate thespecifics of future impacts, several generalmeasures can increase the stability of forests inchanging environment and reduce the risks ofeconomic losses as well as losses of carbon.

Choice of species. In selecting species forplanting at a given site it is important toconsider their potential growth and resil-ience in a warmer climate, with possiblymore frequent droughts and weatherextremes. Drought resistance is probablythe most important trait, as few trees die ofexcess temperature alone. Long-termresistance to fire, pests, and pathogens isalso important as all may become moreactive. In addition to local pest and patho-gen species, those likely to migrate from thesouth need to be considered as well.

Stand and landscape architecture can bedesigned to increase resistance and resil-ience of forests. For example, avoidingextensive coverage by a single species andmaintaining mixed species within standsand landscapes or creating fire breaks withreduced fuel loads tend to increase thestability of forests. Thinning treatmentscan improve stand stability as well.

Plans for coping with large-scale distur-bance events are needed to ensure optimaltiming for salvage, regeneration, and other

important decisions with long-lastingconsequences (Lindenmayer et al., 2004).

Forest Management and CarbonStorage: Pacific Northwest Forests

The potential for carbon storage in the forestsof the Pacific Northwest is among the highest inthe world because the major dominant treespecies (Douglas-fir) is very long-lived andmaintains high growth rates for a very long timecompared to other regions (Smithwick et al.,2002). Hence, protecting the remaining old-growth, creating additional protected areas, andusing longer rotations may be more effective forincreasing carbon storage on land than in otherforest regions. Timber harvest in this regionover the last 100 years has decreased carbonstores in forests (Harmon et al., 1990). Forexample, between 1953 and 1993 carbon storesin live forest biomass declined by 206 milliontons or by 13% (Melson 2004, in review). Theextent of this decrease has been a function ofownership with declines higher on privateindustrial (24%) than federally owned lands(7%). Thus, areas with more frequent harvestsare storing less carbon on-site than those withless frequent disturbances. Total carbon storeson forest land across all ownerships also ap-peared to decrease in western Oregon duringthe 1972-2002 period, although the rate ofdecline is predictably slowing as the transitionfrom natural disturbance regime to a moreintensively managed one comes to an end(Cohen et al. 1996, Wallin et al., in review).

There is considerable potential to increase on-site carbon stores in the region by alteringmanagement. Because the time to field-testvarious management systems is prohibitivelylong, simulation models are used to assess howvarious forest management alternatives willperform. STANDCARB is a simulation modelthat accounts for the regeneration, growth,death, decomposition, and disturbance of foreststands (Harmon and Marks, 2003). The typesof carbon accounted for in this model include


88

live (broken into various parts such as leaves,branches, stems, and roots), dead (all the typesof live parts that have died), and stable (soil)pools. Disturbances include windthrow, insects,fire, and timber harvest (including salvage ofdead wood). Simulation experiments with theSTANDCARB model, using parameters forDouglas-fir and western hemlock typical of theOregon Cascades, indicated that forests pro-tected from fire stored the greatest amount(93% of the maximum) of carbon at the land-scape level and agricultural fields stored the least(15% of the maximum) (Harmon and Marks2003). Conversion of old-growth forests to anyother management or disturbance regimeresulted in a net loss of carbon on-site, whereasconversion of agricultural systems to forestsystems had the opposite effect.

Based on the model’s results, the three factorsmost crucial in developing an optimum on-sitecarbon storage system are, in order of increasingimportance; (1) amount of detritus removed byslash burning, (2) amount of live mass har-vested, and (3) rotation length (Figure 5).Carbon stores increased as rotation lengthincreased, but decreased as the fraction of treesharvested and detritus removed increased. The

effects of continuous-cover forestry depend onmany factors, including the intensity andfrequency of thinnings, and the growth responseof the remaining tree stand. As the use ofpartial harvest expands and the long-term effectsare studied, the impact on carbon stores willbecome clearer. The simulations withSTANDCARB indicated that partial harvestand minimal fire use may provide as manyforest products as the traditional clearcut andbroadcast burn system while maintaining highercarbon stores on-site.

In conclusion, forest management cannot fullysolve the problem of carbon accumulation inthe atmosphere (and no other individual sectorcan). However, measures in forestry and othertypes of land management can contributesignificantly to the solution. Over the course of50 years, reduced deforestation, reforestation,afforestation and other measures could provide acumulative sequestration of 25 billion metrictons of carbon globally. This is similar to theeffect of doubling the current global nuclearpower generation capacity or doubling the fueleconomy of cars (Pacala and Socolow 2004).Increased carbon storage on land, in combina-tion with a host of emission reduction measures,

can help reduce and even end theongoing rise of carbon concentra-tion in the atmosphere.

Acknowledgements

This work was funded in part bythe Pacific Northwest ResearchStation (PNW 04-JV11261975-173) and NASA LCLUCProgram (NAG5-11250).

Effect of degreeof site prepara-tion and intervalbetween harvestson landscapeaverage totalcarbon stores aspredicted by asimulationmodel(STANDCARB).In the case ofextensive sitepreparation, itwas assumed thatmost of thesurface deadorganic matterwas removed, andfor the moderatesite preparationcase approxi-mately 25% thatamount wasremoved. Theundisturbed oldforest representsthe long-termaverage of a veryold (500+ years)forest.

Figure 5


89

Achard, F., H. D. Eva, et al., Determination ofdeforestation rates of the world’s tropical forests.Science 297: 999-1002. 2002

Belward, A.S., Binaghi, E., Brivio, P.,Lanzarone, G., Tosi, G. - Preface. Intern. Journalof Remote Sensing, Vol. 24, No. 20 (2003) 3885-3886

Cohen, W.B., M.E. Harmon, D.O. Wallin, andM. Fiorella, 1996: Two decades of carbon fluxfrom forests of the Pacific Northwest.BioScience, 46(11), 836-844, 20-33.

DeFries, R. S., R. A. Houghton, M. C. Hansen,C. B. Field, D. Skole, and J. Townshend,Carbon emissions from tropical deforestationand regrowth based on satellite observations forthe 1980s and 1990s, Proceedings NationalAcademy of Sciences, 99, 14256-14261, 2002.

Foster, D., G. Motzkin, and B. Slater. 1998.Land-use history as long-term broad-scaledisturbance: regional forest dynamics in centralNew England. Ecosystems 1: 96-119.

Golderwijk, K.K. Estimating global land usechange over the past 300 years. HYDE Data-base, Global Biochem. Cycles, 15, 417-433. 2001

Gurney K.R., Law, R. M., Denning, A. S., et al.,Towards robust regional estimates of CO2sources and sinks using atmospheric transportmodels, Nature, 415, 626-629, 2002.

Harmon, M. E. 2001. Carbon sequestration inforests: Addressing the scale question. Journal ofForestry 99(4):24-29.

Harmon, M. E. and B. Marks. 2002. Effects ofsilvicultural treatments on carbon stores inforest stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Re-search 32:863-877.

Literature Cited

Harmon, M. E., J. M. Harmon, W. K. Ferrell,and D. Brooks. 1996. Modeling carbon storesin Oregon and Washington forest products:1900-1992. Climatic Change 33:521-550.

Harmon, ME, W.K. Ferrel, and J.F. Franklin,1990: Effects on carbon storage of conversion ofold-growth forests to young forests. Science,247(4943), 699-703.

Janetos, A.C., and Justice, C.O., Land coverand global productivity: a measurement strat-egy for the NASA programme, Int. J. RemoteSensing, 21, 1491-1512, 2000.

Janisch, J. E. and M. E. Harmon. 2002. Suc-cessional changes in live and dead wood stores:Implications for Net Ecosystem Productivity.Tree Physiology 22:77-89.

Janssens, I.A., Freibauer, A., Ciais, P., Smith, P.,Nabuurs, G.-J., Folberth, G., Schlamadinger, B,Hutjes, R.W.A., Ceulemans, R., Schulze E.-D.,Valentini, R., Dolman, A.J. Europe’s TerrestrialBiosphere Absorbs 7 to 12% of EuropeanAnthropogenic CO2 Emissions. Science300(5625), pp. 1538-1542. 2003

Korner, C. Atmospheric Science: Slow in, Rapidout—Carbon Flux Studies and Kyoto Targets.Science 300(5623), pp. 1242-1243. 2003

Law, B.E., Falge, E., Giu, L., Baldocchi, D.D.,Bakwin, P., Berbigier, P., Davis, K., Dolman,A.J., Falk, M., Fuentes, J.D., Goldstein, A.,Granier, A., Grelle, A., Hollinger, D., Janssens,I.A., Jarvis, P., Jensen, N.O., Katul, G., Mahli,Y., Matteucci, G., Meyers, T., Monson, R.,Munger, W., Oechel, W., Olson, R., Pilegaard,Paw U, K.T., Thorgeirsson, H., Valentini, R.,Verma, S., Vesala, T., Wilson, K., Wofsy, S.Environmental controls over carbon dioxideand water vapour exchange of terrestrial vegeta-tion. Agricultural and Forest Methodology, 113,pp. 97-120. 2002


90

Law, B. E., D. Turner, J. Campbell, O. J. Sun,S. Van Tuyl, W. D. Ritts and W. B . Cohen.2004. Disturbance and climate effects oncarbon stocks and fluxes across Western OregonU.S. Global Change Biology (2004) 10, 1429–1444.

Lindenmayer, D. B., D. R. Foster, J. F.Franklin, M. L. Hunter, R. F. Noss, F. A.Schmiegelow, and D. Perry. Science 27 February2004 303: 1303 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1093438]

Marland, G., and B. Schlamadinger, 1999: TheKyoto Protocol could make a difference for theoptimal forest-based CO2 mitigation strategy:some results from GORCAM. EnvironmentalScience and Policy, 2, 111-124.

Marland, G., R. A. Pielke Sr, Apps, M., Avissar,R., Betts, R.A., Davis, K.J., Frumhoff, P.C.,Jackson, S.T., Joyce, L.A., Kauppi, P.,Katzenberger, J., MacDicken, K.G., Neilson,R.P., Niles, J.O., Niyogi, D.D.S., Norby, R.J.,Pena, N., Sampson, N., Xue, Y. The climaticimpacts of land surface change and carbonmanagement, and the implications for climate-change mitigation policy. Climate Policy 3: 149-157. 2003.

Mayaux P., P. Holmgren, F. Achard, H. Eva, H.-J. Stibig and A. Branthomme, 2005, Tropicalforest cover change in the 1990’s and optionsfor future monitoring, Philosophical Transac-tions of The Royal Society B: Biological Sciences(Phil. Trans. B), 360: 373 - 384.

Mather, A.S., 1990: Global Forest Resources.Chapter 3. Historical perspectiveson forest resource use. Timber Press, Portland,OR, U.S., pp. 30-57.

Melson, S. and M. E. Harmon. In review.Changes in Live–Tree Carbon: the PacificNorthwest 1963-91. In: Carbon dynamics oftwo forest ecosystems: Northwestern Russianand the Pacific Northwest. M. E. Harmon andO. N. Krankina, editors, Springer-VerlagEcological Studies.

Pacala, S.W., Hurtt, G.C., Baker, D., Peylin,P., Houghton, R.A. Birdsey, R.A., Heath, L.,Sundquist, E.T., Stallard, R.F., Ciais, P.,Moorcroft, P., Caspersen, J. P., Shevliakova, E.,Moore, B., Kohlmaier, G., Holland, E., Gloor,M., Harmon, M. E., Fan, S.-M., Sarmiento,J. L., Goodale, C. L., Schimel, D., FieldPacala,C. B. , S. W., Hurtt, G. C., Baker, D. Consis-tent Land- and Atmosphere-Based U.S. CarbonSink Estimates. Science: 292(5525): 2316-2320.2001.

Pacala, S. and Socolow, R. 2004. StabilizationWedges: Solving the Climate Problemfor the Next 50 Years with Current Technolo-gies. Science 305:968-972

Rosenberg, N. J., Izaurralde, R. C. & Malone,E. L. 1998. Carbon Sequestration in Soils:Science, Monitoring, and Beyond (Battelle,Columbus, OH)

Smithwick, E. A. H., M. E. Harmon, and J. B.Domingo. In press. Changing temporalpatterns of forest carbon stores and net ecosys-tem carbon balance: The stand to landscapetransformation. Landscape Ecology.

Smithwick, E. A. H., M. E. Harmon, S. M.Remillard, S. A. Acker, and J. F. Franklin.2002. Potential upper bounds of carbon storesin forests of the Pacific Northwest. EcologicalApplications 12:1303–1317.


91

UN-ECE/FAO (UN Economic Committee forEurope / Food and Agricultural Organisation),2000: Forest resources of Europe, CIS, NorthAmerica, Australia, Japan and New Zealand.Geneva Timber and Forest Study papers No 17,United Nations Economic Committee forEurope, Food and Agricultural Organisation,Geneva, Switzerland, 445 pp.

Wallin, D. O., M. E. Harmon, W. B. Cohen. Inreview. Modeling regional-scale carbon dynam-ics in Pacific Northwest forests: theLANDCARB model. In: Carbon dynamics oftwo forest ecosystems: Northwestern Russianand the Pacific Northwest. M. E. Harmon andO. N. Krankina, editors, Springer-VerlagEcological Studies.

Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings Chapter Six

92

Forestland Development

■ Forestlands are the largest source of land fordevelopment.

■ One million acres were lost annually in theU.S. from 1992-1997.

Socioeconomic Factors

■ Growing population and income increasedemand for forestland development.

■ Timber revenue alone may not offer enoughowner incentive to keep land in forests.

■ Affluent people may be more willing toprotect remaining forestland.

■ Projections for Oregon/Washington com-bined show 2.8 million additional acres offorestland could be lost by 2050.

Oregon’s Land Use Law

■ Panacea to some, bane to others, 1973 LandConservation and Development Act doesn’tpermanently protect forests from develop-ment, but restricts rate, location and density.

■ Estimates suggest that less than 1% offorestland was saved from 1974-1994, buturban growth boundaries included forest-land likely to be developed.

■ Projections suggest that approximately 4%of forestland could be developed as a resultof Measure 37, but significant uncertaintyexists about the measure.

Development Effects on Forestsand Forestry

■ With parcelization, owners of smaller tractsare less likely to manage for timber.

■ Proximity to residential development maychange forest management activities.

■ The most productive forestlands tend to besteep and inaccessible, which may counterdevelopment pressures.

Policy Strategies for MaintainingForestlands

■ Land use regulations and zoning arelow-cost but perhaps less effective in thelong run.

■ A variety of preferential tax programs helpsupport forestland owners.

■ Private land preservation and land trustsoffer public and private protection.

■ Ecosystem services compensation can offerfinancial incentives to maintain forestland.

■ Cost share, Direct Payment and CarbonMarkets can encourage owners to conductparticular forestry activities.

The Future

■ Socioeconomic factors exert a strong pres-sure favoring development.

■ Policies and implementation tend to evolveover time.

■ The future depends on willingness toevaluate policies and outcomes to achievedesired balance of forestland protection anddevelopment.

CHAPTER SIXHIGHLIGHTS:

KEEPING LAND IN FOREST

Chapter Six Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings

93

CHAPTER SIXKEEPING LAND IN FOREST

Jeffrey D. Kline

Forestland Development

Forestlands have been the largest source ofland for development in the U.S. inrecent years. The most significant trend

affecting forests is their conversion toresidential, commercial, industrial, andinfrastructure uses. While forestry, agriculture,grazing, and developed uses all compete for afixed amount of land, forests have been mostaffected. One million acres of forests have beenlost to development annually from 1992 to1997 (Natural Resources Conservation Service2001). Another 26 million acres could be lostby 2030, with two million of those acres locatedin the Pacific Northwest (Alig and Plantinga2004). This trend will affect our ability tosequester carbon in growing forests.

Forestland development can affect carbonsequestration in several ways. The most directand visible effect is the loss of forest cover—trees and other vegetation—when buildings,roads, and other infrastructure are built. Forestsact as carbon sinks, transforming CO

2 into trees

and vegetation, roots, woody debris, litter, andforest soils (Murray et al., 2000). Removingthese through development releases sequesteredcarbon into the atmosphere and reduces futuresequestration on affected lands.

The net effects of development on storedcarbon depend on the intensity ofdevelopment—how much vegetation is removedand how much it is replaced by lawn andlandscaping that offset released carbon. Thesenet effects can differ depending on whether theyare considered locally or globally. Reducingforestland development in one location—Oregon, for example—can help sequestercarbon locally, but if that causes greaterdevelopment elsewhere, then the net globalbenefits could be less.

With remaining forestlands, effects can be lessdirect and less visible, depending on how theforests are managed. The standing stock offorest biomass is influenced through activitiessuch as fertilization, pest management, fuel andfire management, harvest, and planting (Murrayet al., 2000). Parcelization—the breaking up oflarge forest parcels into smaller parcels fordevelopment—is believed to make forestmanagement activities more costly.Development also can lead to changes in theobjectives of remaining forestland owners.People who purchase small forestland parcelsprimarily as home sites often are less inclined toinvest in forestry activities. Less intensivemanagement could cause slower tree growth,resulting in lower forest biomass and less carbonsequestered over time. As with development,reduced local harvesting might sequesteradditional carbon, but if it results in greaterharvesting elsewhere, then net global valuecould be less.

Many of the social and economic forces thatcause forestland development are beyond thecontrol of planners, managers, andpolicymakers. But policies can be used toinfluence the location and rate at whichdevelopment occurs. Policies can beregulatory—telling landowners where, when,and how they are allowed to develop. They alsocan be incentive-based, providing financial orother compensation to landowners who managetheir lands in socially desired ways. What typesof policies are appropriate in particularsituations depend on the socioeconomic factorsinfluencing development and society’swillingness to adopt particular measures.Because both of these can change over time,policymakers periodically may need toreevaluate their policy approaches.


94

Forestland development has been a persistentissue for planners and policymakers in Oregonwhere forests comprise 49% of the land area(Campbell et al., 2004) and the population grewby 69% from 1970 to 2003 (PopulationResearch Center 2005). Although southernstates increasingly provide a larger share of U.S.timber harvests—55% in 1996 compared to44% in 1986—the Pacific Northwest, includingOregon and Washington, remains a majortimber-producing region, over the past decadeaveraging 50 million cubic meters per year(Haynes 2003). Pacific Northwest forests,however, increasingly will be shared among morepeople. Oregon’s population, concentratedlargely in the Willamette Valley, is expected togrow by 53% by 2040 (Office of EconomicAnalysis 2004). Oregon’s approach to protectingforestland has been predominantly through itsland use planning program, zoning, property taxcode, and more recently the Forest ResourceTrust. Whether these policies will be sufficient toaddress population and development trends inthe future remains to be seen.

Support for forest carbon sequestration goals inOregon depends in part on understanding thefactors that influence forestland development,what trends and projections imply about futureforestland loss, and what policies may beappropriate, effective, and socially acceptable.This chapter draws upon a large body ofresearch conducted in Oregon and elsewhere todescribe forestland development causes andtrends, what they imply about future forestlanddevelopment in Oregon, what the potentialeffects might be for carbon sequestration, andwhat might be done about it.

Socioeconomic Factors

Forestland development results mostly fromincreasing human populations and incomes,economic growth, and people’s life-style choices.Growing populations, wealth and economicexpansion combine to increase demands forland in residential, commercial, industrial, andinfrastructure uses. Demands also increase with

lifestyle choices when, for example, people seekbigger homes on larger lots, or build secondhomes in scenic forest settings. When demandsfor developed land uses increase, so do landprices and the financial incentives for forestlandowners to sell.

Timber-producing landowners typically viewforestland as a source for timber and non-timberforest products demanded in local and globalmarkets. (Aronow et al., 2004). Forestlandmarket values are based on the land’s capacity toearn revenue from forest commodities, as well asits speculative value for development. Forestlandowners also may receive other non-commoditybenefits from their land, such as personalrecreation and aesthetic enjoyment, which alsocan be reflected in forestland market values.

Sometimes development may offer forestlandowners greater potential revenue than they canearn from maintaining land in forest, offering afinancial incentive to sell. It can be quite high.Development typically is at the top of aneconomic hierarchy of land uses (Alig andPlantinga 2004), such that forestry revenuesalone often do not justify owners keeping landin forest when development is an option. Whenthese market forces are in play, some forestlanddevelopment is inevitable.

Other socioeconomic changes also have aninfluence. Energy prices, for example, canaffect both demand for particular forestcommodities, including fuel wood, as well asdemand for developed land through their effecton commuting costs. Rising energy pricesenable some forestland owners to earnadditional income producing and sellingfirewood, which can favorably compete withdevelopment opportunities. If rising gasolineprices increase commuting costs, fewer peoplemay be willing to live in rural locations far fromtheir jobs. Regional and global markets forforest and other commodities affect the relativeprofitability of forestry, influencing how wellforestry can compete with development.


95

Socioeconomic changes also influence people’sdesire to protect forestland and other openspace. In many places of the U.S., urbanites aremigrating to rural areas seeking an improvedquality of life; they often have different attitudesabout forests than long-term rural residents(Egan and Luloff 2000). Often these attitudesfocus more on environmental amenities than onmanagement for timber production, and canlead to increasing political support forprotecting forestland and other open space. Asplaces become more populated and affluent,and forestland and other open space landsincreasingly are lost to development, peopletend to become more willing and able to affordprotecting remaining lands (Kline 2006).Studies in Oregon suggest that as the state hasbecome more populated and its residents moreurban, educated, wealthy, and politically liberal,and less affiliated with the timber industry,Oregonians have developed strongerenvironmental orientations toward forests(Schindler et al. 1993, Steel et al., 1994, Klineand Armstrong 2001).

Regionally for Oregon and Washingtoncombined, forestland declined by 1.5 millionacres from 1977 to 2002, almost 3% (Figure 1).Although this trend is consistent with otherregions in the U.S. that arelosing forestland, nationallyforestland area actuallyincreased by 5.3 millionacres (Smith et al., 2004).Much of this increaseresulted from pasture andagricultural land revertingback to forest, as well astree planting under stateand federal incentiveprograms (Smith et al.,2001). Of forestlands thatare lost, some are clearedfor agriculture, but mostare converted to developeduses (Natural ResourcesConservation Service

2001). Historically, most forestland sold fordevelopment was owned by nonindustrialprivate forest owners. These owners control themost U.S. forestland—363 million acres (48%).In Oregon and Washington combined they own11 million acres (21%). The gradual loss andfragmentation of forestland over time bringmore and more people living in greaterproximity to remaining forestlands. Currently,12% of U.S. forestland is located in majormetropolitan counties, and an additional 16% isin small or intermediate metropolitan counties(Smith et al., 2001).

Development in Oregon, as elsewhere, is aninevitable outcome of socioeconomic trends. Inaddition to the 69% increase in Oregon’spopulation since 1970, median householdincome rose by 26% after adjusting forinflation—about the same increase as for theU.S. (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2005). Higherincomes enable people to buy larger lots, biggerhouses, and afford second homes for vacation,rental, and retirement. Also, people are moreoften seeking out locations rich inenvironmental amenities. Central Oregon, forexample, is characteristic of the “new West”where natural resource industries increasinglyfind themselves sharing the landscape withgrowing numbers of tourists, outdoor

Figure 1


96

recreationists, and new residents attracted to thearea’s many environmental amenities (Judson etal., 1999). Central Oregon is recognizednationally as a desirable travel destination (e.g.,Laskin 2004, Preusch 2004). Many U.S. residentsview Oregon’s natural endowments—mountains,rivers, coast, and easy access to national forests—asstrong enticements to relocate.

Oregon still retains a significant amount offorestland and much of it is public-owned andconceivably off limits to development. Of morethan 30 million acres of forestland in the state,over 19 million (63%) are public-owned byfederal, state, county, or municipal entities. Theremaining 11 million acres (37%) are splitbetween forest industry with about 6 millionacres and non-industrial private owners withabout 5 million acres (Campbell et al., 2004).Non-federal-owned forestland has declined byabout 2% in western Oregon since the early1970s (Lettman 2002) and about 1% in easternOregon (Lettman 2004) mostly as a result oflow-density residential development. Moresignificant development has occurred onagricultural lands, particularly in westernOregon where they are located closer to existingcities and transportation corridors andagricultural land has declined by 7%. Mostrecent development in eastern Oregon has beenon rangelands (Lettman 2004). Much ofOregon’s forestlands is comparatively morebuffered from the effects of population growthand development by their relative geographicisolation, steep slopes, and poor accessibility.

Land use projections for Oregon andWashington combined suggest that forestlandarea will continue to decline in the region, witha projected 2.8 million acres (over 5%) lost by2050 (Alig et al., 2004). Although greater lossesare expected on nonindustrial privateforestlands than on forest industry-owned lands,the increasing transfer of lands from forestindustry owners to timber investmentmanagement organizations creates uncertainty.Some forestry professionals and policymakersfeel that investment management organizations

may manage lands on shorter time horizonsthan forest industry, and may give greaterconsideration to development.

More detailed development projections forwestern Oregon suggest relatively low tomoderate growth in development, largely at theexpense of agricultural lands (Kline 2005b).Major private-owned land uses in 2004 wereestimated to include 6.9 million acres ofrelatively undeveloped forestland with buildingdensities of 16 or fewer buildings per squaremile. Also included in the estimate were216,630 acres of additional forestlanddeveloped at relatively low densities of 17 to 64buildings per square mile (Table 1). Projectionssuggest that by 2024, undeveloped and low-density developed private forestland togetherwill decline only slightly, by about 19,000 acres.Greater development is forecast for agriculturallands, especially at low densities, with suchdevelopment projected to increase by almost6% (Table 1). While projections can providesome indication of what future land use changesmay be in Oregon they remain uncertain basedon the unpredictable future of land useplanning in the state and other factors.

Oregon’s Land Use Law

A panacea to some, a bane to others, Oregon’sland use planning program permeates mostOregonians’ views about development and theirability to control it. The program can be tracedto concerns over rapid population growth inwestern Oregon during the 1950s and 1960sand the associated loss of forest and farmlandsto development. Although existing legislationalready authorized local governments to manageurban growth, residential development outsideof incorporated cities was often unplanned andunregulated (Gustafson et al., 1982). Inresponse, Oregon’s legislature enacted the LandConservation and Development Act in 1973.Often referred to in Oregon as “the land uselaw,” it required all cities and counties toprepare comprehensive land use plans consistentwith several statewide goals, and established the


97

Land Conservation and DevelopmentCommission to oversee the program (Knaapand Nelson 1992, Abbott et al., 1994). It hasbeen cited as a pioneer in U.S. land use policyfor its statewide scope (Gustafson et al., 1982),has won national acclaim by the AmericanPlanning Association (Department of LandConservation and Development 1997), and hasserved as a model for statewide planning inother states (Abbott et al., 1994).

Among 19 program goals are the orderly andefficient transition of rural lands to urban uses,the protection of forests and agricultural lands,and the protection and conservation of naturalresources, scenic and historic areas, and openspaces which “promote a healthy environmentand natural landscape” (Department of LandConservation and Development 2004). Toadvance these goals, cities and counties mustfocus new development inside urban growth

boundaries, and restrict development outside ofthose boundaries by zoning land for exclusivefarm or forest use, or as “exception areas” (Pease1994). Exception areas are unincorporatedrural areas where low density residential,commercial, and industrial uses prevail, andwhere development is allowed pending approvalby local authorities (Einsweiler and Howe1994). Within urban growth boundaries, citiesare required to maintain a 20-year supply ofdevelopable land.

The land use law does not prevent forest andfarmland development, but rather restricts therate, location, and density at which it can occur.Some development within forest and farm usezones can be approved by local authorities butmust be reported to the Land Conservation andDevelopment Commission (Land Conservationand Development Commission 1996a, 1996b).Criteria defining such development vary across

Table 1.Estimated distribution of 2004 private forest and

agricultural lands in western Oregon among buildingdensity classes, and projected distribution in 2024

with and without land use zoning in effect

Dominant Total Number of buildings per square mile land use 0 to 16 17 to 64 >64

(undeveloped) (low-density) (developed)

Estimated for 2004: Acres

Forest 7,197,000 6,909,839 216,630 70,531

Agriculture 1,924,000 1,172,486 578,931 172,583

Mixed 774,000 597,141 140,404 36,455

Total 9,895,000 8,679,466 935,965 279,569

Projected 2024 (with zoning): Acres

Forest 7,197,000 6,906,241 200,796 89,963

Agriculture 1,924,000 1,168,060 546,224 209,716

Mixed 774,000 594,742 128,252 51,006

Total 9,895,000 8,669,043 875,272 350,685

Source: Kline (2005b).


98

counties, but generally include minimum parcelsizes and limits on the number of new dwellingpermits issued. Construction of personalresidences by commercial farmers and forestlandowners is allowed with some restrictions. By1986, land use plans had been acknowledged bythe Land Conservation and DevelopmentCommission for all 36 counties and 241 citiesin the state (Knaap 1994).

For many forest and farmland protectionadvocates, Oregon’s land use planning program isperceived as infallible—the primary factor thatmakes Oregon such a uniquely attractive place tolive. In reality, however, realizing measurableeffects from land use planning programs alone is arather slow process involving incremental changesin land use patterns over long periods of time.Whether forest and farm zones, and urban growthboundaries adopted with Oregon’s land useplanning program have been successful atconserving significant areas of forest and farmlandsomewhat depends on how you define success.

Resulting Protection

Research conducted by the USDA Forest Serviceestimated forest and farmland development withand without land use planning in western Oregonusing a statistical model and detailed datadescribing the numbers and locations of buildingsof all types (Kline 2005a). Estimates suggest thatfrom 1974 to 1994, Oregon’s land use planningsaved less than 1% of forestland from low-densitydevelopment (17 to 64 buildings per square mile),and about 0.5% percent from higher-densitydevelopment (64+ building per square mile). Foragricultural land, estimates suggest that from 1974to 1994, Oregon’s land use planning had savednearly 11% of agricultural land from low-densitydevelopment, and 3.5% from higher-densitydevelopment. For mixed forest/agricultural land,estimates suggest that just over 2% were savedfrom low-density development, and just over 3%from higher-density development (Kline 2005a).Whether the magnitudes of these estimates—andthey are only estimates—indicate that Oregon’s

land use planning program has been successful atprotecting forest and farmlands from developmentis open to interpretation. The estimates also mustbe considered in light of several caveats.

First, Oregon’s land use law was not intended tostop development, but rather to facilitate theorderly and efficient development of rural landswhile protecting forest and farmlands (Knappand Nelson 1992, Abbott et al., 1994). The lawallows forest and farmland development withinurban growth boundaries, and allows owners toconstruct personal residences and otherbuildings within forest and farm zones subjectto restrictions. Also, because urban growthboundaries were drawn around already existingcities, they tended to include those forest andfarmlands most likely to be developed. Thesefactors tend to reduce the magnitude of forestand farmland protection we might expect fromsuch a program.

Measure 37 and the Future

Oregon’s land use planning is not withoutdetractors. Since its inception, the program hascreated tension between its advocates, who seeland use planning as necessary to the long-termconservation of forest and farmlands, and itsdetractors, who argue that land use regulationsunduly burden private landowners (Oppenheimer2004b, 2004c). A recent result of that tension isMeasure 37—a ballot measure approved byOregon voters in November 2004. Measure 37requires the state to compensate landowners forproperty value losses resulting from land useregulations adopted after landowners purchasedtheir properties, or to waive regulations.Compensating affected landowners is viewed bymany planners and policymakers in the state asvirtually impossible because of the potentialexpense involved (Oppenheimer 2004a).Although this creates some uncertainty regardingthe continued enforcement of land use regulationson affected lands, enforcement will likely remainunchanged for most landowners whose land doesnot qualify for Measure 37 claims.


99

If land use zones were no longer enforced,projections suggest that 267,729 acres (3.7%) ofadditional forestland could be developed by2024 at low densities (17 to 64 buildings persquare mile), and 46,780 acres (0.7%) could bedeveloped at higher densities (64+ buildings persquare mile) (Table 2). Projections also suggestthat 387,878 acres (20.2%) of additionalagricultural land could be developed at lowdensities, and 282,828 acres (14.7%) could bedeveloped at higher densities. For mixed-forestand agricultural land, projections suggest that73,452 acres (9.5%) could be developed at lowdensities, and 37,927 acres (4.9%) could bedeveloped at higher densities (Table 2).Although neither scenario in its extreme—zoning remaining unchanged by Measure 37 orzoning made completely unenforceable—islikely, the projections suggest a set of boundsdescribing a range of future development.

At the time of this writing, significantuncertainty exists about the future outcome ofMeasure 37, for example, the degree to whichproperty loss claims will be upheld, who will beeligible to file such claims, and whether therights to develop land granted to selectlandowners by Measure 37 can be passed on tobuyers when land is sold. Related measures areproposed for future ballots, some of which, ifpassed, would strengthen Measure 37 objectives,while others would mitigate or counter them.Perhaps most certain is that some change isafoot in the way Oregonians will approachforestland protection in the future. Oregoniansgenerally see significant benefit in the forestsand other open space lands of their state.Statewide surveys typically indicate thatOregonians place a high value on clean air andwater, and the protection of wilderness andwildlife (e.g., Davis and Hibbits, Inc. 1999). Inone survey, Oregonians cited natural beauty and

Table 2.Projected distribution of 2004 private forest and agricultural lands in

western Oregon among building density classes in 2024 with andwithout land use zoning in effect

Dominant Total Number of buildings per square mile land use 0 to 16 17 to 64 >64

(undeveloped) (low-density) (developed)

With land use zoning, 2024: Acres

Forest 7,197,000 6,906,241 200,796 89,963

Agriculture 1,924,000 1,168,060 546,224 209,716

Mixed 774,000 594,742 128,252 51,006

Total 9,895,000 8,669,043 875,272 350,685

Without land use zoning, 2024: Acres

Forest 7,197,000 6,591,732 468,525 136,743

Agriculture 1,924,000 497,354 934,102 492,544

Mixed 774,000 483,363 201,704 88,933

Total 9,895,000 7,572,449 1,604,331 718,220

Source: Kline (2005b). Assumes Oregon’s land use planning program remains intact.


100

recreation opportunities as the attributes theymost value about living in the state (OregonBusiness Council 1993). How these attitudesand beliefs will combine with the apparent desireamong many residents for a new approach toland use planning remains to be seen.

Development Effects on Forests andForestry

Research suggests that forestland developmentcan influence forest structure and otherconditions in many ways, in addition to thedirect loss of tree cover and vegetation whenland is developed. Changes in forest structureand other conditions result from changes in theways in which remaining forestland ownersmanage their forestlands in response todevelopment-related factors. These includeparcelization, shifting management objectives,potential conflicts between timber-producingand nontimber-producing neighbors, andforestry as development draws near.

Parcelization

Parcelization—the breaking up of large forestparcels into smaller parcels—is thought toreduce the economic feasibility of forestryactivities, leading to less intensive managementof remaining forestlands (Mehmood and Zhang2001). Research suggests that managing severalsmall parcels can cost more than managingfewer larger parcels (e.g., Row 1978, Thompsonand Jones 1981, Cleaves and Bennett 1995).For this reason, forestland owners on smallertracts are thought to be less likely to managetheir land for commercial timber production.They may reduce their management activities orstop them altogether, conceivably leading tolower forest biomass and slower growth.

Changing Objectives of Owners

Residential forestland development is thoughtto lead to changes in the management objectivesof remaining forestland owners. Research

suggests that urbanites increasingly are movinginto rural areas seeking to improve their qualityof life. These new residents tend to valueforestland for its aesthetic and recreationalappeal rather than for timber production (Eganand Luloff 2000). Nonindustrial private forestowners, in particular, have long been noted fortheir tendency to base forest managementdecisions on nontimber values in addition to orin place of timber production (e.g., Binkley1981). An estimated 40% of nonindustrialprivate forestland owners in western Oregonand western Washington possess primarilyrecreation or passive ownership objectives ratherthan timber production objectives (Kline et al.,2000a, 2000b). These owners tend to ownsmaller parcels and are less likely to harvesttimber. If residential development on forestlandincreases the proportion of nonindustrial andother forest owners motivated more bynontimber values than by timber production,management of remaining forestland couldchange over time. Owners may reduce theirinvestments in thinning and planting, becomemore selective in their harvesting, or stopharvesting altogether.

Forest/Urban Conflicts

Some policymakers believe that the proximity ofresidential development to productiveforestlands causes conflict between those ownerswho continue forestry and new, more urban-minded residents. Such conflicts are thought toreduce forestry profitability by increasingvandalism of gates or logging equipment,trespass, and liability issues associated withequipment and forestry activities. Few studies,however, have documented such conflicts orlinked them to lower forest productivity.Research in Oregon finds little evidence thatpopulation density increased the likelihood offorest/urban conflicts, but did find thatestimated costs associated with forest/urbanconflicts are higher for smaller forest parcelsthan for large (Schmisseur et al., 1991).


101

Owners’ Expectations about FutureDevelopment

It is thought that the expectations of forestlandowners can change when development drawsnear, as owners ponder whether they might endup selling land for development themselves.Such expectations might deter forestryinvestment because they may see a limitedproductive future for their land. Remainingforestland owners may reduce or forego moreexpensive management activities and investmentopportunities as they anticipate continuedpopulation growth and eventual development(Wear et al., 1999). Some forestry professionalswarn that many of the problems developmentmay create for forestry—higher land prices,higher taxes, and greater regulation—extend farin advance of actual development, making itmore tempting to sell (DeCoster 2000).

The extent to which any of these factors mightcontribute to forestland development in specificareas can not be known with certainty. However,growing evidence suggests that forestland ownersdo tend to manage their lands differently withincreasing development. Research in the U.S.south indicates that owners are less likely tomanage for commercial timber production (Wearet al., 1999) and are less likely to harvest timber(Barlow et al., 1998, Munn et al., 2002) aspopulation density and urban proximity increase.Such trends over time could lead to changes inforest density, age class, species composition,successional stage, and other characteristics. InOregon, increasing building densities have beenlinked to some reductions in forest stocking, pre-commercial thinning, and post-harvest planting,but not to harvest likelihood (Kline et al.,2004b). One wonders, however, about thelikelihood of harvest on those forestlandsreceiving less intensive management—will thoseforestland owners have any interest in harvestingin the future?

Management Effects on Carbon

The many different types of managementactivities that forestland owners pursue can varyin their effects on stored carbon. Planting treeswhere there were none, replanting followingharvest, and interplanting understocked forestsgenerally increase stored carbon, as wouldfertilization that increases growth. Newly-planted or regenerating forests take up carbonfor 20 to 50 years or more depending on speciesand site conditions (Watson et al., 2000).However, other activities intended to improvetimber quality, such as thinning and pruning,are less certain in their net carbon effects(Murray et al., 2000: 9). Measuring the carbonsequestration effects of different activitiesconducted in specific locations is feasible (e.g.,Hoover et al., 2000) but current scientificliterature describing these effects is limited(Watson et al., 2000).

The net carbon sequestration effects ofharvesting also are uncertain and depend on theuse of harvested timber, which can continue tostore carbon for decades or centuries in solidwood products, for months or years in paperproducts, or nearly permanently in landfills. Italso can be burned as fuel, releasing carbon butalso offsetting the use of fossil fuels (Murray etal. 2000: 11). Carbon storage effects are evenmore ambiguous when one considers them inglobal contexts. For example, although reducedharvesting in Oregon forests might increasestored carbon in Oregon, the net effect onglobal carbon stocks depends on the degree towhich reductions in harvested timber in Oregonare replaced by increased harvesting elsewhere.Timber markets, after all, will respond toreductions in timber supplied from Oregonwith production from other sources to fulfillglobal timber demands.


102

Development Effects in the Pacific Northwest

To what degree forestland development willaffect private forest management in Oregon isnot known for certain. In 1993 private-ownedforestland in Oregon was held by an estimated166,200 companies and individuals (Birch1997) and that number has grown over time,suggesting that some parcelization probably isoccurring. However, development projectionsfor western Oregon, coupled with models offorestland owner behavior, suggest that futuredevelopment may not necessarily result indramatic reductions in forest management. Themost productive forestlands tend to begeographically isolated, steep, and poorlyaccessible, relative to many less productive landslocated closer to existing population centers andtransportation corridors where futuredevelopment is more likely (Kline and Alig2005). Greater uncertainty exists for easternOregon because there has been less research onthe effects of development there. So far,forestland development in eastern Oregon hasbeen relatively slow, but recent growth in placessuch as central Oregon bears watching(Lettman, 2004; Kline et al., in press).

In western Oregon, about 94% of privateforestlands are classified as timberland—capableof annually growing at least 20 cubic feet peracre of industrial wood. The remaining 6% areclassified as other forest, including oak savanna(Azuma et al., 2002). In 1994 nearly alltimberland (94%) comprised relatively lowbuilding densities of 16 buildings per squaremile or less (Figure 2). Projections suggest thata significant proportion (83%) will remain thesame through 2054 (Kline and Alig 2005). Arelatively lower proportion (86%) of otherforestland fell into the low building density classin 1994, and projections suggest thatproportion will decrease to 60% by 2054(Figure 3). Although other forestlands representa smaller proportion of all private land, theylikely will bear a greater share of futuredevelopment owing to their greater prevalencealong the edges of the Willamette Valley, wheremost development in western Oregon isexpected. Timberlands tend to be located moredistant from the Valley on steeper slopes and inless accessible areas of the Coast and CascadeRanges, which somewhat limits their economicpotential for more intensive developed uses. Anotable exception might be forestlandspossessing significant amenity values, such as

those along theOregon coast,which couldpresent attractivedevelopmentopportunities. Formore inlandtimberland,however, thecombination ofgreater earningpotential fromtimber productionand limitedaccessibility toWillamette Valleycities may counterdevelopmentpressures.

Private timberland by projected building density class,western Oregon, 1994 to 2054 (Kline and Alig, 2005).

Figure 2


103

Future forestland development also is morelikely to affect nonindustrial private-ownedforestlands more than industrial-owned lands.Nonindustrial lands are owned by farmers,Native American groups, and other privateowners (Azuma et al., 2002). In 1994, only17% of these forestlands had a density of morethan 16 buildings per square mile or less.Projections suggest that by 2054, that will

increase to 45%. (Figure 4 ). Industrialforestlands are owned by companies growingtimber for industrial uses including companieswith and without wood processing facilities. In1994 almost all industrial forestlands (98%) hadlow densities of 16 buildings per square mile orless. Projections indicate that by 2054, thedensity will remain almost the same (97%)

Private other forestland by projected building density class,western Oregon, 1994 to 2054 (Kline and Alig, 2005).

Figure 3

Figure 4

Nonindustrial forestland by projected building density class,western Oregon, 1994 to 2054 (Kline and Alig, 2005).

Printed with permission from Elsevier


104

(Figure 5 ). A current trend in forestlandownership is the transfer of land fromtraditional industry owners to timberinvestment management organizations. Thishas given rise to questions about whether or notthese organizations will manage forestlands onshorter rotations and include possible sale ofland for development among their variousmanagement options. These possibilities couldeventually bring the fate of those lands currentlyowned by industrial owners closer to that ofnonindustrial owners.

The net effects that development-relatedchanges in forest management will have oncarbon sequestration locally and globally areuncertain. Less intensive management—lowertree planting rates, for example—could lead tolower forest biomass and slower growing forests,conceivably reducing sequestration. However, ifgreater numbers of private forestland owners aremotivated by environmental concerns, they maybe more willing to pursue carbon sequestrationto benefit the environment and society, withrelatively little incentive beyond education andtechnical assistance. Forestland development inOregon is most likely to affect those landslocated near existing population centers andtransportation corridors. A significant portion

of private forestland, along with extensivepublic-owned forestlands, are likely to remainunaffected, at least for the foreseeable future.Only time can tell, however.

Policy Strategies for MaintainingForestlands

Addressing forestland development throughpublic policy is a persistent challenge. How dowe encourage private forestland owners tocontinue to provide valued forest benefits whendevelopment presents other opportunities?Here I outline some of the most commonapproaches used to protect forestland. Moredetailed discussion can be found in othersources (e.g., Bengston et al., 2004). Two issueshave the strongest influence on the success ofany policy aimed at protecting land fromdevelopment: (1) How well it addresses thesocioeconomic factors that motivate landownersto develop land; and (2) How well it balancesthe interests of private landowners with the landconservation interests of society as those factorschange over time. Protecting forestland fromdevelopment mostly entails utilizing regulationsor financial incentives to counter thesocioeconomic incentives landowners have todevelop—rising land values, increasing costs of

Industrial forestland by projected building density class,western Oregon, 1994 to 2054 (Kline and Alig, 2005).

Printed with permission from Elsevier

Figure 5


105

forestland ownership, decreasing profitability offorestry, for example. Regulations andincentives can also influence management, suchas cost-sharing particular activities. Educationand outreach can appeal to forestland owners’own conservation objectives. Differentapproaches can be successful in differentcircumstances and these can change over time.

Land Use Regulations and Zoning

Land use regulations such as zoning are amongthe most commonly adopted measures tocontrol land use and development. They areimplemented at state, county, and municipallevels throughout the U.S. Regulatoryapproaches, such as city and regional planning,most typically focus on controlling the pace anddensity of development. They had been lesscommonly used in the U.S. at broad scales toprotect forest and farmlands untilimplementation of comprehensive state andregional land use planning efforts such asOregon’s in 1973 and New Jersey’s PinelandsProtection Act of 1979, which covered 19% ofthat state. One advantage of regulatoryapproaches—Oregon’s land use planningprogram, for example—is that they generallycan be implemented and administered atrelatively low cost to governments whencompared to other land conservation methods.They may, however, be less effective over thelong term because of persistent tension betweensociety’s desire to both conserve land anduphold certain private property rights. For thisreason, policies that encourage the voluntaryparticipation of landowners in maintainingvalued forest benefits or compensate them forland use restrictions can be importantcomplements to regulation.

Preferential Taxation Programs

All states, for example, have preferentialprograms that reduce property taxes on private-owned forest and farmlands as long as they areenrolled. Most impose penalties when owners

withdraw the land. These programs attempt tolower the costs of maintaining land in forestsand farming by reducing the property taxes thatowners must pay. In Oregon, forestland ownerscan receive preferential assessment if they meet atwo-acre minimum parcel size as well asstocking and species standards. Oregon’sDepartment of Revenue conducts annualmarket studies of forestland sales to maintainaccurate estimates of the real market value offorestland in the state.

One disadvantage of preferential taxationprograms, which typically have a minimumacreage or some other criteria, is that they shiftproperty tax burdens from forest and farmlandowners to those owners whose land does notqualify. For this reason, property tax relief tendsto benefit larger (and conceivably wealthier)landowners. Arguably, non-qualifyinglandowners, like all members of the public,benefit from the forest and farmlandconservation effects of preferential taxationprograms. But policymakers and the greaterpublic must remember that those benefits comeat a cost to someone.

Another disadvantage of preferential taxationprograms is that they do not offer permanentprotection. At some point, as developmentexpands and land values increase, no measure ofproperty tax relief is going to keep somelandowners from selling their land; the financialpayoff is simply too high. For many, the valueof their forest and farmlands represents asignificant proportion of their wealth. Tappingthat wealth to finance retirement, children’seducation, or other needs often involves sellingland. If would-be purchasers view developmentas the highest and best use, sold land is likely tobe developed.

Purchase of Development Rights, Easements,Transferable Development Rights

Other policies—purchasing development rightsand easements, for example—address the desires


106

of some landowners to cash in on a portion oftheir forest and farmland wealth without having toresort to development (Wiebe et al., 1996).Purchasing development rights or conservationeasements generally involve paying a landowner topermanently give up their right to develop a parcelof land or agree to some maximum amount offuture development that would be allowed.Development restrictions become part of the deedand apply to all future owners. Althoughpurchasing development rights typically isadvocated for preserving farmland, it is equallyviable for protecting forestland. Another policy ispurchasing land “in fee simple”—the outrightpurchase of land by a government that either thenretains purchased land under public ownership orresells it with deed restrictions on futuredevelopment. One drawback of any of theseprograms is that you never know whetherparticipating landowners would have actuallydeveloped their land had they not been able to selldevelopment rights, easements, or land. It is notalways possible to identify those lands on whichdevelopment is imminent.

Numerous state, county, and municipal entitiespurchase development rights, easements, andland in fee simple for conservation purposes. Anexample of such an effort in Oregon is Portland’s$135.6 million open spaces bond measureapproved by voters in 1995. By 2006 theprogram had acquired more than 8,146 acres ofland for regional natural areas, trails andgreenways (Metro 2006). Another bond measureis planned for November 2006. The federalgovernment began providing funds to existingfarmland protection programs with themodestly-funded federal Farmland ProtectionProgram included in the 1996 Farm Bill. TheUSDA Forest Service’s Forest Legacy Programprovides funds to protect forestland. In Oregon,2005 legislation allows cities and counties tocreate nonprofit Community Forest Authoritiesable to finance forestland purchases by issuingbonds that can be repaid with timber revenueearned from purchased land (Postrel 2005).

Compensating landowners for developmentrestrictions through purchasing developmentrights, easements, and land in fee simple generallyis more acceptable to landowners than regulatoryapproaches, and can offer more permanentprotection than preferential taxation programs.They do, however, tend to come at greater expensebecause the costs of compensation generally rise asforest and farmlands come under greater threat ofdevelopment. The significant expense of suchprograms tends not to be palatable to taxpayersuntil the potential loss of valued lands becomesimminent and the public sufficiently committedto its protection. Research suggests that publicwillingness to adopt public-financed forest andfarmland protection programs is more prevalent infaster-growing and more densely populated placeswhere open space lands are being lost, causing thepublic to demand their protection (Kline andWichelns 1994, Solecki et al., 2004, Kline 2006).Whether socioeconomic trends in Oregon willeventually lead to greater use of such programs inlight of Measure 37 remains to be seen.

Less common, though frequently advocated, aretransferable development rights programs, whichare designed to encourage a shift in growth awayfrom protected lands to areas where protectionconcerns are not a factor. Landowners areempowered to sell their development rights topurchasers who may then use those rights tobuild in designated growth areas at higher-than-allowable densities. In this way, land use planningis combined with development rights trading.Although appealing as a means to financepermanent forest and farmland protection, theprogram’s success depends on the right balance ofbuilding density and financial incentives. Thiscan be a tricky undertaking in the politicalenvironment of land use planning. Interest haspersisted, however, and attempts at using theseprograms appear to be growing. Perhaps themost notable of such efforts near Oregon is theTransfer of Development Rights Program in KingCounty, Washington.


107

Private Land Preservation and Land Trusts

Also of interest are private non-profitorganizations, such as the Nature Conservancyand Trust for Public Land, as well as numerousland trusts that focus on preserving land inparticular municipalities, watersheds, or regions.Private land preservation usually involvespurchasing conservation easements or land infee simple. Donations of easements and land toqualified conservation organizations are eligibleas charitable contribution deductions for federalincome tax purposes, providing incentives togift all or a portion of protected lands. TheInternal Revenue Service defines “conservationpurposes” as preserving land for outdoorrecreation, protection of natural habitat andecosystems, or preserving open space for scenicenjoyment or historic preservation, or any otherobjective consistent with federal, state, or localconservation policy (Land Trust Alliance 1990).Easements also may specify additionaldirectives, such as limits on certain forestrypractices or guarantees of public access forcertain types of recreation (Land Trust Alliance2001).

Data for Oregon indicate 16 land trustsoperating in 2003 with 5,200 acres owned,174,337 acres under easement, and 20,606acres protected by other means, for a total of200,143 acres of protected land (Land TrustAlliance 2004). This is in addition to ongoingactivity by national organizations such as theNature Conservancy and Trust for Public Land.Zumwalt Prairie in northeast Oregon, forexample, is the Nature Conservancy’s largestacquisition in Oregon at 27,000 acres and alsois North America’s largest remaining grasslandof its type (The Nature Conservancy 2006). Arecent acquisition of the Trust for Public Land isa conservation easement on the 11,400-acreDrew’s Valley Ranch in south central Oregon,subsequently transferred to the OregonRangeland Trust for long-term management(Trust for Public Land 2006b). A growingtrend in nonprofit land conservation is

cooperation between nonprofits and publicentities. In 2005 in Oregon, for example, theTrust for Public Land acquired the first 17 acresof a planned 119-acre park along theWillamette River and subsequently transferredownership to the City of Keizer (Trust forPublic Land 2006a).

Forest Legacy Program

Partnering also can involve the federalgovernment. The Forest Legacy Program(created in 1978, re-amended in 1996) is avoluntary private land conservation programamong the USDA Forest Service, states, landtrusts, and private landowners, where cost-sharing is leveraged by federal financialassistance (Forest Legacy Program 2002). From1992 through 2001, Forest Legacy Programfunds contributed to purchasing conservationeasements on 125,163 acres of forestland in 16states, totaling $68 million or about $546 peracre nationally. The program has also protectedan additional 26,295 acres of forestland throughin fee simple purchase or combinations of in feesimple and conservation easement purchase, at acost of $36 million. Oregon’s legislatureauthorized the state to begin participating in theForest Legacy Program in 2005 on lands locatedwithin urban growth boundaries. Initialprojects are planned for the 2007 federal fiscalyear (Oregon Department of Forestry 2006b).

Ecosystem Services Compensation

Compensating forestland owners for ecologicalservices produced on their lands — throughincreased forest commodity prices and directeconomic incentives — is another approachgaining interest among some policymakers (e.g.,Collins 2005). Owners would be induced toretain forestland by the creation of markets forthe ecosystem services their lands produce forpublic benefit—prevention of soil erosion,water filtration, mitigation of droughts andflooding, and maintenance of wildlife habitatand healthy waterways, for example. Whether


108

such compensation actually could reduceforestland development in the U.S. is uncertain.Methods for measuring ecosystem serviceswould have to be developed, and success woulddepend on how much consumers or taxpayerswould be willing to pay in higher prices forforest commodities and higher taxes to fundeconomic incentives. Some forestryprofessionals (e.g., Binkley 2001) suggest thattechnological innovation, tree planting, and theglobal transition from extensive forestry toplantations will greatly increase productivity inthe near future. Much less forestland may beneeded to supply world forest commoditydemand. Whether consumers would be willingto pay higher prices for U.S. forest commoditiesin a global market potentially characterized byover-production is uncertain. Ever-increasingprices for developed lands do not improve theprospects. There also is the question of whethertaxpayers would support compensatingforestland owners for what some may viewsimply as good forest stewardship.

Programs to Increase Sequestered Carbon —Cost Shares, Direct Payments, CarbonMarkets

Other related policies would induce remainingforestland owners to manage forests specificallyfor net increases in sequestered carbon. Treeplanting, as well as fertilization, generally willprovide net increases in stored carbon over time,but as previously noted, the net effects of otheractions—harvesting, thinning, and pruning, forexample—are more ambiguous. Activities thatreduce the likelihood of extensive orcatastrophic wildfires reduce the chances thatstored carbon would be released by wildfires.Also as previously noted, the net affects ofdifferent forestry activities can vary dependingon whether they are considered in a local versusglobal context.

Cost-shares, and comparable forms ofassistance, can encourage willing forestlandowners to conduct particular forestry activities.Federal programs such as the Forestry Incentives

Program, the Conservation Reserve Program,and the Forest Land Enhancement Programhave offered cost-share assistance to landownerswilling to plant trees or thin stands to improveconditions. Many states also have their ownprograms. Oregon’s Department of Forestryoffers cost-share assistance to landownersinterested in developing Forest StewardshipPlans and advises landowners about the variousstate and federal forestry incentive programsavailable to them. Oregon’s Forest ResourceTrust’s Stand Establishment Program offers cost-sharing and technical assistance to landownerswilling to establish trees on marginalagricultural and rangelands or improve standconditions on abandoned or poorly stockedforestlands.

Some private nonprofit organizations also offerdirect financial incentives to landowners willingto pursue conservation activities. The NatureConservancy, for example, offers annualpayments to forestland owners in Virginia tocurtail logging, with the resulting “forest bank”managed using an ecosystem-based approachthat includes limited timber harvest (Dedrick etal., 2000). Such financial incentives, along withlandowner education and technical assistance,could be crafted to focus on carbonsequestration objectives. Research conducted inOregon and Washington suggests thatconservation objectives may be consistent withthe interests of many nonindustrial privateforestland owners in both states (Kline et al.,2000a, 2000b). Whether the potential gains insequestered carbon would be worth the expenseof administering financial incentives, education,and technical assistance is uncertain.

Carbon markets are another approach. Suchmarkets (also called carbon trading) enableforestland owners to sell “carbon credits” toindustries or other entities whose activitiesproduce carbon emissions in excess of allowablelimits. The opportunity to sell carbon creditsprovides forestland owners an economicincentive to conduct activities that result in netincreases in sequestered carbon. Carbon and


109

similar markets are growing and they are widelyadvocated as a leading policy tool for meetingKyoto Protocol treaty obligations to reducegreenhouse gases (e.g., Henri 2000). Oregon’sForest Resource Trust operates similar to acarbon market by cost-sharing carbonsequestration activities on private lands usingfunds provided by a utility company inexchange for future carbon emission offsets(Cathcart 2000). The recent Oregon HouseBill 2200 authorizes Oregon’s State Forester toestablish a more formal carbon market on behalfof nonfederal forestland owners in the state,which also will be administered by Oregon’sForest Resource Trust (Oregon Department ofForestry 2006a).

The Limits of Policies

There can be limits to what can be achieved inincreased carbon sequestration through publicand private forestland protection. Land usepolicies and programs usually emerge frompolitical processes that involve concession andcompromise, and while they may make sense intheory, what emerges may not always provideideal solutions. Land-use regulations generallyrestrict land to broad use classes, often withoutregard to forest conditions. Regulations also arelimited by what courts will allow under takingsprovisions of the U.S. Constitution.Preferential taxation programs generally do notdifferentiate between lands of significant socialvalue—carbon sequestration potential, forexample—and lands of little value. Neitherregulations nor preferential taxation programsoffer permanent protection. Purchasingdevelopment rights, easements and land in feesimple can yield more lasting protection, buttend to be expensive and limited to willingsellers. Protecting particular forestlandspermanently may be unnecessary if those landshave little development potential or landownersare unlikely to develop. Policymakers mustcontinually weigh the effectiveness, costs, andequity considerations of different policies whendevising and revising conservation strategies.

The Future

Development in the U.S. accelerated in the1990s and projections suggest substantial newdevelopment through 2025 (Alig et al., 2004).Many states have considered smart growthpolicies and other approaches to address whatsome policymakers see as undesirable urbansprawl at the expense of valued forest andfarmlands. Despite these efforts, a largerpopulation spread across a fixed land base willresult in higher population densities on manyforest landscapes. How these trends will affectOregon remains to be seen. Givencomparatively slow rates of forestlanddevelopment in Oregon’s recent past, it istempting to suggest that future changes mayalso be relatively slow. But there might beunforeseen factors that have the potential todraw more significant development in thefuture—even greater in-migration of peopleattracted to Oregon’s wealth of environmentalamenities, for example. There are also likelychanges afoot with land use planning asOregonians grapple to define an outcome forMeasure 37.

Forestland development is influenced not justby rates and patterns of population growth, butby geography, economics, inherent siteproductivity, environmental amenities, andlandowners, among other factors. Much ofOregon’s forestlands so far have been bufferedfrom the effects of development by their relativegeographic isolation, steep slopes, and pooraccessibility. What effects forestlanddevelopment might have in Oregon and theattention they warrant from policymakers willdepend on what lands will be affected in thefuture. Economic and ecological characteristicsvary across the landscape, resulting in a range ofimplications that depend on the locations anddensities at which development will occur. Theeffects of development on timber production sofar appear to be relatively small because themost productive forestlands and ownershipshappen to be those least affected bydevelopment. While public policies can


110

influence some of the factors causing forestlanddevelopment, the socioeconomic forces thataccompany population growth—increaseddemand for housing, commercial and industrialsites, and public infrastructure—persist andexert strong pressures in land markets favoringdevelopment.

Successful implementation of any policyapproach to protecting forestland andenhancing carbon sequestration will depend ona variety of circumstances that can change overtime. Since 1973, Oregon’s approach toforestland protection has relied mostly on landuse planning, by designating particular lands asforest where development is greatly restricted.Oregon’s program was implemented at a timewhen the production of timber and other forestproducts generated greater economic activityrelative to other sectors than today, and risingagricultural export demands provided strongincentives to farmers to keep farming. Yearssince have brought new industries, more people,and new attitudes among Oregonians towardforests. A timely question to consider iswhether Oregon’s continued reliance on landuse planning to protect forest and farmlandremains consistent with these changes.

If Measure 37 did nothing else it may haveforced an opportunity for Oregonians toconsider the ways in which they now value theirlandscapes and how to best secure them forfuture generations. Until recently Oregoniansseem to have viewed land use planning assomewhat of a permanent fix to forest andfarmland development—the envy of plannersand policymakers in other states. What theymight find, however, is that land use planningmay be just one step in a longer process ofaddressing land use change—a process thatinevitably may involve an evolution of policyover time that is not unique to Oregon. Landuse planning likely will still play a prominentrole in Oregon’s future, but other approaches toforest and farmland protection may need to beconsidered. The future will depend on thewillingness of Oregonians to investigate andevaluate potential outcomes of different policies,and consider new policies in their quest for adesired balance of forestland protection anddevelopment.


111

Abbott, C., D. Howe, and S. Adler. 1994.Introduction. In C. Abbott, D. Howe, and S.Adler (Eds.) Planning the Oregon way. OregonState University Press, Corvallis, OR. 328 p.

Alig, R. J., J. D. Kline, and M. Lichtenstein,2004. Urbanization on the US landscape:looking ahead in the 21st century. Landscapeand Urban Planning 69(2-3):219-234.

Alig, R.J. and A.J. Plantinga. 2004. Futureforestland area: impacts from population growthand other factors that affect land values. Journalof Forestry 102(8):19-24.

Aronow, M.E., C.S. Binkley, and C.L.Washburn. 2004. Explaining timberland valuesin the United States. Journal of Forestry102(8):14-18.

Azuma, D. L., L. F. Bednar, B. A. Hiserote, andC. F. Veneklase, 2002. Timber resource statisticsfor western Oregon, 1997. Resource BulletinPNW-RP-237. U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Pacific NorthwestResearch Station, Portland, OR. 120 p.

Barlow, S. A., I. A. Munn, D. A. Cleaves, and D.L. Evans, 1998. The effect of urban sprawl ontimber harvesting. Journal of Forestry 96:10-14.

Bengston, D.N., J.O. Fletcher, and K.C.Nelson. 2004. Public policies for managingurban growth and protecting open space: Policyinstruments and lessons learned in the UnitedStates. Landscape and Urban Planning 69(2-3):271-286.

Binkley, C.S. 1981. Timber supply from privatenonindustrial forests. Bulletin No. 92, School ofForestry and Environmental Studies, YaleUniversity. 97 p.

Binkley, C. 2001. With nothing to lose, is ittime to try change in BC? Logging andSawmilling Journal Dec 2000/Jan 2001.Birch, T., 1997. Private forestland owners of thewestern United States, 1994. Res. Bul. NE-137.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Northeast Forest Experiment Station, Radnor,PA. 249 p.

Campbell, S., O. Dunham, and D. Azuma.2004. Timber resource statistics for Oregon.Resource Bulletin PNW-RB-242. U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland,OR. 67 p.

Cathcart, J.F. 2000. Carbon sequestration.Journal of Forestry 98(9):32-37.

Cleaves, D.A. and M. Bennett. 1995. Timberharvesting by nonindustrial private forestlandowners in western Oregon. Western Journalof Applied Forestry 10:66-71.

Collins, S. 2005. Putting natural capital towork. Speech addressed to the EcosystemServices Conference, May 18, Washington, DC.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Washington, DC. http://www.fs.fed.us/news/2005/speeches/05/capital-work.shtml . (29September 2005).

Davis and Hibbits, Inc. 1999. Oregoniansdiscuss forest values, management goals andrelated issues. Report prepared for OregonForest Resources Institute, Portland, OR. 19 pp.

DeCoster, L.A., 2000. Summary of the forestfragmentation 2000 conference: how forests arebeing nibbled to death by DUCs, and what todo about it (pp. 2-12). In: L.A. DeCoster (Ed.),Proceedings of the Forest Fragmentation 2000Conference. Sampson Group, Inc., Alexandria,VA. 382 p.

Literature Cited


112

Dedrick, J.P., T.E. Hall, R.B. Hull, and J.E.Johnson. 2000. The forest bank: An experimentin managing fragmented forests. Journal ofForestry 98(3):22-25.

Department of Land Conservation andDevelopment. 1997. Shaping Oregon’s future:biennial report for 1995-97 from Oregon’sDepartment of Land Conservation andDevelopment to the Sixty-ninth LegislativeAssembly. Oregon Department of LandConservation and Development, Salem, OR.

Department of Land Conservation andDevelopment. 2004. Oregon’s statewideplanning goals and guidelines. OregonDepartment of Land Conservation andDevelopment, Salem, OR.

Egan, A.F. and A.E. Luloff. 2000. Theexurbanization of America’s forests: Research inrural social science. Journal of Forestry98(3):26-30.

Einsweiler, R.C. and D.A. Howe. 1994.Managing ‘the land between’: a ruraldevelopment paradigm. In C. Abbott, D. Howe,and S. Adler (Eds.) Planning the Oregon Way.Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.328 p.

Forest Legacy Program. 2002. Forest LegacyProgram national report for 2001. Misc. Pub.FS-729. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgricultural, Forest Service. 92 p.

Gustafson, G.C., T.L. Daniels, and R.P. Shirack.1982. The Oregon land use act: implications forfarmland and open space protection. Journal ofthe American Planning Association 48(3):365-373.

Haynes, R.W. (Technical Coordinator), 2003.An analysis of the timber situation in the UnitedStates: 1952 to 2050: a technical documentsupporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPAAssessment. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-560. U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Pacific Northwest ResearchStation, Portland, OR. 254 p.

Henri, C. 2000. Carbon offset projects—opportunities for landowners. NorthwestWoodlands 16(3)8-11.

Hoover, C.M., R.A. Birdsey, L.S. Heath, and S.L.Stout. 2000. How to estimate carbonsequestration on small forest tracts. Journal ofForestry 98(9):13-19.

Judson, D.H., Reynolds-Scanlon, S., Popoff,C.L. 1999. Migrants to Oregon in the 1990’s:Working age, near-retirees, and retirees makedifferent destination choices. Rural DevelopmentPerspectives 14:24-31.

Kline, J.D. 2005a. Forest and farmlandconservation effects of Oregon’s (USA) land useplanning program. Environmental Management35(4):368-380.

Kline, J.D. 2005b. Predicted forest and farm landdevelopment in western Oregon with andwithout land-use zoning in effect. Res. NotePNW-RN-548. Portland, OR: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific NorthwestResearch Station. 16 p.

Kline, J.D. 2006. Public demand for preservinglocal open space. Society and Natural Resources19(7):645659.

Kline, J.D. and R.J. Alig. 2005. Forestlanddevelopment and private forestry with examplesfrom Oregon. Forest Policy and Economics7(5):709-720.


113

Kline, J.D., R.J. Alig, and R.L. Johnson, 2000a.Forest owner incentives to protect riparianhabitat. Ecological Economics 33:29-43.

Kline, J.D., R.J. Alig, and R.L. Johnson, 2000b.Fostering the production of nontimber servicesamong forest owners with heterogeneousobjectives. Forest Science 46:302-311.

Kline, J.D. and C. Armstrong. 2001. Autopsy ofa forestry ballot initiative: characterizing votersupport for Oregon’s Measure 64. Journal ofForestry 99(5):20-27.

Kline, J.D., D.L. Azuma, and R.J. Alig, 2004b.Population growth, urban expansion, and privateforestry in western Oregon. Forest Science50:33-43.

Kline, J.D., A. Moses, G. Lettman, and D.L.Azuma. In press. Modeling forest and rangelanddevelopment in rural locations, with examplesfrom eastern Oregon. Landscape and UrbanPlanning.

Kline, J. and D. Wichelns. 1994. Usingreferendum data to characterize public supportfor purchasing development rights to farmland.Land Economics 70(2):223-233.

Knaap, G. 1994. Land use politics in Oregon. InC. Abbott, D. Howe, and S. Adler (Eds.)Planning the Oregon Way. Oregon StateUniversity Press, Corvallis, OR. 328 p.

Knaap, G. and A.C. Nelson. 1992. The regulatedlandscape: lessons on state land use planningfrom Oregon. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy,Cambridge, MA. 243 p.

Land Conservation and DevelopmentCommission. 1996a. Exclusive farm use report,1994-1995. Oregon Department of LandConservation and Development, Salem, OR.

Land Conservation and DevelopmentCommission. 1996b. Forest use report, 1994-1995. Oregon Department of LandConservation and Development, Salem, OR.

Land Trust Alliance. 1990. Appraising easements:Guidelines for valuation of historic preservationand land conservation easements. Washington,DC: Land trust Alliance. 82 p.

Land Trust Alliance. 2001. Working forestconservation easements. Washington, DC: Landtrust Alliance. 45 p.

Land Trust Alliance. 2004. 2003 Land TrustAlliance census tables. Washington, DC: Landtrust Alliance. World Wide Web: http://www.lta.org/census_tables.htm (accessed 3-2-06).

Laskin, D. 2004. A town that’s more than apretty face. New York Times, March 7.Lettman, G.J. (coordinator). 2002. Land usechange on non-federal land in western Oregon,1973-2000. Oregon Department of Forestry,Salem, OR. 48 p.

Lettman, G.J. (coordinator). 2004. Land usechange on non-federal land in eastern Oregon,1973-2001. Oregon Department of Forestry,Salem, OR. 42 p.

Mehmood, S.R. and D. Zhang, 2001. Forestparcelization in the United States: a study ofcontributing factors. Journal of Forestry 99:30-34.

Metro. 2006. 1995 bond measure. Metro,Portland, OR. World Wide Web: http://www.lta.org/census_tables.htm (accessed6-19-06).

Munn, I.A., S.A. Barlow, D.L. Evans, and D.Cleaves, 2002. Urbanization’s impact on timberharvesting in the south central United States.Journal of Environmental Management 64:65-76.


114

Murray, B., S.P. Prisley, R.A. Birdsey, and R.N.Sampson. 2000. Carbon sinks in the KyotoProtocol. Journal of Forestry 98(9):6-11.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001.Natural resource inventory. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Agriculture. 78 p.

Office of Economic Analysis, 2004. Forecasts ofOregon’s county populations and components ofchange, 2000-2004. Department ofAdministrative Services, Salem, OR.

Oppenheimer, L. 2004a. Governor: pay for landrules. Portland Oregonian. November 17; http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1100696287146760.xml. (accessed 3-25-05).

Oppenheimer, L. 2004b. Initiative reprises landbattle. Portland Oregonian. September 20;http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1095681480156700.xml. (accessed3-25-05).

Oppenheimer, L. 2004c. The people: landownerstake sides on Measure 37. Portland Oregonian.October 7; http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/109715027827560.xml.(accessed 3-25-05).

Oregon Department of Forestry. 2006a. Globalclimate change: how forests in Oregon can helpby providing forestry carbon offsets. OregonDepartment of Forestry, Salem, OR. WorldWide Web: http://egov.oregon.gov/ODF/PRIVATE_FORESTS/docs/TFACarbon.pdf(Accessed 4-11-06).

Oregon Department of Forestry. 2006b. P&CFprogram update—January 2006. OregonDepartment of Forestry, Salem, OR. WorldWide Web: http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/PRIVATE_FORESTS/pcfupdate.shtml(Accessed 3-2-06).

Oregon Business Council. 1993. Oregon valuesand beliefs: summary. Oregon BusinessCouncil, Portland, OR. 39 pp.

Pease, J.R. 1994. Oregon rural land use: policyand practices. In Carl Abbott, Deborah Howe,and Sy Adler (Eds.) Planning the Oregon Way.Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.328 pp.

Population Research Center. 2005. 2004Oregon population report. College of Urbanand Public Affairs, Portland State University,Portland, OR. 25 p.

Postrel, D. 2005. 2005 legislative roundup.Forest Log: Newsletter of the OregonDepartment of Forestry 75(3):13-15.

Preusch, M. 2004. Journeys: 36 hours: Bend,Ore. New York Times, October 15.

Row, C. 1978. Economies of tract size in timbergrowing. Journal of Forestry 78:576-582.

Schindler, B., P. List, and B. S. Steel. 1993.Managing federal forests: public attitudes inOregon and nationwide. Journal of Forestry91(7):36-42.

Schmisseur, W.E., D. Cleaves, and H. Berg,1991. Farm and Forest Land Research Project:Task Three: Survey of Farm and ForestOperators on Conflicts and Complaints.Oregon Department of Land Conservationand Development, Salem, OR. 43 p.

Smith, W.B., P.D. Miles, J.S. Vissage, S.A. Pugh.2004. Forest resources of the United States,2002. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-241. U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, NorthCentral Research Station, St. Paul, MN. 137 p.


115

Smith, W.B., J.S. Vissage, D.R. Darr, and R.M.Sheffield. 2001. Forest resources of the UnitedStates, 1997. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-219. U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, NorthCentral Research Station, St. Paul, MN. 190 p.

Solecki, W.D. R.J. Mason, and S. Martin. 2004.The geography of support for open-spaceinitiatives: a case study of New Jersey’s 1998ballot measure. Social Science Quarterly85(3):624-639.

Steel, B. S., P. List, and B. Shindler. 1994.Conflicting values about federal forests: acomparison of national and Oregon publics.Society and Natural Resources 7(2):137-153.

The Nature Conservancy. 2006. Places weprotect. The Nature Conservancy, Washington,DC. World Wide Web: http://nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/oregon/preserves/ (accessed 3-1-06).

Thompson, R.P. and J. G. Jones. 1981.Classifying nonindustrial private forestland bytract size. Journal of Forestry 81:288-291.

Trust for Public Land. 2006a. 17 acres onWillamette River protected for park. Trust forPublic Land, Washington, DC. World WideWeb: http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=20197&folder_id=263(accessed 3-1-06).

Trust for Public Land. 2006b. 11,400-acreKlamath Valley ranch protected. Trust forPublic Land, Washington, DC. World WideWeb: http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=15755&folder_id=263(accessed 3-1-06).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. Table S1. Medianhousehold income by state: 1969, 1979, 1989,and 1999. Department of Commerce,Washington, DC. World Wide Web: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/state/state1.html (accessed 2-17-06).

Watson, R.T., I.R. Noble, B. Bolin, N.H.Ravindranath, D.J. Verardo, and D.J. Dokken,eds. 2000. Special report on land use, land usechange, and forestry. Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change. Geveva, Switzerland:Cambridge University Press.

Wear, D.N., R. Lui, J.M. Foreman, and R.Sheffield, 1999. The effects of populationgrowth on timber management and inventoriesin Virginia. Forest Ecology and Management118:107-115.

Wiebe, K., A. Tegene, and B. Kuhn. 1996.Partial interests in land: policy tools for resourceuse and conservation. Agricultural EconomicsReport AER-744. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture, EconomicsResearch Service. 59 p.

Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings Chapter Seven

116

Introduction

■ Wood products can reduce significantly-increasing greenhouse gases through:

■ Storing carbon in forest, building products,and landfills.

■ Substituting wood for fossil fuel-intensiveproducts like steel and concrete.

■ Using wood as fuel instead of fossil fuels.

Measure of Wood Products’Performance

■ Global warming potential can be measuredin terms of the CO

2 equivalent amount of

carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxideemissions released into the atmosphere.

■ Carbon and global warming potentialreduction can be calculated for sequestrationand product and fuel substitution.

Environmental Performance ofWood Products

■ Performance data for most products wasdocumented by CORRIM.

■ Building materials were studied in housesfor a warm and cold climate.

The Dynamic Effects of VariousManagement Scenarios

■ Carbon storage in forests. In one study,taking “no action” rather than harvestingstored more carbon.

■ Carbon storage considering forests, woodproducts, and concrete substitution.Collectively a 45-year harvest cycle, woodproducts and substitution for non-wood

products stored more carbon than the “noaction” managed forest scenario.

■ Carbon storage in houses. Wood-framedhouses store more carbon than steel-framedor concrete-framed houses.

■ Carbon storage in U.S. housing stock.Annual home construction using woodproducts prevent millions of metric tons ofCO

2 from being in the atmosphere.

Wood Fuel Use Reduces GlobalWarming

■ When wood is substituted for fossil fuels,less of harmful CO

2 is released.

■ In the Pacific Northwest, wood generatesabout 43% of the total energy in theproduction of wood products from seedlingto product.

Ways to Foster Increased Use ofWood Products and Wood Fuel

■ New practices, policies, research, incentivesand education are needed.

■ Carbon markets are developing to trade thewood industry’s greenhouse gas assets.

Summary

■ Wood should be a material of choice forbuilding green.

■ Policies and practices are needed to promotethe use of wood to reduce global warming.

CHAPTER SEVENHIGHLIGHTS:

USING WOOD PRODUCTS

TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING

Chapter Seven Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings

117

CHAPTER SEVENUSING WOOD PRODUCTS

TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING

James B. Wilson

Introduction

Global warming can be attributed to twofactors, those that occur naturally andthose that may be human-induced.

The exact contribution of each has not beendetermined, but it is evident that global warminghas increased due to record greenhouse gases withthe advent of the Industrial Revolution. If thepredictions of global warming effects come true,the way many of us live will be impacted.

Greenhouse gases released to and trapped in theatmosphere cause global warming (IPCC 2001).The greatest contributors are three gases that areboth naturally-occurring and human-induced:carbon dioxide (CO

2), methane (CH

4), and

nitrous oxide (N2O). These three are released

into the atmosphere at various stages of anyproduct’s or material’s life cycle. For a woodproduct’s life cycle, the stages proceed from theplanting or natural regeneration of trees, throughharvesting, product manufacturing, homeconstruction, home use and maintenance, andend-life, where wood products are landfilled,burned or recycled. Water vapor is alsoconsidered a greenhouse gas, but is not usuallyincluded in impact assessments because itscontribution is not fully understood.

This chapter examines wood products as abuilding material for home construction, andhow this appears to reduce greenhouse gases inthe atmosphere, and in turn, reduce globalwarming. The ways that the use of wood canreduce greenhouse gases include storing carbonin forest and wood products, by substitutingwood products for fossil fuel-intensive productssuch as steel and concrete, and by using wood asfuel instead of fossil fuels. If the dire predictionsof global warming effects are true, bold action in

the form of practice, policy, research andeducation is needed to economically address thereduction of greenhouse gases. Increased use ofwood products represents a partial solution tothis major concern.

Dramatic Increase of GreenhouseGases

Measured levels of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide,and methane in ice cores reveal that greenhousegases are at the highest level of concentration inthe past 650,000 years (Brook 2005). The last200 years, with the onset of the IndustrialRevolution, have brought a dramatic increase,and can be attributed to human activity throughthe combustion of fuels and related practices.

Throughout the past 650,000 years, the threesignificant gases have all cycled periodically, buthave dramatically increased in the past 200 years.Carbon dioxide, previously cycling from about180 ppm (parts per million) to 300 ppm, hasincreased to about 375 ppm. Nitrous oxideperiodically cycled from 200 and 280 ppb (partsper billion), but now has increased to 320 ppb,while methane, which previously cycled from400 to 700 ppb, has increased the most — toabout 1750 ppb. The alarming trend ofincreasing concentrations of greenhouse gasesneeds to be slowed or stopped if global warmingis to be abated (Flannery 2006).

Formula for Wood Products’Performance

Emissions of these three gases provide a useful,quantitative way to measure and compare theenvironmental performance of wood productsand other materials, and their relationship toglobal warming. Carbon dioxide is used as a


118

reference standard to determine the globalwarming potential of a gas. The heat-absorbing ability of nitrous oxide and methaneare compared to the CO

2 equivalent. The

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC 2001) uses a 100-year horizon toestimate the atmospheric reactivity or stabilityof each of these gases; they can be used toestablish a Global Warming Potential Index(GWPI) based on a CO

2 equivalent which is

defined as:

GWPI (kg CO2) = CO

2 kg + (CH

4 kg x 23) +

(N2O kg x 296)

This formula can be applied to the life cycle ofwood products and comparison materials, tocalculate whether or not, and by how much, agiven material, process or system reduces,controls or eliminates the release of carbondioxide into the atmosphere, thus reducing themagnitude of global warming potential.

To reduce the concentration of CO2 within the

atmosphere, three approaches can be taken inconsideration of the life cycle of wood products.The first, carbon sequestration, removes CO

2

from the atmosphere by storing, orsequestering, carbon in the trees, roots and soilof a forest, and by sequestering carbon in woodproducts — in housing stock, recycled intoother products, and wood products in landfills.

The second is to use the formula for an energyaccounting — evaluating the reduction of CO

2

equivalent in the atmosphere as a result of thewise selection of a product or process. Forexample, the life cycle of one product ormaterial that emits less CO

2 into the

atmosphere can be substituted for another.

The third is the use of biomass (wood, bark andagricultural residue) as a fuel. Fossil-origin fuelssuch as oil, gasoline, coal, natural gas andpropane contribute CO

2 to the atmosphere, and

are non-renewable and non-sustainable. TheU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)considers CO

2 emissions from the combustion

of biomass “impact-neutral” on global warmingbecause of the ability of forests to recycle theCO

2 back into carbon in wood, and release

oxygen to the atmosphere (EPA 2003).

Wood products sequester carbon, but thatresulting decrease in carbon dioxide in theatmosphere can be offset by the use of fossilfuels in the process. For the life cycle of woodproducts used as building materials, coal,natural gas and oil are used to generate theelectricity that powers saws. Diesel fuels truckstransport lumber. Wood and bark are burned inboilers to generate steam to dry wood. Ifbuildings are deconstructed, fuel is used to runthe equipment for the operation.

All of these factors, and many more, have to becalculated to determine the total impact ofusing wood products, or any products, onglobal warming.

Environmental Performance ofWood Products

The Consortium for Research on RenewableIndustrial Materials (CORRIM) was formed in1996 by 15 research institutions to document theenvironmental performance of all wood products(Bowyer et al., 2004, Lippke et al. 2004b, Perez-Garcia et al., 2005a). Their study covered thatlife cycle, from the forest resource throughmanufacturing, product use, and eventualproduct disposal or recycle.

Life cycle inventories — all the inputs andoutputs to produce, use and dispose or recycle aproduct— were tracked through each stage. Themultitude of factors included fuel use (by typeand amount), electricity use (and the fuels toproduce it), materials use, and CO

2, CH

4 and

N2O emissions, as well as many other types of

emissions, to the air, water, and land.

The first phase of this research effort coveredresource use and manufacturing of structuralwood building materials in the U.S. PacificNorthwest and Southeast. Forest resource data


119

for a variety of management scenarios weredeveloped using inventory data, combined withgrowth and yield model simulations, and theLandscape Management System (Oliver 1992) tosimulate inventory conditions through time(Johnson et al., 2005). Data for harvesting,transportation of resources to mills, and productmanufacturing inputs and outputs were collectedby survey and analyzed (Johnson et al., 2005,Kline 2005, Milota et al., 2005, Puettmann andWilson 2005a,b, Wilson and Dancer2005a,b,Wilson and Sakimoto 2005).

Two U.S. building sites were selected to studythe environmental impact of a house designedof various materials—a cold climate(Minneapolis) house designed to code for bothwood- and steel-framed comparison, and awarm climate (Atlanta) house designed to codefor both wood- and concrete-framedcomparison (Perez-Garcia et al., 2005a).

Life-cycle assessments were made of the variousmaterial selections for the two houses. Input datafor the study was provided by the AthenaSustainable Materials Institute (ATHENA 2004)for non-wood materials and Winistorfer et al.,(2005) on use and maintenance for the twohouse designs. CORRIM (Bowyer et al., 2004)provided life-cycle inventory data for forestresources, softwood lumber, softwood plywood,oriented strandboard, composite I-joist,laminated veneer lumber, and glue-laminated(glulam) beams. The analyses included life-cycleassessments comparing the use of variousconstruction materials (wood, steel, andconcrete) in terms of such factors as globalwarming potential, air emissions that include thegreenhouse gases of CO

2, CH

4 and N

2O, and

fuel use, among other impact factors (Perez-Garcia et al., 2005a). Also included was atracking of carbon through the product life cyclefrom the forest through construction (Perez-Garcia et al., 2005b).

A Novel Approach in ModelingCarbon Storage

When carbon is sequestered in forest and woodproduct pools, it is not being recycled or returnedto the atmosphere as CO

2. Perez-Garcia et al.,

(2005b) modeled carbon storage in the CORRIMproject looking at the carbon storage for forest andwood product pools. They took a novel approachof looking at the carbon saved as a result ofdifferences in the CO

2 equivalent emissions when

substituting the use of wood products for non-wood materials in the construction of a house.

To determine the amount of carbon stored in theforest and wood product pools, carbon conversionfactors from wood mass to carbon mass (Birdsey1992, 1996) were used. As an approximation, drywood can be considered to be 50% carbon bymass. The model includes all mass related tostorage in trees—the canopy, the stem (tree trunkand bark), roots, litter and snags, and alsoconsiders their rate of decay. Tracking carbonfrom the forest pool to the product pool, theyagain used Birdsey (1992, 1996) for massconversion factors.

Perez-Garcia et al., (2005b) took the conservativeapproach of converting the harvested wood intoonly lumber, which has a conversion efficiency ofwood-into-lumber of 50% and is considered along-term use product with an assumed servicelife of 80 years, the assumed service life of ahouse. The remaining 50% of wood in theconversion went into pulp chips, sawdust,shavings, and bark, and were all considered short-term products or wood fuel used for productionof energy. Short-term products were assumed todecay over 10 years.

The Dynamic Effects of VariousManagement Scenarios

Perez-Garcia et al., (2005b), in their example ofcarbon storage, examined three components:storage in the forest, storage in wood products,and the carbon difference from the use of fuelswhen substituting wood for some of another


120

material such as concrete in construction of ahouse. The primary goal of their study was toshow the dynamic affects of variousmanagement scenarios on carbon storage.

Carbon Storage in Forests

Figure 1 shows the first component of thecarbon storage, the carbon stored in the forest as

a result of alternative management scenarios: (a)“no-action” taken to negatively influence treegrowth, whether natural or human-induced,and (b) harvesting cycles of 45, 80, and 120years with periodic thinning. As would bepredicted, the no-action scenario stores thegreatest amount of carbon Of significance, thegreatest rate of carbon storage occurs in the first50 years of growth and then the rate lessens overtime; although the graph shows carbon storageincreasing over time, from empirical data thereis little if any increase beyond 120 years (Lippkeet al., 2004a). Carbon storage in these forestmanagement scenarios does not include thecarbon stores of the harvested wood used inbuildings and to displace fossil intensiveproducts which are huge sources of emissions.

Carbon storage in Forests vs. Wood Productsvs. Concrete Substitution

To analyze the three components, a housedesign was compared using either wood orconcrete framing. Both have similarconstruction features, such as a concretefoundation, a wood roof truss and sheathingsystem. One has concrete-framed exterior walls,

constructed of concreteblock, wood framing,gypsum, and insulation.In the second, wood wassubstituted for concrete,creating wood-framedexterior walls of woodstuds, gypsum, and OSBsheathing. Figure 2depicts the comparisonof carbon storage for a45-year harvesting cyclefor all three components—the forest, woodproducts andsubstituting wood forsome concrete. (Perez-Garcia et al., 2005b.)This figure illustrates thedramatic contribution tocarbon storage as a resultof substituting wood for

concrete in the construction process.

Figure 3 illustrates that taking “no action” tomanage a forest sequesters less carbon thanwhen considering the management scenarioof a 45-year harvest cycle, producing woodproducts, and substituting wood for concretein a house construction’s exterior walls

Carbon Storage in Houses

Individual houses

A significant amount of wood products go intowood-framed house construction. For example,the CORRIM cold climate house has twostories and a full basement, for a total of 192 m2

Figure 1

Carbon storagein forest poolfor 45-, 80-,120-year harvestcycles and noaction (NA)taken whichincludes noharvesting, fires,or biologicaldamage andshould beconsidered apotentialmaximumstorage (adaptedfrom Perez-Garcia et al.,2005b).


121

of floor space. Its construction used 12,993 kgof wood in the form of lumber, plywood,oriented strandboard (including siteconstruction waste), and the wood fuel toprocess these products. The warm climatehouse has a one-story concrete slab-on-gradedesign of 200 m2 of floor space, and itsconstruction took 9,811 kg of wood (Meilet al., 2004).

To calculate the actual mass of wood in the twohouses, the on-site waste loss and process woodfuel were subtracted from the total wood usemass. Thus, the cold climate house contains10,411 kg of wood, while the warm climatehouse contains 7,078 kg. All wood productswere considered to be lumber (Perez-Garciaet al., 2005b).

Figure 2Carbon in theforest andproduct poolswith concretesubstitution forthe 45- yearharvest cyclescenario (adaptedfrom Perez-Garcia et al.,2005b).

Figure 3

Total carbonover time forforest, productsand concretesubstitutioncompared to theno-action takenmanagementscenario.


122

Figure 4 shows the cold climate wood-framedhouse in terms of the mass of its buildingcomponents. Wood represents only 17% of thetotal mass; concrete dominates at 63%. For thesteel-framed house, the wood component drops to8.6% and the steel component raises to 12.6%; allother components remain about the same. Allhouse designs use a variety of common materialsfor their construction— wood, concrete, and steel,as well as several other materials. As with the coldclimate house, it’s typical that mass-wise, wood isnot the largest component in a house. Normallyconcrete is the largest. The advantage of wood isthat it can store carbon, carbon that does notoccur as CO

2

in theatmosphere forat least the 80-year service lifeof the house,and itcontinues tostore carbon atthe end of itsservice life inlandfills whendisposed of orin productswhen recycled.Literatureindicates that

wood building products such aslumber, plywood and orientedstrandboard (which excludes paperproducts) placed in modern landfillsstay indefinitely with little or no decay,thus continuing to store carbon (Skogand Nicholson 1998).

The Global Warming Potential Indexcan be used to compare theenvironmental performance of variousbuilding materials and house designs.Table 1 gives the GWPI for theCORRIM houses – a cold-climatedesign, framed in either wood or steel,

and a warm-climate design, framed in either woodor concrete. CO

2 as a result of the combustion of

biomass fuels is considered impact-neutral forglobal warming potential and is not included inthe GWPI calculation. The GWPI for the steel-framed design is 26% greater than the wood-framed design, and the concrete-framed design is31% greater than the wood-framed design.

Housing stock

Carbon in housing stock can be assessed in twoways, the carbon flow into the stock on an annualbasis, also referred to as carbon flux, and the totalcarbon pool or store for all housing stock in the

Figure 4Cold climatewood-framedhouse buildingcomponents bytheir mass.

An

nu

al H

ou

sin

g S

tart

s (m

illio

n)

Figure 5U.S. housingstarts for1978-2005;sourceNAHB(2006) basedon U.S.CensusBureau data.


123

U.S. Not considered in this paper, but also ofimportance, are remodeling applications and otheruses of wood, especially those applications wherethe high leverage use of wood occurs whendisplacing steel or concrete.

For the first method, annual starts, Figure 5illustrates new housing stock from 1978-2005, ranging from a minimum of 1.0 to amaximum of 2.0 million based on 2006U.S. Census Bureau data (NAHB 2006).Using an average carbon storage mass perhouse of 4,380 kg for the wood structure(lumber framing, plywood sheathing,oriented strandboard), Figure 6 shows thatthe carbon flow for total housing startsannually ranges from about 4.5 to 9 millionmetric tons. The annual average over thetime period is a little less than 7 million

metric tons, which translates into approximately25 million metric tons of CO

2 removed from the

atmosphere annually. The actual amount of

Table 1Release of greenhouse gases (GHG) and the

Global Warming Potential Index (GWPI) for materials, transportation,product manufacturing and construction of both CORRIM house designs

GWPICold-climate house by framing type contribution

Steel Wood Steel-Wood wood design

GHG kg kg kg % %CO

2 fossil 45,477 35,743 9,734 96.56

CO2 biomass 526 1,547 -1,021 “

N2O 0.227 0.211 0.016 0.17

CH4

54.5 52.7 1.8 3.27

GWPI 46,797 37,017 9,780 26.4

GWPIWarm-climate house by framing type contribution

Concrete Wood Concrete-Wood wood designGHG kg kg kg % %CO

2 fossil 27,150 20,570 6,580 96.29

CO2 biomass 1,291 1,388 -97 “

N2O 0.188 0.172 0.016 0.24

CH4

33.63 32.22 1.41 3.47

GWPI 27,979 21,362 6,617 31.0

Figure 6Annualcarbonstorage inU.S.housingstarts1978-2005.

Meil et al., 2004.


124

carbon stored in a house is much largerconsidering the mass of other standard woodproducts including doors, molding andmillwork, cabinets, flooring and furniture.Offsetting some of these carbon stores are thoseassociated with houses removed annually forany reason.

Calculations for the second method, totalcarbon store for all housing stock, also referredto as the cumulative stock, are based on the2003 U.S. housing inventory estimate of 120.6million houses (HUD 2006). The service lifeof a house is assumed to be 80 years, with halfthe houses removed prior to 80 years and theother half still in service. However, this is aconservative estimate. There are about 10million houses still in service that were builtprior to 1920, thus the actual service life islikely greater. Half of all housing stock isremoved as a result of zoning changes, roadwidening and other factors not related to thematerials’ functional performance over time.Total carbon stored in the U.S. housing stock,based on 4,380 kg of carbon per house and120.6 million houses in 2003, is 528 millionmetric tons. This amount is equivalent toremoving 1,939 million metric tons of CO

2

from the atmosphere. The flux of carbon wouldbe the annual change in total carbon store. Themore wood products used in houses, especially

where they substitute for fossil-fuel intensiveproducts like steel, concrete and plastics, thegreater the carbon store, and the lesser the impacton global warming. Wood should be a materialof choice for those wanting to build green.

Wood Fuel Use Reduces GlobalWarming

The type of fuel used in the life cycle of aproduct can influence its impact on globalwarming. The use of wood for fuel and itsrelease of CO

2 emissions due to combustion is

seen by the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) to be impact-neutral when itcomes to global warming because the growingof trees absorbs CO

2 from the atmosphere,

storing carbon in wood substance and releasingoxygen to the atmosphere (EPA 2003). Simplyput, the growing of trees offsets the combustionof wood fuels—essentially a closed loop.Therefore, when wood fuel is substituted forfossil fuels, the contribution to global warmingis decreased.

Wood fuel generates a significant percentage ofthe energy used in the production of woodbuilding products such as lumber, plywood andoriented strandboard. Table 2, from theCORRIM study on the life-cycle inventory ofplywood production (Wilson and Sakimoto

Table 2Fuel use in the production of plywood for the

Pacific Northwest (PNW) and Southeast (SE) U.S.

Fuel PNW on-site energy SE on-site energy

MJ/m3 % MJ/m3 %Biomass fuel (wood) 1,400 87.3 1,990 85.6Natural gas 150 9.4 277 11.9Liquid petroleum gas 20 1.3 35 1.5Diesel 34 2.1 23 1.0

Note: Energy values were determined for the fuels using their higher heating values (HHV) in units ofMJ/kg as follows: liquid petroleum gas 54.0, natural gas 54.4, diesel 44.0, and wood oven-dry 20.9.

Wilson and Sakimoto, 2005.


125

2005), documents that wood fuel comprisesabout 86% of the total on-site manufacturingfacility fuels, which also include natural gas,liquid petroleum gas (LPG) and diesel. Woodfuel and natural gas are used to heat veneerdryers, hot presses, and logs prior to peeling.The LPG is used to operate fork lift trucks inthe facility and the diesel is used to operate loghaulers in the facility’s yard. Similarpercentages of wood fuel use are seen for theproduction of oriented strandboard (Kline2005) and Southeast lumber (Milota et al.,2005). For Pacific Northwest lumber, woodfuel use is only about 65% of total fuel use on-site (Milota et al., 2005). The wood used forfuel makes use of low-valued bark and woodresiduals and does not compete with higher-valued and higher-leveraged product substitutes.Economics of the high cost of fossil fuel andreadily-available, low-valued wood fuels hasdriven its current high use. Sufficient low-valued wood residuals remain to provideadditional fuel for heat and to generateelectricity.

Wood fuel, or biomass energy, also represents asignificant portion of the total cradle-to-gateenergy needs for the production of woodproducts. Total energy is determined from theplanting or natural regeneration of tree seedlings(referred to as the cradle), to managing theforests, harvesting, transporting logs to theproduction facility, and product manufacturing(referred to as the gate). The energy also includesthe feedstock and fuel needed to produce anddeliver the resins for the production of glulam,laminated veneer lumber, plywood, and orientedstrandboard, and includes all the fuels to generateelectricity and fuels, and to deliver them to theproduction facility.

Table 3 gives a breakdown of the cradle-to-gatefuel uses for each of the wood productsproduced in the Pacific Northwest and theSoutheast (Puettmann and Wilson 2005a).Biomass fuel represents a significant portion ofthe energy needs, ranging from a low of 36%for oriented strandboard (OSB) to a high of71% for Southeast lumber. The totals at thebottom of Table 3 show the total energy neededto produce a unit volume of product.

Table 3Fuel use in the life cycle of a wood building product from the

generation of the forest through product manufacturing;includes all fuels and feedstock to produce and

deliver electricity, resin, wood and product

Pacific Northwest Production Southeast Production

Glulam Lumber LVL Plywood Glulam Lumber LVL Plywood OSBFuel Source % % % % % % % % %

Coal 3.9 2.5 4.2 3.6 13.7 10.2 13.9 12.0 11.4Crude oil 9.9 9.7 15.1 13.4 14.7 9.7 13.2 13.4 16.9Natural gas 36.5 39.1 33.3 24.7 32.2 8.0 35.0 27.2 34.2Uranium 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0Biomass (wood) 42.1 43.0 37.2 49.5 37.5 70.8 35.8 45.5 35.5Hydropower 7.0 5.4 9.8 8.5 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.9Other 0.0 0.1 7.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2

Total energy(MJ/m3) 5,367 3,705 4,684 3,638 6,244 3,492 6,156 5,649 11,145

Puettmann and Wilson, 2005a.


126

Emissions of CO2 by fuel source, whether for

fossil or biomass sources, can also be trackedthrough the cradle-to-gate life cycle of a product.Table 4 gives the CO

2 emissions for the

production of various wood products(Puettmann and Wilson 2005a). CO

2 emissions

from fossil fuels range from 56 to 294 kg/m3 ofproduct. The CO

2 biomass emissions are given

as a separate category since biomass fuelcombustion is considered impact-neutral forglobal warming. Fossil fuel CO

2 emissions

represent an opportunity to reduce globalwarming by substituting the use of wood fuel forfossil fuel at the plant site for process energy andfor the generation or co-generation of electricity.

Ways to Foster Increased Use ofWood Products and Wood Fuel

Since the use of wood products and related practicescan reduce greenhouse gases, which in turn reducesglobal warming, it would be wise to implementways that foster their use in a manner that would beboth economical and good for the environment.A strategic position should be taken that develops apathway for new practices, policies, research, andeducation in order to identify preferred forestmanagement practices, wood products, andopportunities for further product development andimproved building design. There are manyopportunities for increased efficiencies, and forwood products and biofuel to replace fossil-fuelintensive products and fossil fuels.

Individuals, companies, universities, governmentagencies, and legislators could all participate inpromoting the wise use of wood. For example:identifying and implementing forestmanagement practices that best meet a diverse setof objectives that include carbon storage, andadopting green building practices that highlightthe superior environmental performancecharacteristics of wood building products. Otheractions could include standards and guidelinesfor buildings that encourage the substitution ofwood products for fossil-fuel-intensive productslike concrete, steel and some plastics, andpromoting the increased use of wood fuels.

Implementing ways to increase the favorableenvironmental performance of wood bymodifying practices and increasing its use can beboth good for the environment and cost-effective. In addition to the already competitiveposition of wood products, other incentives canbe developed such as tax incentives for reducingemissions, improving energy efficiencies, andsupporting renewable energy technologies.Another approach is to foster the trading ofcarbon credits that consider the benefits of usinglong-lived wood products as a storehouse forsolar energy. The wood products industry isrecognized as having greenhouse gas assets andcan generally be considered as a seller of tradableCO

2 allowances. For example, the newly-started

Chicago Climate Exchange trades credits atabout $4.00 per metric ton of CO

2 (CCX 2006).

Table 4Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the cradle-to-gate life cycle of a wood building

product from the generation of the forest through product manufacturing

Pacific Northwest Production Southeast Production

Glulam Lumber LVL Plywood Glulam Lumber LVL Plywood OSB

Emission kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3

CO2 (biomass) 230 160 141 146 231 248 196 229 378

CO2 (fossil) 126 92 87 56 199 62 170 128 294

Puettmann and Wilson, 2005a.


127

This trade price would be expected to increasewith marketplace maturity, considering that themore established European Climate Exchangecurrently trades credits at about $21.00 permetric ton of CO

2 (ECX 2006). New non-wood

products or processes that emit large quantities ofCO

2 from the combustion of fossil fuels could

buy credits from the wood products industrywhich could be used to help finance process orproduct improvements.

Considerable data on the favorableenvironmental performance of wood as abuilding material already exist throughCORRIM (Bowyer et al., 2004) and the U.S.LCI Database (NREL 2006) to use as a basis forpromoting its use to reduce greenhouse gasemissions. To support a strategic policy shift weshould embark upon an outreach educationprogram that promotes wood’s use to theconsuming public, industry, governmentagencies, builders, architects, engineers andlegislators.

Summary

The use of wood products can reduce theamount of CO

2, a major greenhouse gas, in the

atmosphere, which in turn may reduce globalwarming. Wood can accomplish this in severalways: storing carbon in forest and woodproducts, as substitution for fossil-fuel intensiveproducts like concrete and steel in housingconstruction, and as biomass that replaces fossilfuels to generate process heat and electricity.

When trees absorb CO2 from the atmosphere,

carbon is stored in wood at about 50% of itsmass. Trees release oxygen back to theatmosphere. The carbon remains in wood in a

forest or product until it is either combusted, orchemically or biologically decomposed,returning CO

2 to the atmosphere. A significant

amount of carbon is stored in the forest and inwood products for a long period of time.Carbon is stored in wood products in houses,which remain in service, on average, for at least80 years; at the end of its service life it is storedin modern landfills for even greater duration.

Total carbon stored in wood products, or savedwhen wood is substituted for a material such asconcrete in house framing, can be greater thanthe total carbon sequestered in a forest where noaction is taken in terms of harvesting, fire orbiological damage.

The production of wood building materials—glulam, lumber, plywood, laminated veneerlumber, and oriented strandboard —usessignificant quantities of wood fuel to generateprocess heat, and sometimes electricity. Usingwood fuel instead of fossil fuel also helps toreduce global warming, since its CO

2 emissions

are considered to be impact -neutral for globalwarming, whereas the combustion of fossil fuelsis not.

Wood presents opportunities for reducingglobal warming by growing more trees,managing the forest, producing wood productsthat are used in long-term applications, usingmore wood to build houses rather than fossil-intensive substitutes like steel and concrete, andsubstituting the use of wood fuel for fossil fuels.This can be good for the environment and stillbe economical when considering the high priceof fossil fuels, tax incentives and carbon credits.Policies and practices are needed to furtherpromote the use of wood for this purpose.


128

Literature Cited

Athenatm Sustainable Materials Institute (ATHENA).2004. Environmental impact estimator (EIE –software v3.0.1). Ottawa, Canada.

Birdsey, R.A. 1992. Carbon storage in trees andforests. Pp. 23-40 in R. Neil Sampson and DwightHair, eds. Forest and Global Change:Opportunities for increasing forest cover (Vol. 1),American Forests, Washington, DC.

Birdsey, R.A. 1996. Carbon storage for majortypes and regions in the conterminous UnitedStates, Pp. 1-26 in R.N Sampson and D. Hair,eds. Forests and global change: Forestmanagement opportunities for mitigating carbonemissions (Vol. 2). American Forests, Washington,DC.

Bowyer, J., D. Briggs, B. Lippke, J. Perez-Garcia,and J. Wilson. 2004. Life cycle environmentalperformance of renewable building materials inthe context of residential construction: CORRIMPhase I Research Report. University ofWashington, Seattle, WA. http://www.corrim.org/reports/. 600+ pp.

Brook, E. J. 2005. Tiny Bubbles Tell All. Science.310:1285-1287. November 25.

Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). 2006. http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/. (5 June 2006).

European Climate Exchange (ECX). 2006. http://www.europeanclimateexchange.com/index_flash.php. (5 June 2006).

Flannery, T. F. 2006. The Weather Makers.Atlantic Monthly Press. New York, NY. 357 pp.

IPCC 2001. IPCC third assessment report:Climate change 2001. Geneva, Switzerland.

Johnson, L.R., B. Lippke, J. Marshall, and J.Comnick. 2005. Life-cycle impacts of forestresource activities in the Pacific Northwest and theSoutheast United States. Wood Fiber Science37(5):30-46.

Kline, D.E. 2005. Gate-to-gate life cycleinventory of Southeast oriented strandboardproduction. Wood Fiber Science 37(5):74-84.

Lippke, B., J. Perez-Garcia, and J. Comnick.2004a. The role of Northwest forests and forestmanagement on carbon storage. CORRIM FactSheet 3. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.http://www.corrim.org/reports/. 4 pp.

Lippke, B., J. Wilson, J. Perez-Garcia. J. Bowyer,And J. Meil. 2004b. CORRIM: Life-cycleenvironmental performance of renewable buildingmaterials. Forest Products Journal 54(6):8-19.

Meil, J., B. Lippke, J. Perez-Garcia, J. Bowyer, andJ. Wilson. 2004. Environmental impacts of asingle family building shell—from harvest toconstruction. In CORRIM Phase I Final ReportModule J. Life cycle environmental performanceof renewable building materials in the context ofresidential construction. University ofWashington, Seattle, WA. http://www.corrim.org/reports/. 38 pp.

Milota, M.R., C.D. West, and I.D. Hartley. 2005.Gate-to-gate life-cycle inventory of softwoodlumber production. Wood Fiber Science37(5):47-57.

National Association of Home Builders (NAHB).2006. http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?sectionID=130&genericContentID=554. (6 March 2006).


129

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).2006. Life-cycle inventory database. http://www.nrel.gov/lci/. (5 June 2006).

Oliver, C.D. 1992. A landscape approach:Achieving and maintaining biodiversity andeconomic productivity. Journal of Forestry 90: 20-25.

Perez-Garcia, J., B. Lippke, D. Briggs, J. Wilson, J.Bowyer, and J. Meil. 2005a. The environmentalperformance of renewable building materials inthe context of residential construction. Wood FiberScience 37(5):3-17.

Perez-Garcia, J., B. Lippke, J. Comnick, C.Manriquez. 2005b. An assessment of carbonpools, storage, and wood products marketsubstitution using life-cycle analysis results. WoodFiber Science 37(5):140-148.

Puettmann, M. E. and J. B. Wilson. 2005a.Gate-to-gate life-cycle inventory of gluedlaminated timber production. Wood Fiber Science37(5):99-113.

Puettmann, M. E. and J. B. Wilson. 2005b. Life-cycle analysis of wood products: cradle-to-gate LCIof residential building materials. Wood FiberScience 37(5):18-29.

Skog, K. E. and G. A. Nicholson. 1998. Carboncycling through wood products: The role of woodand paper products in carbon sequestration. ForestProducts Journal. 48 (7/8):75-83.

U.S. Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (HUD). 2006. http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/USHMC/summer03/nd_hinv.html. (6 March 2006).

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).2003. Wood waste combustion in boilers 20 pp,In AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 1:External combustion sources. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/index.html. (1 July 2005).

Wilson, J. B. and E. R. Dancer. 2005a. Gate-to-gate life-cycle inventory of I-joist production.Wood Fiber Science 37(5):85-98.Wilson, J. B. and E. R. Dancer. 2005b. Gate-to-gate life-cycle inventory of laminated veneerlumber production. Wood Fiber Science 37(5):114-127.

Wilson, J. B. and E. T. Sakimoto. 2005. Gate-to-gate life-cycle inventory of softwood plywoodproduction. Wood Fiber Science 37(5):58-73.

Winistorfer, P., C. Zhangjing, B. Lippke, and N.Stevens. 2005. Energy consumption andgreenhouse gas emissions related to the use,maintenance, and disposal of a residentialstructure. Wood Fiber Science 37(5):128-139.

Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings Chapter Eight

130

Introduction

■ The capacity to store carbon can be turnedinto a marketable product.

■ Such a market for forests poses some uniquechallenges and unique benefits.

Do Forests Matter?

■ Deforestation since 1850 has been a majorsource of CO

2 buildup in the atmosphere.

■ The U.S. has the potential to mitigate 384million metric tons of CO

2 annually.

Market-based Approaches toReducing Greenhouse GasEmissions

■ Regulatory approaches include cap-and-trade systems and emission trading schemes.

■ Voluntary approaches include carbonoffsets.

Current and DevelopingMechanisms and Markets forEmission Reduction

■ Kyoto Protocol treaty signators areestablishing programs; largest is theEuropean Union trading scheme, with a2005 market value of $8.2 billion.

■ Non-Kyoto signators U.S. and Australia,states and others are setting emission targets.

■ A voluntary carbon market is emerging; in2005, 10-20 mmt of carbon weretransacted.

Understanding Carbon Offsets

■ Carbon offset projects must cancel outemissions and be recorded in a registry.

■ Land management-based forest offsets caninclude afforestation, reforestation, avoidingdeforestation, and changing forestmanagement practices.

■ Substitution-based offsets substitute woodfor other products or energy creation.

■ Challenges include permanence, ownershipand legal title, insurance and vintaging.

Co-Benefits and Ecosystem Services

■ Offset projects can generate additionalenvironmental and social co-benefits, suchas job generation, habitat enhancement,water quality improvements and recreation.

■ Ecosystem services can be “bundled” tofurther capitalize on financial opportunities.

Summary: Options for OregonForests

■ Collaboration between the forest industryand environmental groups.

■ Establishing a cap-and-trade system.■ Pursuing a regional carbon market trading

system.■ Investing in infrastructure to support an

active carbon market.■ Investing in the intellectual capital needed

for market development.■ Developing trading patterns.

CHAPTER EIGHTHIGHLIGHTS:

EMERGING MARKETS FOR CARBON

STORED BY NORTHWEST FORESTS

Chapter Eight Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings

131

CHAPTER EIGHTEMERGING MARKETS FOR CARBON

STORED BY NORTHWEST FORESTSBettina von Hagen and Michael S. Burnett

Forests, particularly the long-lived, carbon-rich forests in the Pacific Northwest, havea significant role to play in mitigating

greenhouse gas emissions. In this chapter weexplore how this carbon storage value can beturned into a marketable product, and examinethe state of development of emission tradingmarkets and the role that forest carbon plays inthem. Relative to other emission reductionstrategies – such as energy efficiency, renewableenergy, or shifting to lower carbon energysources – carbon sequestration in forests posessome unique challenges, but also offers someunique benefits.

After exploring these, we describe how theClimate Trust –an Oregon-based non-profit andthe largest institutional buyer of carbon offsets inthe United States – chooses among projects, andhow it selected and funded one of the first forestcarbon purchases involving reforestation under aregulatory system. We conclude with somethoughts about the role forest carbon offsetsmight play in forest management in the region,and the steps needed to develop robust markets.

Do Forests Matter?

How significant is forest carbon to the globalchallenge of greenhouse gas accumulation?Human-induced degradation of forests has beena major source in the buildup of greenhouse gasesin the atmosphere. Over the last 150 years (from1850 to 1998), an estimated 500 billion metrictons (over one quadrillion pounds) of carbondioxide have been released into the environmentfrom deforestation (IPCC 2001). This source ofatmospheric carbon dioxide increase is secondonly to the combustion of fossil fuel, whichcontributed almost 1,000 billion metric tons

of carbon dioxide during the same period(Schlamadinger and Marland 2000). Globally,the current standing stock of carbon in forestvegetation (including savannas), exclusive of soilcarbon, represents the equivalent of 1,560 billionmetric tons of carbon dioxide (IPCC 2000). Thisremaining carbon stock is over sixty times largerthan current annual global fossil fuel-relatedemissions, which totaled 24.4 billion tons,(EIA2005). A relatively small change in this stock –on the order of 1.6% – would be equivalent toannual global carbon dioxide emissions fromfossil fuels. Relatively small proportional reduc-tions in this stock have the potential to contrib-ute to carbon dioxide buildup, as has occurred inthe past. Conversely, relatively small propor-tional increases in this stock have the potential tocontribute to mitigation of fossil-based emissions.

Since deforestation has been such a major sourceof carbon dioxide buildup, it is possible to utilizeforests to help remove some of the accumulatedcarbon dioxide from the atmosphere, if wemanage lands to increase forest biomass. Thispotential for the terrestrial biosphere to serve as acarbon sink is sizable. Nationwide for the UnitedStates (U.S.), afforestation and forest manage-ment have the potential to mitigate a total of 384million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year(USEPA 2005), which is 6.5% of the nation’stotal carbon dioxide emissions of 5,842 millionmetric tons.

Scientific evidence of (WRI 2006) and concernabout (National Academies of Science 2005)climate change continues to grow. For a societyincreasingly concerned about climate change, itis prudent to move forward on mitigation on allfronts. One key challenge is enacting policiesthat will result in increased forest biomass.


132

Greater use of natural sinks for carbon dioxide isone of a number of currently available strategies– along with energy efficiency, renewable energy,nuclear energy, coal to gas conversion, andgeological sequestration, among others – that canbe combined to significantly flatten the growthin emissions over the next 50 years (Pacala andSocolow 2004). Clearly, it is important toestablish a set of effective mitigation policies, andforestry has an important role to play. This isparticularly true in the forests of the PacificNorthwest, where long-lived trees and fastgrowth rates combine to produce some of themost carbon-rich ecosystems in the world(Smithwick et al., 2002).

Market-based Approaches to Re-ducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Policies can be in two basic forms: regulationsand incentives. A regulatory approach is onewhere requirements to reduce carbon dioxideemissions are put into place. For forestry, anexample would be a requirement to conductselective harvest, leaving a minimum amount ofstanding biomass in each logging operation. Anincentive approach is one where a monetaryreward is provided to encourage a desiredoutcome, for example, establishing a paymentsystem to support the build up of biomass.There are a number of regulatory and incentiveapproaches for encouraging forest carbonsequestration. In this chapter we focus on howan incentive-based market approach – carbonoffsets – can, and is, being used to stimulatebehavioral changes that cause sequestration tooccur. As we gain more experience with thesemarket mechanisms and the pace and conse-quences of global warming, we will have todecide on the best—or the best mix—of policiesand instruments to reduce emissions. From theperspective of forest sequestration, a regulatorypolicy approach – for example, a fossil fuelsemission cap – may lead to an incentive policyapproach – the market for emissions reductions.

The approach currently favored in international,national, regional, and state climate policyinvolves market-based environmental regula-tion. Governments are beginning to implementgreenhouse gas emissions caps as a means ofreducing future climate change. These capstypically apply to power plants, and some applyto industry and large commercial operations aswell. These “cap-and-trade” systems are amodern form of environmental regulationwhich are being implemented in lieu of “com-mand and control” technology regulation. Suchmarket-based mechanisms for regulating green-house gases provide flexibility for business whileensuring that the goal of reducing emissions ismet. Under this approach, once a cap on fossilfuel-based emissions is established, entitiessubject to the cap can trade emissions reduc-tions. An entity that achieves reductions belowits cap can sell this surplus to an entity whoseemissions exceed its cap. This type of emissionstrading scheme is viewed with concern andskepticism by some in the environmentalcommunity, who consider this approach to beunproven and believe that polluters should beobliged to reduce emissions at their own facili-ties rather than by purchasing reductionsachieved by others.

Market-based greenhouse gas regulatory systemsare a relatively new phenomenon, but theytypically allow four mechanisms for compliance:(1) internal emissions reductions, (2) purchase ofallowances in an auction, (3) trading of allow-ances, and (4) purchase of project-based emis-sions reductions, also know as “carbon offsets” or“carbon credits” – the focus of this chapter. Insome trading schemes, a portion of the allow-ances – the government-granted right to emit –are auctioned off to the highest bidder. In thiscase, a company can outbid others subject to thecap if it can’t reduce its facility emissions suffi-cient to meet the cap. Alternatively, a companycan buy allowances from a company whoseallowances exceed its emissions. Finally, mosttrading schemes allow for the purchase of offsetsfrom projects in sectors that are not subject to the


133

cap, although the amount, type, and location ofoffsets is restricted under many trading schemes.Offsets are viewed as a cost-effective tool to beused to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets;when they are not the lowest cost of the fouroptions, then they are not likely to be used forcompliance.

It is important to note that not all emissions arelikely to be subject to a cap. For example,personal and business automobile use is unlikelyto be capped directly. Likely policies to influ-ence emissions from auto use include requiringmore efficient vehicles, adding a carbon tax toincrease the purchase price of gasoline orincreasing the attractiveness of mass transit.Emissions related to land use change, such asfarming and forestry activities, are more chal-lenging to cap. Since emissions accounting on anational level includes these sectors, other typesof regulations might be put into place thatrequire certain carbon-storage enhancing landmanagement practices.

To summarize, a capped entity can meet its capby making reductions at its own facilities, bybuying allowances in an auction, and by pur-chasing reductions from capped entities withsurplus reductions. In addition, a capped entitycan purchase reductions, i.e, carbon offsets,from a greenhouse gas reduction project.These projects reduce emissions by eitherpreventing the release of greenhouse gases, or bysequestering carbon in vegetation or soil. Whilethis latter strategy – carbon sequestration inforests – is the focus of this chapter, forestcarbon projects compete in a global marketplacewith a wide array of reduction projects, so it isimportant to understand the universe of carbonoffset strategies, and their relative strengths.

Greenhouse gas reduction projects include threebasic strategies: (1) energy efficiency andconservation (improving energy efficiency inbuildings, transportation, factories and powerplants), (2) shifting to lower-carbon energysources (from coal to natural gas, for example,or developing renewable energy sources such as

solar, wind, tidal, hydropower, or biofuels), and(3) preventing the creation, release or combus-tion of industrial greenhouse gases such ashydroflourocarbons and of methane (producedprimarily by landfills and livestock). Whilethese industrial and agricultural greenhousegases – namely methane, nitrous oxide, sulfurhexafluoride, perfluorocarbons, andhydrofluorocarbons – have much smallerconcentrations in the atmosphere than carbondioxide, they are important because their globalwarming potential is very high – 20 to 10,000times higher than the effect of releasing thesame mass of carbon dioxide. As a conse-quence, many of the early offset projects havefocused on reducing emissions of industrialgases (Capoor and Ambrosi 2006).

Sequestration projects include geological seques-tration (for example, capturing power plantemissions and storing them underground ingeological formations), agricultural sequestration(capturing carbon dioxide in agricultural soils),and forest sequestration, which includes forestconservation (avoiding deforestation), plantingtrees, and managing existing forests to enhancecarbon storage (for example, by extendingrotations). Ocean sequestration, and sequester-ing carbon in marine environments such as kelpforests, is another potential strategy (Parker,2004) which has tremendous potential but hasnot yet been translated into a commercial carbonoffset purchase.

For a variety of reasons, forest sequestrationprojects have captured only 1-2% of the $10billion global carbon market, while reducingindustrial greenhouse gas emissions – especiallyhydrofluorocarbons – has captured over 60% ofthe global carbon market (Capoor and Ambrosi2006). While forest carbon projects pose someunique challenges – such as whether the carbonstorage is permanent, as discussed below – theprimary reason for the small representation offorest projects is that the rules established by theKyoto Protocol (described below) do not favorforest projects. This is largely because of theinitial resistance by the environmental commu-


134

nity to forest sequestration projects, preferringto focus the attention of emitters on directlyreducing emissions, rather than offsetting them.However, increased recognition of the scale ofcarbon dioxide emissions from forest conversionand forest fires is leading to increased accep-tance of forest carbon projects. Oregon’s rules,established in 1997 for new power plants, allowforest projects, and over 20% of the carbonoffset projects generated by the Oregon CarbonDioxide Standard (and implemented primarilythrough the Climate Trust) involve forestry.This illustrates the importance of markettrading rules in project selection, and thecapacity of Oregon to influence state, regional,and national markets through creating a robustand rigorous market for forest carbon.

Current and DevelopingMechanisms and Markets forEmission Reductions

The most significant system to address globalclimate change is that established by the KyotoProtocol – the international agreement madeunder the United Nations Framework Conven-tion on Climate Change. The treaty was firstnegotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997,and came into force in February, 2005, follow-ing ratification by Russia. The U.S. and Austra-lia are both signatories of the FrameworkConvention, but have not ratified the KyotoProtocol to date. Because of this, news coverageof carbon markets in the U.S. is limited andmany of us imagine there is not much happen-ing. In the meantime, the value of the globalaggregated carbon markets was over US $10billion in 2005, the first year the Kyoto Proto-col was in effect (Capoor and Ambrosi 2006),larger than the entire $7.1 billion domesticwheat crop (Timmons 2006). In countries thathave not ratified Kyoto – most notably the U.S.and Australia – regulatory systems to controlemissions are emerging at local, state, andregional levels. In addition, a voluntary marketfor carbon is also emerging, along with its ownrules, intermediaries, and pricing structures.

Each of these three segments – Kyoto markets,other regulatory systems, and the voluntarymarket – is described below.

The Kyoto Protocol and its MarketMechanisms

Countries that ratify the Kyoto Protocol com-mit to reduce (or limit the increase) of carbondioxide and other greenhouse gases. TheProtocol establishes emissions trading as amethod of meeting country targets. A numberof international, regional, and country programshave emerged to facilitate the meeting of targetsunder Kyoto. The largest of these to date (froma value perspective) is the multinational Euro-pean Union Trading Scheme, in which all 25member countries of the European Unionparticipate. In 2005 – the market’s first year ofoperation – 362 million metric tons of carbondioxide were traded, with a market value of $8.2billion. The price of carbon dioxide increasedsteadily to about $36 per metric ton in April,2006, leading to enthusiastic predictions ofrobust market growth to $80 to $250 billion by2010. After an active first quarter with $6.6billion traded, the market crashed in May,2006, to $13 per metric ton of carbon dioxide(and rebounded somewhat shortly after) onreports that many industries were easily meetingtheir targets and didn’t need to reduce emissionsfurther, largely because their initial allocation ofallowances had been set too high. While someargue that the market crash was an indication ofstructural flaws in the trading system, othersargue that “price corrections” are an inevitablecomponent of emerging markets (Capoor andAmbrosi 2006).

In terms of volume of metric tons, the largestmarket segment in 2005 was the Clean Devel-opment Mechanism (CDM), a program devel-oped under the Kyoto Protocol which allowscompanies or countries in the industrializedworld to purchase credits generated by offsetprojects in the developing world to meet theiremission reduction targets (Point Carbon


135

2006). In 2005, CDM projects generated aforward stream of reductions totaling 346million metric tons of carbon dioxide, with avalue of $2.5 billion. Over 70% of theseprojects come from hydrofluorocarbon projectsin China. Joint Implementation is the sistermechanism to CDM and allows industrializedcountries to meet their emission reductiontargets through an investment in anotherindustrialized country, which also has emissionreduction targets but where costs might belower and investments can be made moreefficiently. The Joint Implementation markettotaled 18 million metric tons of carbon dioxidein 2005 with a value of $82 million (Capoorand Ambrosi 2006).

The European Union Trading Scheme, theClean Development Mechanism, and JointImplementation all operate under rules designedto meet targets established under the KyotoProtocol. Most significantly for the forestcarbon sector, the role of sequestration offsetsunder these rules is limited. The Kyoto Proto-col does recognize the role forests can play inremoving and storing carbon dioxide from theatmosphere and storing it in trees, and estab-lishes two mechanisms for creating forest carbonsequestration credits: Article 3.3 addressesafforestation (planting trees on lands that werenot previously forested), while Article 3.4 dealswith reforestation (replanting trees on defor-ested lands) and appropriate management ofnatural forests. However, avoided deforestationand forest management are currently noteligible under Kyoto in the first commitmentperiod (2008-2012). Due to stringent applica-tion standards and complicated rules, uncer-tainty over the role of forest sinks after theinitial commitment period of 2008-2012, andresistance by environmental groups and othersto the use of forest sequestration projects intrading schemes, forest carbon projects havebeen very limited under the Kyoto-compliantsystems (Sedjo 2006).

Markets for Emission Reductions in the U.S.and Other Non-Kyoto Countries

While the U.S. has not ratified the KyotoProtocol, regions, states, tribes, and local gov-ernments have all been active in setting emissionreduction targets and implementing programsto reach these targets. Oregon was an earlyinnovator and the first state to establish aregulatory framework. In 1997, the staterequired new power plants to offset part of theircarbon dioxide emissions. The Climate Trustwas created at that time to purchase qualityoffsets on behalf of these newly regulatedemitters. Washington added a similar regula-tion in 2004. In addition, Oregon’s governor-appointed Carbon Allocation Task Force isinvestigating the design of a load-based cap-and-trade system. A load-based system placesthe cap on the utility delivering the electricityrather than on the electric generator. It is likelyto include offsets as an alternative compliancemechanism. In California, GovernorSchwarzenegger issued an Executive Order toestablish greenhouse gas emissions goals andcreate a Climate Action Team to determine thebest means to meet such goals. California hasalso established a voluntary system of reportingemissions, the California Climate ActionRegistry, and there are several proposed pieces oflegislation, including Assembly member Pavley’sCalifornia Climate Change Act of 2006. Inaddition to initiatives under consideration inOregon and California, several other states areat various stages of establishing climate policy.

The Climate Trust is the largest institutionalbuyer of carbon offset projects in the U.S.Sidebar 1 describes the Climate Trust’s criteriato determine eligibility for funding andselection for carbon offset projects. Sidebar 2describes the Climate Trust’s process fororiginating offset projects.


136

The Climate Trust’s Criteria to Determine Eligibilityfor Funding and Selection for Carbon Offset Projects

The Climate Trust, an Oregon-based non-profit, is the largest institutional buyer of carbonoffsets in the United States. It plays animportant role in the implementation ofOregon’s Carbon Dioxide Standard. Its focus isacquiring high quality offsets. In 2005, theClimate Trust released a request for proposals fora minimum of US$ 4.3 million in carbondioxide offsets,1 a similar request to those from2000 and 2001.2 All proposals contained thefollowing criteria that the Climate Trust uses (1)when determining which proposed offsetprojects are eligible for funding, and (2) whenselecting among proposed offset projects. Thesecriteria are presented as an example of thecriteria applied by a buyer of offsets. Otherbuyers of offsets use different, but generallysimilar, criteria.

Number and Size of Projects. The ClimateTrust sought projects requesting $1 million orgreater in carbon funding and anticipatedentering into carbon purchase agreements with2-5 projects.

Type of Greenhouse Gas. As required byOregon statute, The Climate Trust onlyconsidered offsets that directly avoid, displace,or sequester emissions of carbon dioxide whenusing Oregon funds. Although the ClimateTrust did not consider emissions reductions ofother greenhouse gases for purposes ofquantifying emissions reductions, it did considerthese when evaluating co-benefits.

Additionality Requirement. The ClimateTrust only funded projects where mitigationmeasures would not occur in the absence ofoffset project funding. In order to meet theadditionality criterion, evidence must beprovided that the carbon funding is essential forthe implementation of the project. The ClimateTrust assesses additionality on a project-by-project basis.

Regulatory Surplus. The Climate Trustconsidered only projects where the carbondioxide emissions benefit is over and abovewhat is required by law. An emission reductionis surplus if it is not otherwise required of asource by current regulations or otherobligations.

Quantifiability of Offsets. The Climate Trustconsidered only projects that directly avoid,displace, or sequester the emissions of carbondioxide, and where the amount of carbondioxide offsets can be quantified, taking intoconsideration any proposed measurement,monitoring, and evaluation of mitigationmeasure performance.

Timing of Project Implementation. TheClimate Trust considered only projects wheremitigation measures will be implemented in thefuture, subsequent to contract execution. TheClimate Trust did not consider projects wheremitigation measures have been implementedprior to contract execution. Projects selected forfunding must be implemented within threeyears from the date of execution of the carbonpurchase agreement.

Length of Project Contract. The ClimateTrust typically does not enter contracts withterms longer than 15 years irrespective of thelifetime of the measures implemented underthe contract. Thus, if the underlying measurehas an expected life of more than fifteen years,the Climate Trust will contract for a maximumof fifteen years of carbon dioxide offsets. Oneexception to this is biological sequestrationprojects which typically require a longer projectlife.

Sidebar 1

1 The Climate Trust, 20052 The Climate Trust, 2000; The Climate Trust, 2001


137

Permanence. The Climate Trust prefersprojects that permanently avoid or displaceemissions of carbon dioxide, such as energy-related projects, over projects that temporarilysequester carbon. The Climate Trust hasinvested in projects that avoid emissions or inpermanent sequestration projects, i.e., thosethat plan to grow a forest harvest-free to oldgrowth.

Types of projects. The Climate Trustconsidered any and all project activities thatreduce carbon dioxide based emissions. Pleasebe advised of the treatment of the followingsectors:Nuclear Power. As Oregon law does notpermit the siting of nuclear power facilities, theClimate Trust does not fund nuclear power-based offset projects.Biological Carbon Sequestration (includesafforestation, reforestation, forestryconservation, etc.). As a large portion of theClimate Trust’s offset portfolio is currentlyinvested in biological sequestration projects, itdid not anticipate spending more than 25% ofthe funds from this 2005 RFP in biologicalsequestration projects.

Eligible Project Proposers. The ClimateTrust accepted proposals from any non-profitand for-profit corporations, governmentagencies, national laboratories, andcombinations of these parties.

Project Price Range. The Climate Trust usedcost effectiveness as the primary selectionfactor for offsets, while achieving a balancebetween the desire to acquire the leastexpensive reasonably assured offsets availablewith the desire to acquire a diverse portfolio ofprojects. The Climate Trust anticipated that$5/metric ton CO

2 would be a competitive

proposal.

Geographic Limitations and Preferences.The Climate Trust has no geographic constrainton the projects that can be funded. Note forinternational project applicants: Non U.S.-based projects must have a U.S. partner oraffiliate organization that can be used fornegotiations of the carbon purchase agreement.The Climate Trust encouraged applicants withprojects based in Oregon to submit proposals.

Co-Benefits. The Climate Trust prefers projectswith environmental, health, and socioeconomicco-benefits, and will request information on co-benefits from proposers. Special considerationwas given to projects with excellent co-benefits.

Monitoring and Verification. The ClimateTrust requires that carbon dioxide benefits bequantified by a monitoring and verificationprocess. National and international experts areengaged to help prepare and implementmonitoring and verification protocols for itsoffset projects, and independent third parties arerequired to certify the emissions benefit. It isimportant that realistic baselines be used as astarting point for quantifying offsets. (SeeChapter 9 regarding baselines and leakage.)

Leakage. The Climate Trust requires that thepotential for leakage, or the extent to whichevents occurring outside of the project boundarytend to reduce a project’s carbon dioxideemissions benefit, be addressed. Proposals wererequired to describe how carbon dioxide benefitleakage is addressed by the project, both interms of project activities to minimize leakageand in terms of adjustments to the project’scarbon dioxide benefit calculations to reflectleakage.


138

At the regionallevel, the fastest-moving initiativeis the northeast-ern states’Regional Green-house GasInitiative,known asRGGI. As ofMay, 2006, itincluded Con-necticut, Dela-ware, Maine,New Hamp-shire, NewJersey, NewYork, Vermont,and Maryland.The draft rules,which areexpected to befinalized in thesummer of2006, addresselectric generat-ing units capableof producing 25megawatts ormore power, andcommit partici-pating states tocap their emis-sions at 1990levels by 2009and then de-crease them by10% by 2018.

RGGI has proposed allowing an entity to useoffsets to meet approximately 50% of therequired emissions reductions (or 3.3% of totalemissions). If prices rise beyond the expectedlevel of $10 per metric ton of carbon dioxide,then additional percentages of emissions may becovered by offsets. In addition, as prices rise, agreater proportion of the offsets may take placeoutside of the region covered by the participat-ing states (Biello 2006).

Although ratification of the Kyoto Protocol bythe U.S. is unlikely in the near future, emissionreduction discussions continue both at thenational level and at the international leveloutside of the Kyoto framework. At the nationallevel, the Climate Change White Paper recentlyissued by Senators Domenici and Bingamanincludes a discussion about an offset pilot pro-gram, the McCain-Lieberman Climate Steward-ship Act allows entities to use offsets for up to15% of their required reductions, and SenatorFeinstein’s Strong Economy and Climate Protec-tion Act includes unlimited offsets from the un-capped agricultural sector. At the internationallevel, the Asia-Pacific Partnership on CleanDevelopment and Climate, which includesAustralia, India, Japan, the People’s Republic ofChina, South Korea, and the U.S. outlines a non-binding plan to cooperate on development andtransfer of technology that enables reduction ofgreenhouse gas emissions. Member countriesaccount for around 50% of the world’s green-house gas emissions, energy consumption, GrossDomestic Product, and population.

Despite these developments, it is important tonote that in the U.S. we are still in the initialstages of what has been termed the “carbonmarket.” In fact, it is not a true market yet in theclassic definition. There are few buyers, fewsellers, rare transactions, and limited informationabout the transactions. Carbon trading in theU.S. is best viewed as a proto-market, one inwhich there is not yet a true financial marketcommodity available to buy and sell. A broadernational market for emissions reductions will nodoubt come in time, but it is not here today. It ispossible that it will develop first on the basis ofthe state and regional regulatory initiativesdescribed above, with a federal trading schemecoming later. What we do have today are a seriesof individual transactions involving allowancesfrom voluntary exchanges and from project-basedoffsets, some of which involve forestry.

The Climate Trust’s Process forOriginating Offset Projects

The Climate Trust uses a systematic,sequential process for acquiring offsets.The following flowchart is taken from theClimate Trust’s five year report.3 From aproposer’s point of view, there are threephases to the Climate Trust’s projectselection process. It typically takes around18 months from the time of the announce-ment of an RFP until the final carbondioxide purchase agreements are com-pleted.

Phase I: Submission of ProjectInformation Document. This is a“short form” proposal comprised often pages of text, a budget spreadsheet,and an emissions benefit spreadsheet.

Phase II: Detailed Project Infor-mation Document. Selected proposalsare invited to submit a more detailedproject information document,including responses to project-specificquestions from the Climate Trust.

Phase III: Contract negotiations.Winners of Phase II are invited tonegotiate a carbon dioxide offsetpurchase agreement. The amount ofthe funding and its terms are set forthin the final purchase agreement.

Sidebar 2

3The Climate Trust, 2004


139

Australia, as the other notable country that hasfailed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, is also devel-oping emission reduction schemes at the statelevel. New South Wales, the state in southeasternAustralia which houses Sydney, high mountainsand coast, and is the state with the most eco-nomic activity, has been the leading innovator.The New South Wales greenhouse gas abatementscheme is based on a penalty of AU$10.50 (US$8) for excess greenhouse gas emissions over theenergy pool target. The target equates to a 5%per capita reduction in emissions from theelectricity sector over a five year period whichbegan in 2003 (Brand and Kappalli n.d.). In2005, some 6.1 million certificates were ex-changed, a 20% increase over 2004, with anestimated value of US $57.2 million. Activityincreased sharply in the first quarter of 2006 with5.5 million certificates valued at US $86.6million. Forestry projects are allowed, reflectingperhaps the strong leadership role of State Forestsof New South Wales, the government-ownedforest agency, which has been active since the mid1990s in developing forest carbon opportunitiesand structure. In April, 2005 a deal was closed toprovide approximately 3.2 million tons of carbondioxide offsets from 30,000 hectares of eucalyp-tus plantings (Capoor and Ambrosi 2006).

The Voluntary Carbon Market

In addition to Kyoto-compliant market mecha-nisms and state regulatory systems in countriesthat have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, thereis an emergent voluntary carbon market that –while there are no official numbers— is esti-mated to have transacted anywhere from 10 to20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in2005. This is approximately the amount tradedin the European Union Emissions TradingScheme in a single week in April, 2006 (Bayonet al., in press), illustrating the power of regula-tion to stimulate market activity relative tovoluntary action. This is a significant point tobear in mind, given the current federaladministration’s preference for voluntary pro-grams to reduce carbon emissions.

Estimates suggest the voluntary carbon marketmay grow five-fold to 100 million metric tons by2007. Bayon et al. identify four categories ofvoluntary carbon purchases: (1) entities seeking tooffset the emissions generated by their facilities orbusiness activities, (2) entities seeking to producecarbon-neutral products such as transportationservices or events, (3) government and philan-thropic buyers of carbon, and (4) individualconsumers seeking to offset their daily activities.Motivations for purchases include learning aboutcarbon markets and preparing for regulation (oftentermed “pre-compliance,”) public relations, andthe desire to do the right thing. Most tradingactivity takes place either directly, between aproject originator and a buyer, or through dozensof intermediaries – both for-profit and non-profit– that have emerged to service the voluntarymarket. Taiyab (2005) estimates about 30-40intermediaries worldwide, most based in Europe,the US, and Australia. Prices vary considerablyfrom $1 to $35 or more per metric ton of carbondioxide, depending on the quality and location ofthe project, the co-benefits it provides, and theprice sensitivity of the buyer.

One of the most comprehensive mechanisms forthe voluntary market is the Chicago ClimateExchange (CCX), an emission registry, reduc-tion, and trading system for all six greenhousegases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,sulfur hexafluoride, perfluorocarbons, andhydrofluorocarbons. Members make voluntarybut legally binding commitments to reducegreenhouse gas emissions. The baseline periodis 1998-2001. By the end of 2006 (Phase I),members are targeted to reduce direct emissions4%, and a 6% reduction is required by 2010.The market was down in 2005 relative to theprior year, with only 1.5 million tons of carbondioxide traded at a weighted average of $1.95per metric ton for a total value of $2.8 million.As of the first quarter of 2006, the market hasbecome much more active with 1.25 milliontons of carbon dioxide exchanged, and priceshave moved up to $3.50 per ton. CCX mem-bers range from large industrial concerns such asDuPont, to utilities such as American Electric


140

Power, to cities such as Chicago, IL, to farmersin Iowa and Nebraska, as well as a variety ofnon-profit organizations. Eligible emissionoffset projects include agricultural soil carbonsequestration, reforestation, landfill and agricul-tural methane combustion, and switching tolower-emitting sources such as biomass-basedfuels (Chicago Climate Exchange web site).

The Exchange is expanding to the northeast todevelop financial instruments relevant to RGGI(described above) through the formation of theNew York Climate Exchange and the NortheastClimate Exchange (Capoor and Ambrosi 2006).

Understanding Carbon Offsets

What are “carbon offsets projects” and why arethey an important part of a comprehensiveclimate policy? A carbon offset project is oneimplemented specifically to reduce the level ofgreenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A widevariety of technological approaches can beemployed, including energy efficiency in build-ings, factories, power plants, and transportation;renewable energy, such as wind, hydro, biomass,and solar energy; cogeneration of electricity fromwaste industrial heat; shifting to lower carbonenergy sources, e.g., from coal to natural gas andbiofuels; capturing carbon dioxide in forests andforest products and in agricultural soils; andcapturing power plant emissions and storingthem underground in geological formations.

However, achieving the important benefits thatoffsets offer to society is predicated on their beingequally effective in reducing atmospheric green-house gas levels as on-site reductions by emitters.Thus, an offset project has three elements: (1) itcancels out emissions, (2) reductions are recordedin a greenhouse gas registry (or the atmosphere),(3) the end effect is as though the cancelledemissions had not occurred. An offset makes abasic promise: that the end result in the atmo-sphere is as if the emissions that are being offsetnever occurred in the first place.

Project-based greenhouse gas offsets hold muchpotential to help address climate change at thelowest overall cost. Since greenhouse gases haveglobal rather than local effects, it makes sense todirect our mitigation funding towards the lowestcost sources. If we do this, we will have moremoney to spend on everything else, such as food,shelter, health care, security, and recreation. Bydirecting funding from emitters to those who aremost able to deliver mitigation cost-effectively,offsets are critical to maximizing the non-climategoods and services that we all really want.

Offsets also offer a number of other benefits,both environmental and economic. They canreduce air pollution; improve habitat, water-sheds, and water quality; reduce soil erosion;and preserve biodiversity and endangeredspecies. They can create jobs, stimulate demandfor clean energy products, save money onenergy, and enhance energy security by reducingoil imports. Finally, they can drive funding andnew technology into uncapped sectors, helpingto rectify inequities between emitters and thosetaking the brunt of climate change. Given thatoffset projects can occur across a wide variety ofsectors and can potentially be located anywherein the world, offsets can provide carbon-reduc-ing strategies at the lowest cost.

Project-based emissions reductions, when prop-erly implemented, are a high-quality environ-mental commodity. In order to ensure that realreductions are achieved, in the jargon of theoffset world, it is necessary to prove project’semissions reductions have “additionality,” that is,they result in emission reductions in addition tothose that would occur in the business-as-usualscenario. If the project underlying the offsetswould have occurred anyway, then atmosphericgreenhouse gas levels will not really be reduced,and the emissions go unmitigated. In emissionstrading schemes, additionality is addressedthrough the application of stringent projectreview processes, procedures, standards, andcriteria. Proving additionality is an importantchallenge for offset projects.


141

Types of Forestry-Related Offsets

Forests and changes in forest management havethe potential to serve as project-based offsets ina number of ways. The two most basic projecttypes are those involving land management andproduct substitution.

Land Management-Based Offsets

Potential land management-based offsets act toincrease the buildup of carbon in the forest.Offset types include avoided deforestation,afforestation, reforestation, and forest manage-ment. In all cases additionality needs to bedemonstrated.

Forest Conservation simply means not clearinga forest, and can also be called avoided defores-tation or forest preservation. When a forest iscleared, a pulse of carbon dioxide is emitted tothe atmosphere, adding to greenhouse gasemissions.

Afforestation is planting trees on land that hasnot previously been forested. The trees grow,and over time contain more carbon than theprior unforested ecosystem.

Reforestation is planting of trees on land thathas been logged. If the reforestation is requiredby logging regulations, this replanting is not“additional” and cannot serve as an offset.There are several sub-types of reforestation.One involves riparian zones, and has proven tobe popular due to its watershed quality benefit.Another sub-type involves plantations to becommercially harvested at a later date, while athird is plantations of very short-rotation trees,such as hybrid poplars.

Forest management involves changing harvestapproaches so that biomass is increased, such asextending rotations or increasing the number oftrees that are retained at harvest. Reducing firerisk is also important and receiving increasedattention, as forest fires are a significant sourceof carbon emissions. In addition, practices such

as forest thinning to reduce fire risk can stimu-late growth in the remaining trees and increasecarbon storage.

Product Substitution-Based Offsets

Forests can potentially serve as offsets throughsubstitution of forest products for higher-carbonmaterials and energy. There are a large numberof potential technologies and processes for usingbiomaterials and bioenergy (Ragauskas et al.,2006).

Material substitution typically involves the useof wood as a structural component in lieu ofconcrete and steel.

Energy substitution involves the use ofbioenergy to replace fossil fuels. The energycaptured in forests can be converted by varioustechnologies to electricity, gaseous fuels, andliquid fuels.

Challenges to Carbon Markets inForest Sequestration

Forest offsets present some unique challengescompared to other types of carbon offsetprojects and also produce a wide array of co-benefits. Three aspects of forestry-based offsetsrequire more analysis, and are addressed below:permanence, ownership, and co-benefits.

Permanence

Sequestration differs from energy-related offsetsin one key regard: permanence. Permanenceaddresses whether the emissions reductions lastforever (avoided emissions) or whether theymight be returned to the atmosphere, typicallyinadvertently. Permanence, the most challeng-ing offset quality criteria, is also calledreversibility, as the emissions benefit could bereversed. Two examples can help to illustratethis distinction. Suppose a wind farm is con-structed and operates for ten years, at whichtime it is destroyed by a tornado. While thewind farm would no longer generate any


142

emissions reductions in the future, all of theemissions reductions is caused in its first tenyears will still reside as a benefit in the atmo-sphere. Contrast this to a reforestation projectthat grows for forty years, at which time it isconsumed by a catastrophic forest fire andreleases much of the carbon dioxide that it hadpreviously absorbed. In this instance, none ofthe emissions benefit created by the projectbefore the catastrophe will still reside in theatmosphere. The carbon dioxide would havebeen sequestered, and then “reversed” into theatmosphere.

Concerns about permanence manifest them-selves in two forms: end-of-contract effects andunplanned disturbances. The contractualcommitment for forest sequestration offsets caneither have a specific end date or they cancontinue into perpetuity. A conservationeasement is an example of an “into perpetuity”obligation. Several approaches have beensuggested for addressing the uncertainty regard-ing permanence (USEPA 2005). One is atemporary crediting approach, where regulatorycredit for sequestration-related reductions expireafter a fixed time period. Other approachesinclude “renting” or “leasing” the carbon diox-ide locked up by forest sequestration.

Unplanned disturbances include fire, insects,disease, and illegal harvest. All can affect asequestration project while a contract is ineffect. Approaches for addressing this type ofpermanence concern include discounting theanticipated reductions from a project up front(USEPA 2005), use of a reserve pool of com-prised of a certain percentage of the offsetsgenerated by a project, and use of insurance foroffset performance. The Chicago ClimateExchange addresses the issue of net losses incarbon stocks (for example, from a forest fire)by requiring that a quantity of offsets equal to20% of all forest offsets in the forest portfoliobe held in a Chicago Climate Exchange carbonreserve pool throughout the life of the program(Chicago Climate Exchange). The ClimateTrust has addressed forest offset risks by invest-

ing in projects which do not allow harvest oftrees, by requiring the establishment of reservepools, and by requiring that the project devel-oper replace tons that they fail to deliver.

In addition to self-insuring, as the ChicagoClimate Exchange does, there is a potential rolefor an insurance company or other entity toquantify the risk of non-delivery of the requiredcarbon tons and offer insurance to the carbonbuyer (or seller, depending on who retains theultimate liability) for non-performance. Theissue of vintaging – matching the timing ofemission reductions or sequestration to annualrequired targets — is also very significant toforest carbon offsets in an illiquid market wherenot all vintages are available for purchase.Forward markets are developing in which futurevintages will be appropriately discounted basedon prevailing interest rates, future price expecta-tions, and an assessment of the creditworthinessof the seller. All of this – along with issues ofpermanence and temporary crediting - may wellresult in lower prices for forest offset projectsrelative to other project types.

Ownership and Legal Title

Not all emissions reductions can qualify to becarbon offsets. There are a number of carbonoffset quality criteria that serve as distinguishingfactors when determining which types ofemissions reduction approaches are eligible tobecome offsets, or make them more or lessattractive to the offset buyer. One key criterionis ownership of the offsets.

When one sells an offset, one is paid for thelegal rights to a ton of sequestered carbondioxide. This sale is conducted under the termsof an emissions reduction purchase agreement.Each such contract includes extensive legaldefinitions regarding the offsets. In order toenter into such a contract, one must have thelegal right to sell the emission reduction. TheClimate Trust’s contracts require that the offsetdeveloper transfer any and all rights to carbondioxide reductions resulting from their project


143

in exchange for funding. The offset developer(and other implementation partners) is excludedfrom selling the same tons to another entity,using the tons for other purposes, or selling thecarbon dioxide in other environmental prod-ucts. In addition, each contract also includes arequirement for written disclaimers from allproject partners and participants, disclosure ofsale to regulatory authorities and other parties,and definitions on what “bragging rights” areacceptable. Offset developers may be requiredto indemnify the purchaser against competingclaims of offset ownership. In programmaticoffsets in which participants enroll in a programoperated by the offset developer, offset contractsrequire participation agreements to create a clearownership trail to tons of CO

2. This participa-

tion agreement provides a “chain of custody” forthe offsets. The documents that are necessary totransfer the rights to an offset, in addition to thecontract itself, include a Bill of Sale, an AnnualOffset Certificate, and third party verification ofthe quantity of offsets delivered.

Land-management based offsets – avoideddeforestation, afforestation, reforestation, andforest management – involve the landownersconsent, either as a signer of the offset contract oras a signer of a participation agreement. As such,the legal title to the offsets is generally not subjectto questions regarding ownership, at least not forprivate landowners in the U.S. However, owner-ship of forest carbon rights should not be takenfor granted. For example, to the deep consterna-tion of private forestland owners, New Zealandnationalized carbon offsets from forestry, gaininga carbon asset for the national account worthapproximately $2 billion and negating the needto regulate the politically powerful agriculturalsector which was responsible for about half of thecountry’s greenhouse gas emissions (Brand andKuppalli n.d.). In Canada, where much of theforestland is owned by the Crown and licensed toforest companies for harvesting, ownership of thecarbon asset associated with changes in forestmanagement has been a source of fierce debatebetween provincial governments and privateforest companies.

In the United States, ownership issues that doarise are not related to legal title to sell the offsets,but rather to the landowner’s willingness to enterinto a legally binding commitment to manage theforest to generate offsets and the potentially long-term nature of this commitment. Chapter 9provides an overview of the experience of Oregon’sForest Resource Trust in attracting landownerparticipation in a long-term offset program.

Substitution-based offsets – material substitu-tion and energy substitution – have a differenttype of ownership issue. Here the issue is one ofa clear title to the offsets. In the case of the useof wood as a substitute for higher carbonmaterials, the owner of the reduction may notbe the entity that chose to use wood in lieu ofmetal. Rather, the emission reduction wouldoccur at the smelter, where less metal would beproduced, and therefore, less fossil energyconsumed and less carbon dioxide emitted. Thistype of emission reduction is called an indirectemission reduction. The offset occurs at a pointin a product’s life cycle that is not under directcontrol – and therefore, potentially, ownership –of the entity that engaged in the substitution.Due to this indirect nature of the emissionsreduction created, material substitution is adifficult form of emissions reduction to use asthe basis for an offset. The treatment of materi-als substitution-based reductions will depend onthe rules of any trading systems that are estab-lished. Ownership of these reductions couldaccrue to the entity choosing to implement thelow-carbon substitution, or it could accrue tothe smelter, as is the case in this example.

For energy substitution, the offsets may be directif the owner of a facility that previously burnedfossil fuel converts to wood as a fuel source. Theoffset is tied to the amount of fossil fuel combus-tion that is foregone. However, wood burningoffsets may be indirect as well, as in the casewhen a new biofueled electricity project isconstructed. The emissions reductions comefrom reduced fossil fuel electricity generation onthe power grid, but they do not have the same


144

Type of CarbonOffset Project Advantages Challenges

Table 1An offset market perspective: relative attractiveness

of forest sequestration and other project types

Energy Efficiency

Renewable Energy

Transportation

Agricultural SoilSequestration

GeologicalSequestration

Forestry:ForestConservation

Once equipment is installed, projectgenerates permanent reductions.Measurement of energy efficiency iswell developed. Any leakage is likelyto be captured in program impactevaluation procedures.

Avoided emissions are permanent,with little potential for leakage.Measuring electricity production isroutine for renewable energy projects,as it is a salable commodity.

Avoided emissions are permanent.

Landowner is likely to be entitled toownership, and may cede them to anaggregator for marketing purposes.Leakage rating is fair.

It is anticipated that sequestrationwill exceed that for forestry, butstill the subject of considerableresearch and uncertainty. Leakage israted good because of well-definedproject boundary.

Landowner owns emissions benefit,and either sells it directly or via aparticipation agreement. Althoughit carries risks common to anyforest-based offset (fire, disease,etc.), land is usually permanentlycommitted to forested-statethrough a conservation easement.

Ownership may be claimed by implementer, but forindirect emission reductions involving electricity,load-serving entity may claim or be deemed to haverights.

Wind developer or generator avoiding emissions mayboth claim ownership. In addition, renewable energycredit market and offset market have yet to bereconciled.

Ownership may be difficult to establish for certainprojects, e.g., where commuters do not sign aparticipation agreement. Baseline and reduction invehicle miles traveled are difficult to directly measure.

If land use practice changes or other events (drought,flood, etc) occur, carbon pulse could result. Soilcarbon dynamics are complex, and the subject ofconsiderable scientific study. Quantification is likelyto remain site specific, unless a standardized approachwith considerable discounting is used. A difficulty isgetting landowners to commit to a long-term orpermanent change in land management practices.

Measuring amount of CO2 injected is feasible.

Measuring any potential leakage from the reservoirwould likely be difficult.

May shift logging to different area, with little or nonet emissions benefit. Benefit is measured againstemissions associated with historic and predicted rateof deforestation. Actuals may be different that theassumed baseline. The difficulty is gettinglandowners to commit to a long-term or permanentchange in forest management practices. There is alsoa risk of illegal logging

ownership status as the prior example. In sometrading schemes, this type of energy substitutionwould create an emissions benefit for thebioenergy facility owner, while in other schemes,it would not. It is important for those consider-ing building bioenergy facilities to gain anunderstanding of the structure of the tradingschemes into which they hope to sell offsets, and

how these schemes treat direct and indirectemissions reductions.

The emerging market for offsets is global, and itinvolves a much wider range of technologiesand approaches than forest sequestration. It isimportant for those interested in forestry-basedoffsets to understand how these offsets compare

Table 1 continued next page


145

Type of CarbonOffset Project Advantages Challenges

Table 1 Continued

Forestry:Afforestation/Reforestation

Forestry:ForestManagement

Landowner owns emissions benefit,and either sells it directly or via aparticipation agreement. Although itcarries risks common to any forest-based offset (fire, disease, etc.), land isusually permanently committed toforested-state through a conservationeasement. Leakage rating is good –Such projects are unlikely to result indisplacing logging elsewhere. Complexsite-specific monitoring and protocolneeded, but measurement is practicaland reasonably accurate.

Landowner acceptability is likely higherthan with forest conservation sincesome revenues from logging areanticipated.

There is a risk of illegal logging.

Defining baseline of anticipated predicated forestmanagement practices is difficult. In addition, periodicactive logging makes site verification more difficult.Benefit is measured against emissions associated withhistoric and predicted rate of deforestation. Actuals maybe different that the assumed baseline. Landowner mustbe committed to management practice. Carries samerisks of permanence as other forest-based projects (maybe lower due to active management practices).

to those based upon other technological ap-proaches. Table 1 contrasts forestry-basedoffsets with other offset types such as transpor-tation, renewable energy and geological seques-tration. Forest-based offsets face some impor-tant challenges in comparison with other offsettypes, especially as regards to permanence,leakage, ownership, and measurability. Whilethese are significant challenges, they are by nomeans insurmountable, and approaches thatallow forestry-based offsets to participate intrading schemes have been or should be able tobe developed. In addition, it is important tonote that the types of forestry-based offsets arequite different relative to the criteria presentedin the table.

The Co-Benefits of Forestry Offsets

Forest offset projects often generate attractiveenvironmental and social co-benefits, includingjob generation, habitat retention/enhancement,water quality improvements, recreational opportu-nities, and enhancement of scenic vistas, not tomention potential co-production of timber and

non-timber forest products. (Table 2) Many ofthese public benefits can be quantified and mon-etized, resulting in a “layer cake” of ecosystemservice market sales. It is no accident that manycarbon transactions in the voluntary marketinvolve forestry and agricultural offset projects thatgenerate considerable public benefit beyond thesequestration of greenhouse gases.

For example, the New South Wales State Forestsagency in Australia has been exploring ways toattract private funding for reforestation in areas oflow rainfall, using the “layer cake” strategy. In partsof Australia, removal of the original forest cover hascaused greater volume of rainwater to penetratedeep into the soil and raise the water table, bringingnaturally-occurring salt to the surface and increasingthe salt content in surface water, to the detriment ofbiodiversity and agricultural production. Bybundling potential revenue from timber produc-tion, carbon sequestration, and salinity reduction,State Forests is experimenting with a financiallyviable model to finance large-scale restoration ofdryland forest regions. For example, in a pilotproject in the Macquarie cachement, the agency has


146

Project orProgram Funding ProjectName Organization Type Co-Benefits

Table 2Examples of forest based project co-benefits

Deschutes RiverBasin RiparianRestoration,Oregon

Forest ClimateProgram

Noel KempffClimate ActionProject

Oregon’s ForestResource TrustStandEstablishmentProgram

Rio BravoConservation andManagement Area,Belize

The Climate Trust

Future Forests (throughThe Pacific ForestTrust)

Fundación Amigos dela Naturaleza (FAN),the Boliviangovernment, TheNature Conservancy,American ElectricPower, BP andPacifiCorp.

Klamath CogenerationProject

The NatureConservancy

Afforestation – Restores riparianforest cover along denuded areasof the Deschutes River watershed.

Forest Conservation – securedconservation easements on5,000 acres of privately ownedforestland in California toachieve forest managementabove requirements of theCalifornia Forest Practices Act.

Forest Conservation – Preventsforest logging by termination oflogging rights and preventsdeforestation by a variety ofactivities to local communities on1.6 million acres of government-owned land and incorporate thatland into the Noel KempffMercado park.

Afforestation – Conversion ofunderproducing agriculture, rangeand brush land back into healthy,productive forests.

Forest Conservation – Preventsdeforestation and provides forsustainable management on260,000 acres of mixed lowland,moist sub-tropical broadleaf forest.

Improved water quality and streamflows, improved fish and wildlifehabitat and increased aestheticqualities.

Future Forests projects housenumerous threatened andendangered fish and wildlife species— including Coho salmon, spottedowls, peregrine falcons and marbledmurrelets — and contain stands ofold-growth redwoods and Douglas -fir. In addition, the easementsprotect important watersheds andmunicipal water supplies.

Conserves biodiversity and providesfor continued habitat for giant riverotters, capybaras, pink river dolphinsand black and spectacled caiman.Provides social and economicbenefits to five communities in andaround the park including improvedschools and medical care. Providessustainable resource opportunitiessuch as small-scale heart-of-palmharvesting and sustainable sales ofwood from certified forests.

Increased timber supply, increasedforest cover for wildlife, improvedwater quality, aesthetics.

Conserves biodiversity and providesfor continued habitat forendangered black howler monkeyand jaguar, numerous migratorybirds, mahogany and otherimportant tree species.

established 100 hectares of newly planted forest,funded in part by a fee from a downstream agricul-tural user (the Macquarie River Food and FibreCompany) for the transpiration services provided bythe trees, which will eventually reduce salinity of thesurface water and increase agricultural yields. StateForests retains the timber and carbon rights of theplanted trees, and pays the landowner an annuity

for the lease of the land.4 This strategy is illustratedin Figure 1.

Closer to home, Ecotrust, a Portland-based conser-vation organization, recently launched a privateequity forestland investment fund that will takeadvantage of expanding and emerging markets forthe array of goods and services produced by forests.

4 http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/restoration/docs/NSW_Australia.pdf


147

While the New South Wales example draws onecosystem service markets to fund reforestation,Ecotrust Forests LLC is looking to emergingmarkets to help fund a forest management approachthat results in greater value from a triple bottom lineperspective – higher quality and more abundantwood products, healthier and more diverse forests,and higher employment and opportunities for localcommunities. This ecosystem-based forest manage-ment approach relies on longer rotations, thinnings,and enrichment plantings to increase structural andfunctional diversity, and results in higher carbonstorage, better habitat, and enhanced recreationaland scenic values, as well as producing higher valuelogs. The benefits of extending rotations forbiodiversity, carbon storage, or wood quality are wellrecognized (Carey et al., 1999, Haynes 2005).

However, the financial challenge is that delayingharvests delays cash flow, and results in a lower netpresent value at prevailing discount rates, even if thecumulative cash flow of long rotation forestry isultimately higher.

Binkley et al., (2006) compared the financialperformance of an industrial regime focusedexclusively on timber production with an ecosys-tem-based forest management regime that focusedexplicitly on co-producing an array of forest prod-ucts and services. As in other studies, the extensionof rotation from 40 to 60 years (which included oneto two commercial thins at age 30 and 45) reducedthe internal rate of return (IRR) from timber sales –in this case from 6% to 5.5%. However, as can beseen in Figure 2, the ecosystem-based forest manage-

Figure 1An example of stacking ecosystem services and commodity production in a salinity-prone watershed in Australia. The land managementstrategy which includes restoration and sale of enhanced ecosystem services outperforms the existing management scheme which is basedsolely on commodity production. Carbon credit sales play a prominent role in making this restoration strategy financially viable.Source: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/restoration/docs/NSW_Australia.pdf


148

ment approach opened up other revenue sources,including a small premium from higher valued logs,the sale of conservation easements (51 basis points),the sale of carbon sequestration credits (32 basispoints), and the sale of New Market Tax Credits (55basis points), bringing the total IRR to a projected7%, one percentage point higher than the 6%yielded by the industrial forestry approach.

The analysis includes a fairly conservative assess-ment of carbon potential, selling additional carbonas it is generated — rather than up front as iscurrently customary for voluntary forest carbontransactions. In this study, carbon is valued at $5per metric ton of carbon dioxide, and only aportion of the carbon stored was considered. At thisprice, carbon alone is not enough to shift the forestmanagement approach from industrial to ecosys-tem-based. However, if impacts on biodiversity areconsidered (captured here as conservation easementsales) and local job generation (New Market TaxCredits, a federal program to spur investment infinancially distressed communities, which includesmuch of the rural West), and if these values can beadequately monetized and sold, a rational forestlandowner would shift to the longer-rotation approach.

The concept of aggregating various sources ofcommodity and ecosystem service revenues – oftenreferred to as “bundling,” “stacking,” or morederisively, “double-dipping” — has its detractors.Federal and state agencies responsible for adminis-tering the Endangered Species Act or Clean WaterAct, for example, are concerned that allowinglandowners to bundle sales of ecosystem services– in essence, allowing the same unit of land toserve as mitigation for the loss of more than oneecosystem function – might result in a net loss ofhabitat at the landscape level, unless an extremelysophisticated accounting system is conceived andimplemented to ensure no net loss. The concernis based on the way impacts on endangeredspecies, wetlands, and habitat are mitigated,which raises the potential that a developer mightimpact one acre of wetland and a separate acre of,for example, habitat for the threatened Californiared-legged frog, and compensate for both im-pacts by buying credits from a single acre at aconservation bank selling credits for both wet-land and endangered species habitat under amulti-credit system. Conservation banks formitigating impacts to endangered species, as wellas other emerging ecosystem service markets, aredescribed in Sidebar 3.

Source:Binkley et al,2006.Reprinted bypermission ofEcotrust

Figure 2


149

Reforesting an Ecuadorian Rainforest Biodiversity Hotspot:a sequestration project funded by the Climate Trust

While the concern may be legitimate for miti-gating impacts to habitat and species, there are anumber of ecosystem service sales that can beappropriately grouped to create financiallyviable models for ecosystem-based managementwhile creating increasing and unique incentivesfor habitat restoration with each sale. In theEcotrust Forests LLC example described above,the sale of a conservation easement relinquishesdevelopment rights on the land; a carbon offset

sale then provides compensation for increasingrotations to sequester additional carbon. TheNew Market Tax Credit, which compensates theinvestor for directing their investment to adistressed community with high unemploymentand high poverty, is not an ecosystem servicemarket per se, but its goal – increasing employ-ment – is well served by ecosystem-based forestmanagement which also produces higher carbonstores and enhanced habitat.

Sidebar 3

Less than two percent of Ecuador’s coastalrainforest remains. The forests in northwest-ern Ecuador have suffered deforestation frompopulation growth and a doubling of farmland. Tall grasses that invade disturbed areasprevent native trees from being re-established.

The Climate Trust contracted to purchaseoffsets from Conservation International andJatun Sacha Foundation from thereforestation of more than 680 acres of highlydegraded pasture in northwest Ecuador. Theproject is located in one of the mostbiologically diverse areas on Earth and in oneof Conservation International’s top fiveconservation targets worldwide. Over threeyears, 15 native hardwood species will bereplanted on the site. This project, located inthe 7,140-acre Bilsa Biological Reserve, willrestore and protect the land and allow it togrow back to old-growth forest. Over the 99-year life of the project, it will capture at least65,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. Sincethis project contained no financial returns orharvesting, the Climate Trust’s offset fundingwas crucial to proceed with reforestation andprotection of the site.

The Climate Trust has employed WinrockInternational to develop and help implementthe monitoring and verification plan for thisproject, which will include measurement of

carbon fluctuations on the ground andverification of current carbon estimates.Scientifically valid measurement of trees willbe undertaken periodically throughout theproject life to measure carbon accumulation.Monitoring and verification will also measureany leakage that may occur. However, leakageit not expected to occur in this project giventhat it is not “avoided deforestation,” forcingharvesting to shift elsewhere.

In addition to sequestering carbon, thisprojects has many valuable environmentalco-benefits. This remnant forest has a uniquecomposition of flora and fauna,internationally renowned for both its diversityand rarity. Rare animals found at the reserveinclude the jaguar, several small cat species,the long wattled umbrella bird, the giantanteater and abundant populations of thethreatened mantled howler monkey. TheReserve’s bird species diversity (about 330species) is among the highest of any coastalsite in Ecuador. A number of bird species inthe Reserve are threatened, and some of themigratory birds that breed in Bilsa spend partof their lives in Oregon forests. The ongoingbotanical inventory at Bilsa has uncovered 30plant species new to science. The Jatun SachaFoundation conducts field research andeducation with researches, students, interns,and tour groups.


150

The issue of aggregating ecosystem servicecredits within a single unit of land is far morethan academic. It is of vital importance to rurallandscapes. In places with high developmentpressure and high land values, developers aremotivated to pay sufficiently high prices formitigation credits to adequately fund viableconservation banks. In rural settings with lowerdevelopment activity, the price of credits iscorrespondingly lower, and may not be suffi-cient to sustain a wetland or conservation bankunder a system where only one ecosystemservice can be sold per unit of land. Markets formultiple ecosystem services are also requiredwhen conservation objectives are competingwith intensive land uses such as agriculture andplantation forestry. For example, Temple Inland,a Texas-based company with over two millionacres of forestland under management, has beenexploring a conservation management strategywhere commercial forestry activities can becomplemented with mitigation banking, carbonstorage, flood control and water filtrationservices. Given the small and disjointed natureof these early ecosystem service markets, thecompany still finds it difficult to put dealstogether on a regular basis, and is pursuing a“stacking” of ecosystem service revenue streamsfrom carbon sequestration, recreational leases,wetland and stream mitigation banking, andselective timber harvesting to overcome unevendemand and uncertain pricing (Hawn 2005).Without the ability to stack ecosystem servicemarket sales, Temple Inland – and other forestrycompanies - may find it difficult to expand theconservation and social benefits that theirforests can provide.

In addition to enhancing the awareness ofecosystem service revenue markets by developersand others whose activities may impact habitator water quality, market growth has also beenlimited by uneven capacity and interest at thearray of federal and state agencies which mustapprove and monitor ecosystem service trades.One of the emerging approaches to creating amarket for biodiversity is through the establish-

ment of a conservation banking system, inwhich developers compensate for their impactson habitat for endangered species by buying“credits” in a conservation bank which pur-chases and develops habitat for the species thatis being impacted by the development project.While California, for example, has developedover 50 conservation banks, Oregon and Wash-ington are just beginning to establish their firstbanks. Bank development in the Pacific North-west, for both species conservation and wet-lands, has been very slow, due in large part tothe limited staff resources and slow response ofthe necessary agencies. To address this issue –and to establish a coherent set of performancestandards around mitigation banks – the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (responsible foradministering Section 404 of the Clean WaterAct which mandates no net loss of wetlands)and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) recently released a new draft regulation,the Compensatory Mitigation for Loss ofAquatic Resources, which is expected to signifi-cantly expand the use of mitigation banking.Among other provisions, the regulation imposesperformance standards on both agencies and onmitigation bank owners.

While carbon markets have developed largely inisolation from other ecosystem service markets –such as wetland and conservation mitigationbanking, water quality trading, flood controlcredits, and other emerging markets – we woulddo well to pay close attention to the developingrules, structures, market areas, and marketleaders across all of these market types. Weneed to think holistically about how to structurethese developing ecosystem service creditmarkets, both individually and in aggregate, toaccomplish a host of public benefit objectives,from restoring degraded landscapes, to provid-ing new economic development strategies foreconomically distressed areas, to providingincentives for approaches to forestry and agri-culture which align private incentives withpublic values. An example of this approach isdescribed above for Ecotrust Forests LLC,


151

which draws on a number of emerging ecosys-tem service markets and economic developmentincentive programs to profitably buy andmanage forests for carbon storage, habitatcreation, job generation, and the provision ofwood products. A number of non-profit andfor-profit entities are emerging to capitalize onthese new opportunities and the growingavailability of capital and interest from socially-responsible investors (Social InvestmentForum 2006)

What does this Mean forOregon Forests?

Relative to other ecosystem service markets –such as water quality trading and conservationbanking - carbon is probably the most signifi-cant near-term ecosystem service market oppor-tunity, and has the unique advantage of being aglobal market. Pacific Northwest forests canstore more carbon than most other forestecosystems (Smithwick et al 2002), givingOregon and the region a unique competitiveadvantage in this developing market. Theregion’s forests also have other distinct advan-tages: almost all of the native tree species arecommercially valuable, the forests provide scenicvistas and recreational opportunities to a grow-ing population, forested watersheds are thesource of drinking water for much of Oregon,and forests provide habitat to a wide array ofcommercially valuable species, including Pacificsalmon. All of this suggests a viable strategy forOregon’s forestland owners, where the produc-tion of timber, carbon storage, high-qualitywater and habitat yield a diverse array of rev-enue streams which make forestry financiallyattractive, and retain forestlands on the land-scape for generations to come.

In addition to abundant forestlands, which lendthemselves well to carbon storage, Oregon alsohas strong institutional capacity for ecosystemmarket development, with leading carbonorganizations such as the Climate Trust and

Trexler Climate & Energy Services headquar-tered here. The state is recognized for its longhistory in leadership and innovation on envi-ronmental legislation and market creation. In anational and global system of emissions trading,Oregon can emerge as a strong player, andOregon’s forestland owners can gain a competi-tive advantage. Abundant carbon sinks through-out the state include not only forests but agri-cultural lands and marine environments, rela-tively clean power sources and industries, stronginstitutional capacity, an entrepreneurial busi-ness sector, and a progressive citizenry.

The markets are moving quickly, however, andif Oregon is to gain an advantage as a nationalmarket develops it will have to gain a seat at thetable and help formulate the rules in a way thatfavors our natural resources and creates long-term benefits for the region’s residents.

In this spirit, we suggest the following optionsfor consideration:

■ Collaboration between the forest industryand environmental groups.

The forest industry and environmentalgroups should move beyond past historyand work together to develop mechanismsto structure and sell forest carbon offsets, aswell as other forest-based ecosystem services.Without an effective system in place tocompensate landowners for forest steward-ship, conversion of forestland will continueto increase in the region, to the detriment ofall. Continued debate and lack of trustamong these important constituencies willsignificantly limit market development, andmay cause forest carbon to be excluded froman emission trading system.


152

■ Establish a state cap-and-trade system.

Oregon should continue to move aggres-sively on establishing a cap-and-tradesystem, and ensure that forest carbon offsetsand other sequestration strategies are in-cluded appropriately.

■ Pursue a regional carbon market tradingsystem.

Efficient and cost-effective emission reduc-tions require deep and robust markets.While multi-state trading systems take timeand commitment to develop, Oregon is notlarge enough to create a vigorous market onits own. The state should continue topursue a regional trading system withsufficient volume and value to attract andsupport the necessary financial, technical,and informational resources.

■ Invest in infrastructure to support anactive, efficient and equitable carbonmarket.

In anticipation of market development,Oregon should invest now in the legislativeand institutional structures needed tosupport an active carbon market. Thisincludes separation and clarification ofcarbon ownership rights (as distinct fromthe property rights of the land and timberwhere the carbon is stored), development ofmechanisms to address permanence (forexample, insurance products, temporarycrediting, and pooling,) and enforcementmechanisms.

Participating in ecosystem service marketsalso carries high transaction costs. The needto measure and verify that emission reduc-tions have indeed occurred and that carbonis being sequestered as agreed is expensiveand time-consuming. At this point, onlyvery sophisticated entities and relativelylarge transactions can participate in these

markets. Oregon needs to stimulate andnurture the formation of efficient interme-diaries that can “bundle” individual transac-tions – for example, reforestation efforts bysmall forestland owners – to allow broadparticipation in carbon and other emergingecosystem service markets.

■ Invest in the intellectual capital neededfor market development.

Oregon needs to make a substantial invest-ment in the intellectual capital necessary tosupport market development. This includesdeveloping the underlying rules for all kindsof emission reductions and offsets, includ-ing forest carbon. For example, how shouldforest carbon be measured? Should carbonstored in wood products be considered?How about strategies that minimize the riskof catastrophic forest fires?

In addition to developing rigorous andtransparent protocols that will allow Oregoncarbon offsets to be widely marketablearound the globe, the state needs to recruitor develop a wide array of technical assis-tance entities to provide structuring, moni-toring, and verification services. Much ofthe needed framework and accountingprotocols could be provided through review-ing, adapting, and possibly adopting thethorough and well-regarded CaliforniaClimate Action Registry, the voluntaryregistration system recently adopted inCalifornia, as well as a review of otherexisting and developing trading systems.

■ Develop trading platforms

Oregon – or the regional market of whichOregon is part – needs to entice or developthe necessary trading platforms, includingmarket exchanges, that will create marketliquidity and transparency, and encourageconfidence and participation in the carbonmarket and market growth.


153

Summary

With its reliance on snowpack for summerwater flows and the importance of climate-sensitive sectors such as forestry and agriculture,Oregon is particularly vulnerable to the effectsof climate change. By building on its strongtradition in innovation and forward thinking,Oregon can begin to address the threat ofclimate change in ways that create financialopportunities, enhance the health and integrityof its landscapes, build social capital, and createa long-term competitive advantage.

The unique qualities of Oregon’s forests, whichare capable of producing high quality woodproducts while storing large amounts of carbonand producing a host of other benefits – such ashabitat and scenic vistas – give Oregon a uniqueadvantage in not only meeting a portion of itsown greenhouse gas reduction targets efficiently,but in selling quality offsets to others. Thiscompetitive advantage will only materialize,however, if we act quickly and decisively indeveloping an effective, rigorous, and robusttrading system that includes forest carbon, andmeets the standards and pricing requirements ofglobal carbon markets.


154

Bayon, Ricardo, Hawn, Amanda, andHamilton, Katherine. In press. The VoluntaryCarbon Market (working title). EcosystemMarketplace, Washington D.C.

Biello, D. 2006. “Eight is not Enough,”Ecosystem Marketplace, May 2, 2006.

Binkley, C; S. Beebe, D. New, and B. vonHagen. 2006. “An Ecosystem-based ForestryInvestment Strategy for the Coastal TemperateRainforests of North America.” Ecotrust,Portland, Oregon.

Brand, D. and R. Kappalli. Undated.“Greenhouse Gas Emission Offsets from Forests– A review of current legislation and Currentpractices.” New Forests, Sydney, Australia.

Carey, A., B. Lippke, and J. Sessions. 1999.Intentional Systems Management: ManagingForests for Biodiversity. Journal of SustainableForestry, Vol 9 (3/4).

Capoor, K. and P. Ambrosi. May 2006. “Stateand Trends of the Carbon Market 2006”.World Bank and International EmissionsTrading Association, Washington DC.

Chicago Climate Exchange website,www.chicagoclimetex.com

Climate Trust, The. 2000. Oregon ClimateTrust: Request for Carbon Offset ProjectProposals.

Climate Trust, The. 2001. The Climate Trustand Seattle City Light: 2001 Request forCarbon Offset Project Proposals.

Climate Trust, The. 2004. Purchasing QualityOffsets in an Emerging Market. The ClimateTrust’s 5 Year Report to the Energy FacilitySiting Council.

Literature Cited

Climate Trust, The. 2005. The Climate Trust:Request for Carbon Dioxide Offset ProjectProposals.

EIA, 2005. International Energy Outlook2005. DOE/EIA-0484(2005)

Hasselknippe, H. and Roine, K., eds. 2006.“Carbon 2006.” Point Carbon. Oslo, Norway.

Haynes, R. 2005. “Economic Feasibility ofLonger Management Regimes in the Douglas-Fir Region.” PNW-RN-547. U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific NorthwestResearch Station. Portland, Oregon.

Hawn, A. 2005. “Stack ‘em up.” EcosystemMarketplace, December 7, 2005.

IPCC, 2000. Special Report on Land Use,Land-Use Change And ForestryLand Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

IPCC, 2001. Climate Change 2001: TheScientific Basis. Contribution of WorkingGroup I to the Third Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC).

Levin, Kelly and Jonathan Pershing, “Climatescience 2005: Major new discoveries.” WorldResources Institute Issue Brief, 2006.

National Academies of Science, 2005. JointScience Academies’ Statement: Global Responseto Climate Change. http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf.

Pacala, S. and R. Socolow, 2004. “Stabilizationwedges: Solving the climate problem for thenext 50 years with current technologies.”Science 305: 968-972. August 13, 2004.


155

Parker, A. 2004. The Siren Call of the Seas:Sequestering Carbon Dioxide. Science andTechnology Review. May 2004

Ragauskas, A., C. Williams, B. Davison, GBritovisek, J. Cairney, C. Eckert, W FrederickJr., J. Hallett, D. Leak, C. Liotta, J. Mielenz, R.Murphy, R. Templer, and T. Tschaplinksi, 2006.“The path forward for biofuels andbiomaterials.” Science 311: 484-489.

Schlamadinger B. and G Marland, 2000. LandUse & Global Climate Change: Forests, LandManagement, and the Kyoto Protocol.Prepared for the Pew Center on GlobalClimate Change.

Smithwick, E. A. H., M. E. Harmon, S. M.Remillard, S. A. Acker, and J. F. Franklin.2002. Potential upper bounds of carbon storesin forests of the Pacific Northwest. EcologicalApplications 12:1303–1317

Taiyab, N. 2005. The Market for VoluntaryCarbon Offsets: A New Tool for SustainableDevelopment? Gatekeeper Series 121.International Institute for Environment andDevelopment. London, England.

Timmons, Heather. “Data Leaks Shake upCarbon Trade.” The New York Times, May 16,2006, Business Day, p. 1.

USEPA, 2005. Greenhouse Gas MitigationPotential in U.S. Forestry and Agriculture. EPA430-R-05-006.

Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings Chapter Nine

156

Introduction

■ Projects offer landowners income whilehelping reduce greenhouse gases.

■ The science of carbon accounting is still inearly stages; concepts are pioneering.

Principles of Carbon Accounting

■ For additionality, offsets must be developedfrom actions that would not have otherwiseoccurred.

■ A baseline is established to estimatecarbon offset.

■ Lost carbon benefits due to countervailingactivities are known as leakage.

■ Permanence addresses the time period toensure benefits aren’t reversed.

■ Forecasts made for investment analysisinclude consideration of factors of reliability,timing and risk.

Measurement Standards

■ Four U.S. CO2 reduction initiatives (private

and government sector programs) facilitatereporting, purchase or trade of carbonoffsets.

■ 2002 reporting guidelines include gradingsystem for the quality of the measurementstandard.

What to Measure

■ U.S. Department of Energy’s technicalguidelines provide overview of measurementprotocols and calculation methods forvarious forest types.

■ Measurements can include: live trees andunderstory vegetation; standing dead anddown logs; soils, litter and debris; andforest products.

Roles and Responsibilities inForest-Based Carbon Projects

■ An investor (usually a utility or powercompany) has an interest in offsetting aportion of CO

2 emissions arising from

business activities.■ The forest landowner may be directly

responsible or host a project.■ A professional forester or natural resource

specialist brings necessary expertise inestimating, and can coordinatemeasurement and reporting.

■ A third-party coordinating organizationassists with longevity and overall reliability.

Summary

■ Over the past 15 years, carbon accountinghas evolved, but principles and standards arestill in early stages of development.

■ Standards will progress to improve marketconfidence that reported carbon offsetsrepresent actual reductions in atmosphericcarbon dioxide.

CHAPTER NINEHIGHLIGHTS:

CARBON ACCOUNTING — DETERMINING CARBON

OFFSETS FROM FOREST PROJECTS

Chapter Nine Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings

157

CHAPTER NINECARBON ACCOUNTING — DETERMINING CARBON

OFFSETS FROM FOREST PROJECTSJim Cathcart and Matt Delaney

Introduction

Forest-based carbon projects offer thepotential to provide landowners withincome from their forestry activities while

simultaneously helping to reduce greenhousegases, specifically carbon dioxide (CO

2), in the

atmosphere. The challenge that forestlandowners face is knowing what will berequired of them for measuring and reportingthe amount of CO

2 emission reduction benefit

that can be sold or credited. This is a difficulttask, since CO

2 is a natural component of the

atmosphere, and forests are a natural part of theglobal carbon cycle. Determining the amountof carbon offset from forest activities can appearat first to be nothing more than trying to sell“thin air.” What needs to be recognized is thatselling carbon offsets is no different from sellingany other commodity accruing to the forest as aresult of management action – and that is, ifyou can’t measure it, you can’t sell it.

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce theprinciples and standards for carbon accounting– a short-hand term for estimating, measuring,reporting and monitoring CO

2 emission

reduction benefits (henceforth, carbon offsets).These generally arise from specific projects ormanagement activity such as planting trees,conserving older forests, improving foresthealth, improving timber yields for woodproducts or simply taking actions to maintain aproductive, forestland base.

A carbon offset is a transferable certificate, noteor other form of documentation (e.g., a registry)that warrants a measured amount of carbondioxide emission reduction benefit from aneligible activity, practice or policy. Carbonaccounting is discussed in two contexts. One isthe estimate or forecast of the amount of carbonoffsets anticipated from a proposed forest-basedcarbon project – for example, when a project isreviewed for investment analysis purposes.Another is the measurement and reporting ofthe actual quantity of carbon offsets that aproject has produced.

Verification, as defined here, is not part ofcarbon accounting, and is considered separateand distinct. Carbon accounting is theresponsibility of the seller of the carbon offset.Verification is the responsibility of either anindependent party, or a representative of thepurchaser who validates what the seller isclaiming as the quantity to be sold.

The following United States (U.S.) CO2

reduction initiatives (i.e., specific private orgovernment sector programs that facilitate thereporting, purchase or trade of carbon offsets)illustrate how the principles and standards forcarbon accounting are being applied1:

The California Climate Action Registry.Established by California statute, a non-profitregistry that helps companies and organizationsin the state to establish greenhouse gas emissionbaselines against which future emissionreduction requirements may be applied.

1The four major CO reduction initiatives being implemented in the U.S. For more information see:The California Climate Action Registry — http://www.climateregistry.org/The Chicago Climate Exchange — http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/The Climate Trust — http://www.climatetrust.org/Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions – http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/frntvrgg.html


158

The Chicago Climate Exchange. A self-regulatory registry, reduction and trading systemfor all six greenhouse gases, with legally bindingagreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Climate Trust. A non-profit organizationproviding carbon offsets to power plants,regulators, businesses and individuals.

Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse GasEmissions. Also known as 1605(b) reporting.Administered by the U.S. Department of Energy,Energy Information Agency to facilitate thevoluntary collection and reporting of annualreductions of greenhouse gas emissions and carbonsequestration achieved through any measures,forest management practices and tree planting.

In Oregon, an example of how the carbonaccounting principle and standards are applied isthe state’s Forest Resource Trust StandEstablishment Program. This financial andtechnical assistance program is administered by theOregon Department of Forestry for non-industrialprivate landowners who wish to convert marginalagriculture, pasture or brush land back intohealthy productive forests (i.e., afforestation). In1999, the Stand Establishment Program received$1.5 million of an expected $3.0 millioninvestment in afforestation from the KlamathCogeneration Project in south Central Oregon forthe purpose of offsetting a portion of thecogeneration plant’s CO

2 emissions

(Cathcart 2000).

As the science of carbon accounting is still in theearly stages of development, the conceptspresented here are pioneering and may not beapplicable to the various carbon trading policyarenas that are developing both internationally andinter-regionally within the U.S. This chapterprovides information for the forest landowner orpracticing forester who has an interest inconducting a forest-based carbon project. As such,the scope is limited to project-level accounting

from the perspective of how principles andstandards for the carbon accounting of suchprojects could be implemented in Oregon.

Principles of Carbon Accounting

There are five key principles of carbon accounting— Additionality, Baseline, Leakage, Permanence,and Measurement — which are defined andexplained below. These are quality assurances thathave become almost universal for any carbonproject to address. In some cases, they have directimplication on how, what and for how long thecarbon offsets are measured and reported. In othercases, the principles primarily address factors to beconsidered in forecasting the expected amount ofcarbon offsets from a proposed project, as well asother factors regarding project design quality.

The following issues and objectives of eachprinciple provide a perspective of what Oregonlandowners might face in the accounting ofcarbon offsets.

Additionality

Under current U.S. CO2 emission reduction

initiatives, purchasers must have the assurance thatthe offsets they are buying are additional – that is,the offsets arise from an activity that would nothave otherwise occurred “but for” the carboninvestment in the activity. Current U.S. CO

2

emission reduction initiatives do not treat regula-tory obligations of the landowner as additional.For example, in Oregon reforestation followingtimber harvest is required by the Oregon ForestPractices Act2. In this case, if a stand of timber washarvested and the land has to be replanted, thiswould not qualify as being additional because ofthe legal obligation to reforest. In contrast,afforestation projects may be considered additionalbecause forest establishment on marginal agricul-ture, pastureland or brush land is voluntary. Thisis the case for the acceptance of Oregon’s ForestResource Trust Stand Establishment Program as a

2 Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 527.745; Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 629.610.


159

CO2 emission reduction project by the Oregon

Energy Facility Siting Council (Cathcart, 2000).However, not all voluntary actions or activitymay be considered additional. Trexler et al.(2006) review specific additionality tests withrespect to legal requirements, institutions, tech-nology, investment, barriers to implementation,common practices, and timing.

One concern for additionality results from U.S.CO

2 emission reduction initiatives not being part

of a comprehensive “cap and trade” system. Undersuch a system, everyone’s actions are measuredagainst the cap – the total allowable CO

2 emis-

sions. The total allowed CO2 are then allocated to

the emitters. This cap allocation creates thescarcity (only so much CO

2 can be emitted) that

gives carbon offsets value. Those emitters thatcannot stay underneath their allocation of CO

2

emissions will become purchasers of carbon offsetsand those emitters that emit underneath theirallocation can sell the unused allocation as carbonoffsets. Under a cap and trade system, it makes nodifference whether projects or actions are addi-tional or business as usual. However, if a particularbusiness sector is not held accountable to the cap,then projects in that sector used for carbon offsetswould still be subject to additionality.

The practical outcome of additionality is thatsuccessful forest-based carbon projects are grant-based and contractual – the purchaser providessome or all of the capital to conduct the projectin exchange for the rights to the carbon offsets.The additionality of the project is proven in partbecause the project cannot be started or imple-mented until the grant or contract is awarded.Examples include afforestation projects fundedwith Oregon’s Forest Resource Trust StandEstablishment Program or projects funded byThe Climate Trust through a specific Requestfor Proposal process.

Baseline

With respect to carbon accounting,additionality is addressed by establishing a

“without project” baseline (also known as a“business as usual” scenario) and estimating theCO

2 emissions that would occur in the project

area absent the project, and then comparing anestimate of the amount of CO

2 emissions that

occur with the project. Any reduction in CO2

emissions, either from sequestration and/oremission avoidance, provides the initial estimatethat can be credited to the project. For anafforestation project, this would involve com-paring the carbon content of newly-plantedtrees versus the carbon content under thecurrent land use system, such as agriculture,pasture or brush (Figure 1). For forest manage-ment projects (for example, extending rotations,alternative silvicultural practices), the baseline isset at how the land would normally be managedbased on a legal, profit-maximizing motive formanagement. This is no different than abaseline used for valuing the forest land at fairmarket value based on the most economicefficient (and legal) management strategy oropportunity for development – a first step invaluing deed or management restrictions placedon forestland through conservation easements.

Many of the assumptions used to estimate theproject’s baseline may need to be measured aspart of reporting the carbon offsets for theimplemented project. This is especially true forforest management projects and forest conserva-tion projects such as avoiding a forest’s conver-sion to development (Table 2). While projectinvestors prefer the certainty of a knownbaseline, baselines can increase or decrease overtime depending on the measured outcomes fordriving assumptions. In the context of report-ing actual CO

2 emission reduction benefits,

measuring the project baseline over time can beas important as measuring the CO

2 emission

reduction benefits from the implementedproject. Actually, the benefits cannot be calcu-lated without a good measure of the baselineand as such, baseline measurements are subjectto the same principles and standards as theaccounting for project benefits.


160

Leakage

Leakage is when an investment is made in acarbon project and some of the carbon benefitsthat accrue to the project are lost by countervailingactivities or actions that occur elsewhere as a resultof implementing the project. Similar toadditionality, leakage becomes a concern forcarbon offset buyers because current markets inthe U.S. are developing voluntarily, and without aformal cap and trade allocation system.

Leakage can include the physical CO2 emissions

from countervailing activities directly linked to theproject, or calculated as indirect effects frommarket responses to the project’s implementation.For example, a carbon investor purchases a conser-vation easement on mature forestland to retire thenon-forest development rights to the property, andas part of the purchase, receives rights to theaccruing carbon offsets from the avoided emissionsfrom not developing the forest land. Physicalleakage occurs when the landowner selling theeasement makes up for the loss of developmentby developing another parcel of land elsewhere.

Another type of leakage is called market leakageor economic leakage (Murry et al., 2004). Incompetitive markets where development ortimber supply is in equilibrium with demand,there will be a marginal price effect. Forexample, a project that extends a forest’s harvestrotation age is withdrawing available timberfrom the market and as a result restricts some ofthe available supply. A market in equilibriumwill make a price adjustment - in this case, aprice increase due to the increased scarcity insupply. The result is that some other supplier oftimber will be induced to harvest their timberelsewhere. This effect is economic leakage. Itcan be estimated by comparing the relativeelasticities (or steepness) of the supply anddemand functions – which also must be knownand quantified. Murry et al., (2004) empiricallyestimated ranges for economic leakage for theU.S. from less than 10 percent to over 90

percent of the initial CO2 emission reduction

estimate, depending on the type of forestproject activity and region.

Permanence

One unique feature of forest-based carbonprojects is the possible reversal of carbonbenefits. This can occur either from naturaldisturbance, such as fires and weather events, orfrom a lack of reliable guarantees that the CO

2

emissions avoided or removed will not bepermanently removed from the atmosphere(Brown et al., 2000). Permanence addresses theintent that the CO

2 emission reduction project

removes fossil fuel-sourced CO2 emissions from

the atmosphere on the same geologic time scaleit was initially stored as fossil fuels. Inpracticality, permanence is defined as carbonstorage that is temporal, but long enough, suchthat the removal of CO

2 from the atmosphere

can influence the rate at which climate change isoccurring. In this context, permanencerepresents the time period over which the fate ofthe carbon offsets from the project areaccounted for to ensure the CO

2 emission

reduction benefits are not reversed and returnedto the atmosphere prematurely. For forest-based carbon projects, this tracking can lastfrom several decades up to 100 years or longer.

A related principle is duration. Duration is thetime period during which the carbon offsets aremeasured and reported. Using afforestation asan example, the project activity itself might lastfive years (the period from initial sitepreparation for tree planting to the time the treeseedlings are well established and free-to-grow),but the fate of the newly-created forest mighthave to be monitored for one or more rotationsto ensure that the carbon benefits arepermanent. While none of the U.S. CO

2

emission reduction initiatives currently acceptsthe stock-flow accounting approach forafforestation presented in Cathcart (2000), theapproach does illustrate the differences betweenduration and permanence. The approach in


161

Cathcart (2000) allows for measurement of thephysical change in carbon stocks as the forestgrows over a duration over 30 years - the pointwhere the amount of stock change equals thepermanent carbon offsets available to the site.This is based on the change in average stockflow, calculated with and without the forestestablished (Figure 1). Stock changemeasurements can cease after age 30, but theproject site is still monitored over a longer timeperiod to ensure that the change in forestlanduse is considered permanent.

Measurement

The quantification of the CO2 benefit is

measured through direct means, indirect meanssuch as look-up tables, modeling or somecombination thereof. Forecasts are used toestimate the anticipated CO

2 benefits for

investment analysis purposes. The qualityassurances underlying measurement as a carbonaccounting principle are reliability, timing andrisk. These quality assurances addressmeasurement in the context of estimating theamount of carbon offsets anticipated from aproposed forest-based carbon project for

investment analysis purposes. The standards formeasurement to use when reporting actualcarbon offset accomplishments is discussedunder measurement standards.

Reliability

Reliability addresses the legal and organizationalinfrastructure necessary to ensure that the carbonproject is properly implemented, that the carbonaccounting be conducted over the project’sduration, and that the fate of activity giving riseto the carbon offsets is tracked over a long-enough time to sufficiently be consideredpermanent. As indicated above, most forest-based carbon projects have carbon benefits thatspan multiple years and decades. Monitoringrequirements for permanence may last as long as100 years. This calls for long-term legal andcontractual arrangements, project managementand accounting by organizations (or subsequentorganizations) that are expected to last over time.

For example, the $1.5 million carbon mitigationinvestment in the Forest Resource Trust StandEstablishment Program was considered reliablebecause the Oregon Department of Forestry – a

Figure 1

A stock-flowcarbonaccountingframework foran afforestationproject on a50 year rotationcycle (fromCathcart 2000).


162

3 Letter dated April 28, 2005 from Sam Sadler, Oregon Department of Energy to Joe Misek, Oregon Department of Forestry.

state governmental agency – administered theprogram. It was felt that through its network offield foresters and centralized administrativestaff, the department had (a) infrastructure toconduct the necessary outreach, (b) technicalassistance to sign up eligible landowners for theafforestation projects, and (c) centralized staff toperform the requisite measurement, monitoringand reporting functions. The contractualrelationships between the department andparticipating landowners provided the legalmechanism for continued access to the site formeasurement purposes and for transferring thecarbon offsets. However, in the experience ofthe Stand Establishment Program, many of thereliability factors such as staffing and theamount of participation by landowners have notbeen realized (TRC Global ManagementSolutions 2005), calling into question theproject’s performance3.

Timing

Many forestry projects, such as afforestation, arelong-term in nature and take many years beforethe carbon offsets can be measured and re-ported. Timing issues will challenge afforesta-tion projects in the future if the U.S. CO

2

emission reduction initiatives adopt specificemission reporting periods. If this occurs, thetype of forest-based carbon projects that pur-chasers will be interested in will be determinedin large part by the timing of the associatedcarbon offsets – such that the time the carbonoffset is realized occurs in the period the pur-chaser wishes to report the offset. For example,for the Forest Resource Trust Stand Establish-ment Program’s receipt of $1.5 million incarbon offset funding from the Klamath Cogen-eration Project, the amount of carbon offsets toarise from this funding was estimated to accrueover a 100 year period.

In contrast, the expected life (and the period ofCO

2 emissions) of the Klamath Cogeneration

Project is 30 years. The lesson being learned is

that while the plant has now operated andemitted CO

2 for five years (16 percent of its

operating life), planted stands under the StandEstablishment Program are just achieving free-to-grow status with no CO

2 yet sequestered to

offset the plant’s emissions (TRC Global Man-agement Solutions 2005). In all likelihood, theplanted forests under the Stand EstablishmentProgram will not achieve enough carbon seques-tration to overcome the initial or baselinecarbon on the site until around age 15, with themajority of the net CO

2 sequestration occurring

between age 15 and 30 years (Cathcart, 2000) –toward the end of the cogeneration plant’soperating life. In addition, about one-third ofthe awarded forecasted carbon offsets accrueafter 65 years in the second rotation – 35 ormore years past the expected life of the cogen-eration plant (Oregon Office of Energy 1996).As such, investments in afforestation projects, orthe purchase of carbon offsets from them, willlikely involve purchasers interested in makinginvestments in offsets to be used in futurereporting periods.

Risk

Risk addresses whether the forecasted carbonoffsets are realized and maintained throughoutthe crediting period. Forests can be at risk ofloss from human and natural disturbances suchas fire, insect and disease outbreaks and otherdisturbance events such as wind, ice or land-slides. This puts individual landowners at adisadvantage in selling carbon offsets fromsmaller projects – perhaps only involving tens orhundreds of acres – because the entire projectcould be lost.

Another type of risk is whether the assumptionsused in an initial forecast of CO

2 emission

reduction benefits, which set expectations forthe performance of the project, are realized bythe project. Using the Klamath CogenerationProject’s $1.5 million CO

2 emission reduction

investment as an example, one driving assump-


163

tion underlying the initial forecast of 1.51million metric tonnes of CO

2 emission reduc-

tion benefits was the estimated afforestation cost(site preparation to free-to-grow) of $480 peracre so that the $1.5 million could afforest3,125 acres (Cathcart 2000). Other drivingassumptions were that all lands afforested wouldbe of high site quality and that enough land-owners would participate in the Stand Estab-lishment Program so that the entire $1.5 mil-lion would be allocated to specific afforestationprojects within five years.

However, after five years of project implementa-tion, these driving assumptions have not beenmet. Most notable is the actual cost of affores-tation, which is approaching two to three timesthe amount used in the forecast (TRC GlobalManagement Solutions 2005). As a result, therevised forecast of the carbon benefits is428,000 metric tonnes CO

2 from 880 acres

afforested (Cathcart 2003).

One way to account and manage for this risk isfor individual landowners to pool their carbonprojects together through a cooperative, or byworking with a third party that aggregatesindividual projects. In 2001, the State Forester(head of Oregon’s Department of Forestry) wasgiven statutory authority through Oregon’sforestry carbon offset law4 to serve as anaggregator of forest-based carbon projects onnon-federal lands for this purpose. The advan-tage with a large, aggregate pool of carbonoffsets is that a certain percent (for example,20 percent) of the available offsets can be held

in reserve as a form of self-insurance and used asreplacement offsets for projects lost to catastro-phe. Also, the offsets can be used to make upfor performance shortfalls arising from theinability to achieve the key assumptions used inthe original carbon offset forecast.

One approach to address this type of risk is toconduct multiple forecasts using differentoutcomes for the driving assumptions, such thata range of performance outcomes is projected.Weights or probabilities could be assigned tothe different outcomes to estimate the expectedCO

2 emission reduction benefit as well as their

variability. This variability, in relationship tothe expected outcome, can be used as a measureof risk; the more variable the range of outcomesaround the expected outcome, the more riskythe project.

Table 1 summarizes how key principles have beenaddressed by existing U.S. CO

2 reduction

initiatives. Table 2 compares and contrasts therelative ease of addressing these accountingprinciples for different categories of forest-basedcarbon projects.

4 House Bill 2200 creating new provisions; and amending Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapters 526 and 530. Passed in 2001 bythe 71st Oregon Legislative Assembly; regular session.


164

Tabl

e 1

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

OF

U.S

. CA

RBO

N D

IOX

IDE

(CO

2)

EMIS

SIO

N R

EDU

CTI

ON

IN

ITIA

TIV

ESW

ITH

RES

PEC

T TO

SEL

ECTE

D C

ARBO

N A

CCO

UN

TIN

G P

RIN

CIP

LES

AN

D M

EASU

REM

ENT

CO

2 E

mis

sion

Red

uct

ion

Initia

tive

(1)

Base

line

Additio

nalit

yLe

ak

age

Per

manen

ceM

easu

rem

ent

(1)

Cal

ifor

nia

Clim

ate

Act

ion

Reg

istr

y (C

CA

R)

- ht

tp:/

/ww

w.c

limat

ereg

istr

y.or

g/do

cs/P

RO

TO

CO

LS/

Fore

stry

/For

est_

Proj

ect_

Prot

ocol

_10.

21.0

4.pd

fC

limat

e Tr

ust

- ht

tp:/

/ww

w.c

limat

etrU

.S.t

.org

/pdf

s/R

FPs/

Off

set%

20G

loss

ary.

pdf

The

Chi

cago

Clim

ate

Exc

hang

e -

http

://w

ww

.chi

cago

clim

atex

.com

(N

ote:

The

Chi

cago

Clim

ate

Exc

hang

e ad

opte

d th

e C

CA

R a

ccou

ntin

g pr

otoc

ols

for

fore

stry

pro

ject

s).

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent

of E

nerg

y (D

OE

) 16

05b

Rep

orti

ng -

htt

p://

ww

w.p

i.ene

rgy.

gov/

pdf/

libra

ry/T

echn

ical

Gui

delin

es_M

arch

2006

.pdf

Proj

ecti

on o

f the

for e

stm

anag

emen

t pr

acti

ces

(or

abse

nce

ther

eof)

tha

t w

ould

have

occ

urre

d w

ithi

n a

proj

ect’s

bou

ndar

ies

in t

heab

senc

e of

the

pro

ject

,in

clud

ing

appl

icab

le la

nd u

sela

ws

and

fore

st p

ract

ice

regu

lati

ons.

Proj

ecte

d C

O2 e

mis

sion

s in

the

abse

nce

of t

he p

roje

ctin

clud

e ap

plic

able

land

use

law

s an

d fo

rest

pra

ctic

ere

gula

tion

s.

Sam

e as

CC

AR

.

Not

add

ress

ed.

Fore

st a

ctiv

itie

s th

atex

ceed

tho

se a

ctiv

itie

soc

curr

ing

unde

r th

eba

selin

e ch

arac

teri

zati

on.

CO

2 em

issi

on r

educ

tion

sov

er a

nd a

bove

wha

tw

ould

hav

e oc

curr

edw

itho

ut t

he p

roje

ct.

Sam

e as

CC

AR

.

Not

def

ined

.

Act

ivit

y le

akag

e: T

hedi

spla

cem

ent

of a

ctiv

itie

sfr

om w

ithi

n th

e pr

ojec

t’sph

ysic

al b

ound

arie

s to

loca

tion

s ou

tsid

e of

the

proj

ect’s

bou

ndar

ies

as a

dir

ect

resu

lt o

f the

pro

ject

act

ivit

y.M

arke

t le

akag

e: T

he c

reat

ion

of C

O2 e

mis

sion

s ou

tsid

epr

ojec

t’s b

ound

arie

s th

roug

hm

arke

t su

bsti

tuti

on.

The

ext

ent

to w

hich

eve

nts

occu

rrin

g ou

tsid

e th

e pr

ojec

tbo

unda

ry t

end

to r

educ

e a

proj

ect’s

CO

2 em

issi

ons

bene

fit.

Sam

e as

CC

AR

.

Not

def

ined

Com

mit

men

t to

for e

stac

tivi

ties

sec

ured

thro

ugh

the

man

dato

ry u

se o

f ape

rman

ent

cons

erva

tion

ease

men

t.

A p

roje

ct’s

abili

ty t

ow

eath

er e

xpos

ure

tova

riab

les

and

even

tsth

at p

ut a

t ri

sk t

heir

abili

ty t

o m

aint

ain

the

redu

ctio

n in

car

bon

diox

ide

outp

ut.

Sam

e as

CC

AR

.

Not

def

ined

Ann

ual i

ncre

ase

or d

ecre

ase

inth

e pr

ojec

t’s r

epor

ted

tota

lca

rbon

sto

cks

(i.e

., st

ock

chan

geac

coun

ting

).

Stoc

k ch

ange

acc

ount

ing.

The

qua

ntit

y of

off

sets

gene

rate

d by

a p

roje

ct is

the

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

the

“wit

h-pr

ojec

t” e

mis

sion

s ba

selin

e,an

d th

e “w

itho

ut-p

roje

ct”

emis

sion

s ba

selin

e.”

Stoc

k ch

ange

acc

ount

ing.

Look

up

tabl

es fo

r sm

all

proj

ects

, dir

ect

mea

sure

men

tsof

car

bon

stoc

ks fo

r la

rge

proj

ects

.

Stoc

k ch

ange

app

roac

h us

ing

look

up

tabl

es a

nd/o

r di

rect

mea

sure

men

ts in

the

fiel

d.

Cal

iforn

ia C

limat

eA

ctio

n R

egis

try

(CC

AR

)

The

Clim

ate

Trus

t

Chi

cago

Clim

ate

Exc

hang

e

U.S

. DO

E 1

605b

prog

ram


165

Tabl

e 2

EVA

LUA

TIO

N O

F SP

ECIF

IC C

LASS

ES O

F FO

RES

T -BA

SED

PRO

JECTS

AN

D T

HE

DIF

FICU

LTY

(EA

SY, M

EDIU

M A

ND

HA

RD

) O

F A

DD

RES

SIN

G T

HE

QU

ALI

TY A

SSU

RA

NCES

IN P

RO

JECT

DEV

ELO

PM

ENT

AN

D C

ARBO

N A

CCO

UN

TIN

G

Type

of

Fore

st-B

ase

dPer

manen

ceCarb

on P

roje

ctA

dditio

nalit

yLe

ak

age

and D

ura

tion

Tim

ing

Rel

iabili

tyM

easu

rabili

ty

Eas

y –

Mar

gina

lag

ricu

ltur

al, p

astu

r ean

d br

ush

land

is n

otbe

ing

fully

rea

lized

.Fo

rest

land

use

may

be

the

best

opt

ions

of

thes

e la

nds.

Unl

ikel

yth

at a

ffor

esta

tion

effo

rts

will

tri

gger

conv

ersi

on o

f for

ests

to

agri

cult

ure

land

sel

sew

here

. Pr

ojec

tne

eds

only

be

trac

ked

wit

hin

the

proj

ect

boun

dary

(th

e ar

eaaf

fore

sted

).

Med

ium

– U

sual

ly s

etat

100

yea

rs.

Wha

t is

nece

ssar

y is

con

tinu

edco

mm

itm

ent

to t

hefo

rest

land

use

from

affo

rest

atio

n.Pr

acti

cally

, if t

he fo

rest

sar

e m

anag

ed t

hrou

gh a

tle

ast

two

rota

tion

s or

for

100

year

s, t

heca

rbon

ben

efit

s ca

n be

cons

ider

ed p

erm

anen

t.

Har

d –

Aff

ores

tati

onpr

ojec

ts h

ave

a de

lay

in t

he t

imin

g of

the

real

ized

car

bon

bene

fits.

E

arly

proj

ect

acti

vity

may

be a

n em

itti

ngac

tivi

ty –

so

thes

epr

ojec

ts c

ould

cont

ribu

te t

oem

issi

ons

in t

hesh

ort

term

. Fo

rest

sw

ill c

ome

on li

neaf

ter

20 t

o 30

yea

rs–

tow

ard

the

end

ofth

e lif

e of

mos

ten

ergy

pla

nts.

Aff

ores

tati

onpr

ojec

ts r

epre

sent

an

inve

stm

ent

in fu

ture

carb

on b

enef

its.

Har

d –

Aff

ores

ted

stan

ds w

ill n

eed

to b

etr

acke

d ov

er a

long

-pe

riod

of t

ime

–m

ore

than

one

gene

rati

on.

Con

trac

tual

rela

tion

ship

s ne

ed t

opa

ss o

n fr

omla

ndow

ner

tola

ndow

ner.

Rel

iabl

eth

ird

part

ies

need

edto

man

age

and

trac

kth

e po

rtfo

lio o

fin

divi

dual

affo

rest

atio

n pa

rcel

s.

Dir

ect

mea

sure

men

tor

use

of y

ield

tab

les

valid

ated

by

peri

odic

mea

sure

men

ts.

The

amou

nt a

nd t

imin

gof

tim

ber

harv

est

need

s to

be

trac

ked.

Kno

wle

dge

rega

rdin

gth

e fa

te a

ndut

iliza

tion

of

harv

este

d w

ood

prod

ucts

des

irab

le.

Eas

y –

Aff

ores

tati

on o

fun

derp

rodu

cing

land

sis

vol

unta

ry, h

as a

dist

inct

bas

elin

eco

ndit

ion

(agr

icul

tur e

or p

astu

re)

and

has

read

ily o

bser

ved

chan

ged

beha

vior

(con

vers

ion

to fo

rest

).

Aff

ores

tati

on

Table 2(continued on

next page)


166

Tabl

e 2

(con

tinu

ed)

Type

of

Fore

st-B

ase

dPer

manen

ceCarb

on P

roje

ctA

dditio

nalit

yLe

ak

age

and D

ura

tion

Tim

ing

Rel

iabili

tyM

easu

rabili

ty

Har

d –

Diff

icul

t to

appl

y th

e pr

actic

e on

lyat

the

stan

d sc

ale.

Prac

tice

or p

roje

ctne

eds

to b

e ap

plie

d at

the

land

owne

r or

timbe

r pa

rcel

sca

le.

Eco

nom

ic le

akag

elik

ely.

Pri

ce e

ffec

t at

the

com

petit

ive

mar

ket e

quili

briu

mm

ay in

duce

ano

ther

land

owne

r to

sho

rten

thei

r ro

tatio

n.

Har

d –

Will

deve

lopm

ent

just

occu

r so

mew

here

els

e?E

cono

mic

leak

age

likel

y. P

rice

eff

ect

atth

e co

mpe

titi

vem

arke

t eq

uilib

rium

may

indu

ce a

noth

erla

ndow

ner

to d

evel

opfo

rest

land

els

ewhe

re.

Med

ium

– T

he c

arbo

nbe

nefit

is t

empo

rar y

unle

ss la

ndow

ner

com

mit

s to

the

rot

atio

nor

silv

icul

tura

l dec

isio

nas

a m

atte

r of

pol

icy .

Har

d –

Dev

elop

men

tri

ghts

sol

d or

don

ated

and

reti

red

perm

anen

tly

thro

ugh

a co

nser

vati

onea

sem

ent.

Med

ium

–E

xten

ding

rot

atio

nsan

d ch

ange

s in

silv

icul

tura

lm

anag

emen

tco

nduc

ive

to t

heno

tion

of r

enti

ngth

e ca

rbon

ben

efit

sov

er t

he e

xten

ded

rota

tion

per

iod.

Avo

ided

em

issi

ons

bene

fit is

imm

edia

te.

Eas

y –

Avo

ided

emis

sion

s ar

eim

med

iate

.

Har

d –

Rot

atio

n or

silv

icul

tura

lm

anag

emen

t de

cisi

onm

ay n

eed

to b

ese

cure

d th

roug

hco

nser

vati

onea

sem

ent

or a

bind

ing

fore

stm

anag

emen

t pl

anap

plic

able

to

the

enti

re o

wne

rshi

p or

tim

ber

parc

el.

Med

ium

– E

xist

ing

lega

l and

con

trac

tual

arra

ngem

ents

exi

stsu

ch a

s co

nser

vati

onea

sem

ents

.

Med

ium

– D

irec

tm

easu

re o

f cha

nge

inca

rbon

sto

rage

from

one

stan

d ag

e to

the

exte

nded

rot

atio

nag

e. M

easu

ring

eff

ect

of e

cono

mic

leak

age

prob

lem

atic

– b

est

mea

sure

d th

roug

hre

gion

al t

imbe

rsu

pply

mod

elin

g an

dap

plie

d th

roug

h us

eof

look

-up

tabl

es.

Mea

sure

men

ts s

houl

dac

coun

t fo

r ch

ange

sin

the

woo

d pr

oduc

tsflo

w fo

r th

e tw

oro

tati

ons

cons

ider

ed.

Med

ium

– N

eed

toes

tim

ate

amou

nt o

fre

sidu

al v

eget

ativ

eco

ver

and

emis

sion

sas

soci

ated

wit

hde

velo

pmen

t (i

.e.,

base

line

mea

sure

-m

ent)

. Se

e ex

tend

edro

tati

on a

nd a

lter

na-

tive

silv

icul

tura

lpr

acti

ce fo

r di

ffic

ulty

in m

easu

ring

the

sequ

estr

atio

n be

nefit

sfo

r th

e co

ntin

ued

fore

stla

nd u

se

Har

d –

Rot

atio

n or

silv

icul

tura

lm

anag

emen

t de

cisi

onan

d ca

rbon

ben

efit

inte

nt n

eeds

to

bedo

cum

ente

d in

afo

rest

man

agem

ent

plan

to

esta

blis

hch

ange

in b

ehav

ior.

Bas

elin

e an

alys

ism

ust

look

at

how

owne

rshi

p an

d pa

rcel

wou

ld b

e m

anag

edw

itho

ut t

he r

otat

ion

or s

ilvic

ultu

ral

man

agem

ent

choi

cein

eff

ect.

Bas

elin

eca

n sh

ift o

ver

tim

e.

Har

d –

Dep

ends

on

whe

ther

the

re is

acl

ear

high

er a

nd b

est

use

mar

ket

valu

e if

fore

st la

nd a

rea

deve

lope

d. W

itho

utpr

ojec

t ba

selin

e is

the

amou

nt o

f em

issi

onan

d th

e lo

ss o

fse

ques

trat

ion

pote

ntia

l res

ulti

ngfr

om lo

ss o

ffo

rest

land

. B

asel

ine

coul

d sh

ift o

ver

tim

e.

Ext

end

Fore

stR

otat

ions

and

Alt

erna

tive

Silv

icul

tura

lPr

acti

ces

such

as

Var

iabl

e R

eten

tion

,St

ruct

ure-

Bas

edM

anag

emen

t.

Con

serv

ing

Fore

stla

nd fr

omD

evel

opm

ent

(For

est

Con

serv

atio

n)


167

Tabl

e 2

(con

tinu

ed)

Type

of

Fore

st-B

ase

dPer

manen

ceCarb

on P

roje

ctA

dditio

nalit

yLe

ak

age

and D

ura

tion

Tim

ing

Rel

iabili

tyM

easu

rabili

ty

Eas

y –

Dou

btfu

lth

at fo

rest

fuel

s or

fore

st h

ealt

htr

eatm

ents

in o

near

ea w

ill in

duce

fuel

bui

ld u

p in

anot

her

area

.

Med

ium

– C

arbo

nbe

nefit

s w

ill n

eed

recu

rrin

g tr

eatm

ent

to a

void

rec

urre

nce

of s

tand

con

diti

ons

less

res

ilien

t to

fire

,in

sect

and

dis

ease

outb

reak

s of

hig

hse

veri

ty.

Med

ium

– A

void

edem

issi

ons

are

imm

edia

te.

Res

idua

l sta

ndca

rbon

seq

uest

rati

onco

nduc

ive

to t

heno

tion

of r

enti

ngth

e ca

rbon

ben

efit

sov

er t

he t

imef

ram

ese

lect

ed fo

r th

epr

ojec

t.

Med

ium

– N

eed

aco

mm

itm

ent

tope

rfor

m r

ecur

ring

trea

tmen

ts a

nd t

otr

ack

the

cond

itio

n of

trea

ted

acre

s ov

er t

heti

mef

ram

e se

lect

edfo

r th

e pr

ojec

t. A

nin

divi

dual

pro

ject

may

not

be

suff

icie

ntto

rea

lize

the

carb

onbe

nefit

; rat

her

agr

oupi

ng o

f pro

ject

sst

rate

gica

lly p

lace

don

the

land

scap

e m

aybe

nec

essa

ry t

oin

fluen

ce fi

re e

xten

tan

d se

veri

ty o

n th

ela

ndsc

ape.

Har

d –

Whi

le t

heam

ount

of f

ores

tre

sidu

e an

d ti

mbe

rre

mov

ed c

an b

em

easu

red

and

the

sequ

estr

atio

n be

nefit

of t

he r

esid

ual s

tand

mea

sure

or

mod

eled

,th

e am

ount

of c

arbo

nof

fset

will

ult

imat

ely

rely

on

stoc

hast

icm

odel

ing

of fi

reoc

curr

ence

wit

h an

dw

itho

ut t

he a

ggre

gate

amou

nt o

f suf

ficie

nttr

eatm

ents

app

lied

inth

e ri

ght

spat

ial

patt

ern

on t

hela

ndsc

ape.

Har

d –

The

car

bon

cred

it c

apit

al m

ust

bene

cess

ary

to m

ake

the

proj

ect

happ

en e

ven

whe

n av

aila

ble

finan

cial

ass

ista

nce

oren

d us

e m

arke

ts a

reav

aila

ble.

Bas

elin

e di

ffic

ult

toes

tabl

ish

beca

use

fire

occu

rren

ce, e

xten

t an

dse

veri

ty is

prob

abili

stic

. T

heef

fect

of i

ndiv

idua

lst

and

trea

tmen

ts o

nla

ndsc

ape

resi

lienc

y to

seve

re w

ildfir

e or

pes

tou

tbre

aks

need

s to

be

esta

blis

hed.

Trea

tmen

ts t

oIm

prov

e Fo

rest

Res

ilien

cy t

oW

ildfir

e, I

nsec

tsan

d D

isea

ses


168

5 News release, June 6, 2003. Veneman announces new incentives for greenhouse gas reduction and carbon storage. Bonner Springs,Kansas: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Communications. Release No. 0194.03.

Measurement Standards

Standards for measuring carbon offsets fromforest-based projects vary from the use ofindirect measures — such as look-up tables —to direct measures that follow a systematicmeasurement protocol and are designed toachieve a desired level of certainty. The existingU.S. CO

2 emission reduction initiatives all use a

stock change accounting approach (Table 1).With this system, physical carbon stocks aremeasured, estimated or assigned values based onlook-up tables, and the incremental gain or lossof carbon stocks is reported periodically as anemission reduction credit or debit.

Reporting of greenhouse gas emissions began inthe early 1990s when companies saw the need togain recognition for efforts designed to manageor offset greenhouse gas emissions. In 1992, theU.S. Congress passed Section 1605(b) of theEnergy Policy Act (Public Law 102-486) for thepurpose of facilitating the voluntary reporting ofgreenhouse gases – the so-called 1605(b)reporting requirements administered by theEnergy Information Administration of the U.S.Department of Energy. Reporting standardswere in the form of look-up tables developed forspecific project sectors including forestry (U.S.Department of Energy n.d.).

In February 2002, the Bush Administrationreleased its strategy to reduce U.S. greenhousegas intensity – the ratio of greenhouse gasemissions to economic output – by 18 percentby 2012. Included in the President’s strategywas direction to the U.S. Department ofAgriculture to come up with recommendationsto reduce greenhouse gases and increase carbonstorage on agriculture and forest lands throughthe targeted application of existing incentives tolandowners such as Environmental QualityIncentives Program (EQIP), the ConservationReserve Program (CRP) and the Forest Land

Enhancement Program (FLEP)5. In 2002, theEnergy Information Administration announcedthat the 1605(b) reporting guidelines would beupdated to reflect new policy direction from thecurrent U.S. Administration, including thedevelopment of new technical reportingguidelines for forest-based activities (U.S.Department of Energy 2006a).

One of the major changes coming out of thenew 1605(b) reporting guidelines was thedevelopment of a grading system for the qualityof the measurement standard used in the report-ing. Using specific criteria, the system gradesthe reported CO

2 emissions from A to D,

indicating the highest to lowest quality ofmeasurement. To receive an A rating, thereported carbon offsets must be based on sitespecific values measured continuously overmultiple time periods (U.S. Department ofEnergy 2006b). Reported carbon offsets willreceive a C or D rating if the values reported arenot based in part on some form of direct mea-surement. The exception is when look-up ordefault values are used from published, peer-reviewed and widely accepted literature, inwhich case a B rating is given (U.S. Departmentof Energy 2006b).

Simultaneous to the 1605(b) reporting standardswas the development of the California ClimateAction Registry protocols (California ClimateAction Registry 2005a, 2005b, and 2006). Non-profit and voluntary, the registry was establishedby California statute as an official record ofgreenhouse gas emissions. Its purpose is to helpcompanies and organizations with operations inthe state to establish greenhouse gas emissionsbaselines and for reporting emission reductionsfrom actions or projects implemented above andbeyond the baseline activity. Many differenttypes of carbon reduction projects are accepted,including forest-based activities.


169

The California forestry protocols cover entity andproject reporting, certification of forest-basedcarbon projects, voluntary reforestation, conser-vation based forest management, and conserva-tion. They also stress the importance of ad-dressing issues of additionality, leakage andpermanence, as well as requiring direct measure-ments of some forest carbon pools (Table 1).Projects that do not use direct measurements arenot eligible for certification by the Registry.

Another reduction initiative, the ChicagoClimate Exchange, has adopted the CaliforniaClimate Action Registry forestry protocols(Bayon 2005).

What to Measure

Measurement standards for carbon accountingare moving in the direction of conductingperiodic measurements to support a project’scarbon benefit claims. The U.S. Department ofEnergy’s final technical guidelines has an appen-dix for the forestry sector. It provides a thor-ough overview of measurement protocols forforest carbon sequestration and methods forcalculating the carbon stocks for various foresttypes of the U.S. In addition, guidelines areincluded for using models to project forestgrowth and yield, or forest ecosystem processes,in carbon calculations (U.S. Department ofEnergy 2006a).

The types of carbon stocks that could be mea-sured and monitored in the reporting of carbonoffsets from a forestry-based project are: the livetrees (both above and below ground), understoryvegetation, soil organic material, standing deadtrees and downed logs, and forest products.

Which forest carbon stocks to measure isdetermined by the size of the carbon pool to bemeasured, and what pools are affected by theproject’s activities. Also taken into consider-ation are the costs of conducting the measure-ment, and any restrictions placed by the carbonpurchaser or registry.

For example, with afforestation projects, thelargest carbon pool that will be affected by theactivity will be the planted trees. In contrast,while understory vegetation could be measured,this is more a transitory pool that is not muchaffected by the project and may contribute little,if any, to permanent carbon storage. It is alsoimportant not to overlook those carbon poolsthat may be negatively affected by the project,such as the loss of existing carbon stocks andsoil organic material disturbance from sitepreparation in the case of afforestation.

Units of measurement are usually expressed interms of a CO

2 equivalent. It is important to

verify that the units of measure are either CO2

or carbon, because the units differ substantially.For example, 100 metric tonnes of carbonstorage expressed in carbon is equivalent to 367metric tonnes of carbon dioxide. Sidebar 1reviews some common units of measure used incarbon accounting.

Live Trees and Understory Vegetation

Measurement of trees typically involves estab-lishing a temporary or permanent inventoryusing fixed or variable plots. Forest inventoriesprovide estimates of total and merchantabletimber volume, either gross or net of volumedefects. Volume is then calculated and con-verted to carbon using indirect conversionfactors. An example is the ratio of merchantablevolume to total biomass volume — eitherthrough the use of biomass regression (e.g.,Smith et al., 2002 ) or through estimatedconversion factors defining the ratio of above-ground volume to total above- and below-ground volume (e.g., Birdsey 1996). Otherconversion factors needed to convert volume tocarbon by weight are specific gravities (toconvert volume to weight) and percent carbonby weight factors (Birdsey 1996, U.S. Depart-ment of Energy 2006a).


170

An acceptable rule of thumb for convertingbiomass to carbon is to use 50 percent carbon-to-biomass dry weight as the factor. This value iswithin the range of biomass to carbon factorsreported in Birdsey 1996. For example, 100 tonsof dry weight biomass equals approximately 50tons of stored carbon, or the equivalent of 183.5tons of CO

2 emission reduction benefits.

A variety of biomass regression equations areavailable to estimate carbon content in above-ground vegetation; some have been developed forspecific species in specific regions (e.g., Means1994, Smith et al., 2002).

For afforestation, an important project milestoneto measure is the level of free-to-grow stocking atthe end of project implementation. Free-to-growmeans the new planted seedlings have beensuccessfully maintained from competing vegeta-tion and animal damage or browse, usuallywithin 3 to 6 years. As a result, the afforestationproject becomes a stand of well-distributed treeswith a high probability of becoming a healthy,vigorous. and dominant forest over the foresee-able future. There are several, well establishedmethods for conducting stocking surveys ofrecently planted stands (Cleary et al., 1978). TheForest Resource Trust Stand EstablishmentProgram uses the stocking quadrant method fordetermining stocking at free-to-grow.

Standing Dead and Down Logs

Standing and downed dead logs can be measuredfor carbon projects, particularly if they involvemature forests, for example, a forest conservationcarbon project, or manipulated carbon pools inforest fuel reduction and forest health restorationprojects. Standing dead wood is measured in asimilar fashion as live trees; Pearson et al., (2005)provide methods for estimating volume. Densityof the wood is also an important measurement,because material that is sound, or in intermediateor advanced stages of decay, has differentamounts of stored carbon for a given volume(e.g., see Pearson et al., 2005). Downed logs canbe measured using the line intersect method; a

description of the methodology can be found inHarmon and Sexton (1996).

Soils, Litter and Debris

As trees grow, they can add carbon to soils viaroots and litter fall, and over time through abuild-up of soil organic material. But theamount of soil carbon that increases after treesare growing is not always significantly greaterthan the initial baseline carbon stock. Forexample, if a project area was heavily degradedvia intensive agriculture it is likely that soilcarbon would increase over the project lifetime

Conversion Factors forUnits used to Report

Carbon Offsets

2,000 pounds carbon stored = 1 shortton of carbon stored

1 short ton of carbon stored = 0.9072metric tonnes of carbon stored

1,000 pounds carbon stored = 0.454metric tonnes of carbon stored

1 metric tonne of carbon stored = 3.67metric tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2)

equivalent

1 metric tonne of carbon stored =1.102 short tons of carbon stored

1 metric tonne of carbon stored =4.044 short tons of CO2 emission

equivalent

1000 grams = 1 kilogram

1000 kilograms = 1 metric tonne

10,000 square meters = 1 hectare

1 hectare = 2.4711 acre

Sidebar 1


171

(Kimble et al., 2003). However, if the land wasin pasture (and the soil profile intact) the increasein carbon content would not likely increasesignificantly as the planted trees grow.

A cost-benefit analysis should be done to deter-mine if soil carbon estimation is financiallybeneficial. When soil carbon accumulationbecomes an included measurement pool, thenthe soil baseline stock will need to be calculated.Details on soil measurements can be found inPearson et al.(2005).

Forest Products

The fate of carbon stored in live trees once thetrees have been harvested is accounted for in theforest products pool, which addresses the perma-nence principle. While there are carbon emis-sions from timber harvest (e.g., soil disturbanceand slash decomposition), accounting for theforest products pool ensures that the total biom-ass removed from the forest is not treated as anemission.

The amount of continued carbon storage thatcan still be credited depends on a number offactors, including how much of the timberharvest goes into utilization as solid wood prod-ucts, such as lumber or plywood, and how muchbecomes pulp or paper. The decomposition rateof the wood products is also important, and isbased on longevity of use and the type of disposal(e.g., landfills, burning) (Row and Phelps 1996).This type of accounting was used in the forecastof CO

2 emission reduction benefits for afforesta-

tion projects funded by Oregon’s Forest ResourceTrust Stand Establishment Program (OregonOffice of Energy 1996).

Perez-Garcia et al., (2004) provide a carbonaccounting framework that includes both thecumulative storage of carbon in the forest prod-ucts pools, as well as the benefit of substitutingwood products for more greenhouse gas-intensiveproducts — such as steel in home construction.Factors and methods for calculating the amountof continued carbon storage in forest product

pools can be found in the technical appendix forthe U.S. Department of Energy’s greenhouse gasvoluntary reporting guidelines (U.S. Departmentof Energy 2006a).

Roles and Responsibilities inForest-Based Carbon Projects

Forest-based carbon projects typically involvefour parties: the carbon investor or purchaser ofthe carbon offsets; the forest landowner orproducer of the carbon offsets; a professionalforester or natural resource specialist with exper-tise in project implementation and carbonbenefit measurement; and an organization(private, federal, or state) for coordinating and/orvalidating the reported carbon offsets.

Investor. An investor is typically a privatecompany such as a utility or power company orother entity with an interest in offsetting aportion of the CO

2 emissions arising from their

business activities. This desire can either be toachieve regulatory requirements (e.g., the Cli-mate Trust) or to achieve voluntary commitments(e.g., Chicago Climate Exchange, CaliforniaClimate Action Registry, U.S. Department ofEnergy 1605(b) Reporting).

Forest Landowner. Landowners can either bedirectly responsible for the implementation of thecarbon project or activity, or can host the projecton their lands through a lease or some othercontractual relationship. It is important forlandowners to understand their legal responsibili-ties, including accountability for failure toimplement the project, or for any failure of theproject to perform to expectations. Currently,most carbon project agreements are long-termand can take the form of long-term contracts oreasements or other legal arrangements that arebinding to subsequent landowners. Since com-petitive markets for carbon offsets in the U.S.have yet to develop, it is currently difficult forlandowners to assess the merits of the amountbeing paid for the carbon offsets.


172

Professional Forester or Natural ResourceSpecialist. Professional expertise is necessary forsuccessful planning and implementation of aforest-based carbon project. The same or addi-tional expertise is necessary for making prelimi-nary estimates of carbon stocks and the flow ofcarbon offsets over the project’s lifetime or periodof accounting. Resource professionals can alsoconduct or coordinate the measurement ofcarbon pools used to calculate and report theactual carbon offset accomplishments arisingfrom the project.

Coordinating Organization. Third-partyorganizations can assist the landowner or investorwith stability and longevity to ensure the project’sreliability. Since forest-based carbon projectsinvolve contracts and accounting periods thatspan decades (e.g., 50 -100 years), coordinatingorganizations are especially important. Throughtheir involvement, the investor can be assuredthat the monitoring, measurement and reportingrequirements will be fulfilled over time. Coordi-nating organizations can also aggregate carbonprojects to meet the quantity of carbon offsetssought by investors or purchasers, as well as toprovide consistency in the carbon accounting ofindividual project CO

2 emission reductions.

Summary

Carbon accounting includes estimating, measur-ing, reporting and monitoring of CO

2 emission

reduction benefits (carbon offsets) arising fromspecific projects or activities. Over the past 15years, measurement standards for reportingcarbon offsets from forest-based projects haveevolved from the use of indirect measurement

factors and look-up tables to some form ofreliance on the direct measurement of forestcarbon pools, such as the volume in a forest.Important carbon pools to be measured in forest-based carbon projects are the live tree biomass(above and below ground), standing dead treesand down wood, soil organic material and forestproducts.

Currently in the U.S., there are four CO2 emis-

sion reduction initiatives that recognize forest-based carbon projects: the U.S. Department ofEnergy’s Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse GasEmissions (i.e., 1605(b) reporting), the ClimateTrust, the California Climate Action Registry andthe Chicago Climate Exchange.

The principles and standards for carbon account-ing are in the early stages of development. Theyare being applied when estimating projectexpectations, as well as measuring and reportingaccomplishments. Specific measurement andaccounting protocols, such as the U.S. Depart-ment of Energy’s 1605(b) technical guidelines forforestry and the forest carbon protocols devel-oped by the California Climate Action Registry(and also accepted by the Chicago ClimateExchange), will continue to be tested as marketsfor carbon offsets develop.

Debate on the role of forests in mitigatingsources of CO

2 emissions will continue. Carbon

markets will dictate the quality assurance needs ofpurchasers as well as what needs to be measuredto determine a carbon offset, and to what stan-dard and over what period of time. Carbonaccounting principles and measurement stan-dards will evolve to address these quality


173

Bayon, Ricardo. 2005. California leading:new thinking on carbon accounting. EcosystemMarketplace [April 7th]. The KatoombaGroup. 6 p.

Birdsey, R.A. 1996. Carbon storage for majorforest types and regions in the coterminous.United States. In: Sampson, N.; Hair, D., eds.Forests and global change. Volume 2:Forest management opportunities for mitigatingcarbon emissions. Washington, DC:American Forests: 1-25, Appendixes 2-4.

Brown, S., Burnham M., Delaney M., Vaca R.,Powell M., and Moreno A. 2000. Issues andchallenges for forest-based carbon offsetprojects: a case study of the Noel Kempffclimate action project in Bolivia. Mitigationand Adaptation Strategies for Global Change5(1):99-121.

California Climate Action Registry. [2005a].Forest sector protocol. [Los Angeles,California]: 64 p. Available from: http://www.climateregistry.org/PROTOCOLS/

California Climate Action Registry. [2005b].Forest project protocol. [Los Angeles,California]: 138 p. Available from: http://www.climateregistry.org/PROTOCOLS/

California Climate Action Registry. 2006.California Climate Action Registry GeneralReporting Protocol. Version 2.0. Los Angeles,California. 100 p. Available from: http://www.climateregistry.org/PROTOCOLS/

Cathcart, James. F. 2000. Carbonsequestration – a working example in Oregon.Journal of Forestry 98(9):32-37.

Cathcart, Jim. 2003. Oregon Forest ResourceTrust carbon dioxide offset project report(Klamath Cogeneration Project). Presentationto the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council,August 28th. Canby, Oregon.

Cleary, Brian D., Robert D. Greaves andRichard K. Herman. 1978. RegeneratingOregon’s Forests. Corvallis, Oregon: OregonState University Extension Service. 286 p.

Harmon, M. E. and J. Sexton. 1996.Guidelines for Measurements of WoodyDetritus in Forest Ecosystems. U.S. LTERPublication No. 20. U.S. LTER NetworkOffice, University of Washington, Seattle, WA,U.S.A.

Kimble, J. M., Linda S. Heath, Richard A.Birdsey and R. Lal. Editors. 2003. Thepotential of U.S. forest soils to sequester carbonand mitigate the greenhouse gas effect. NewYork: CRC Press. 429 p.

Means JE, Hansen HA, Koerper GJ, AlabackPB, Klopsch MW. 1994. Software forcomputing plant biomass- BIOPAK Usersguide. Portland, OR, U.S.A: U.S.DA ForestService Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-340. 184 p.(Pub No: 1659)

Murray, B.C., B.A. McCarl, and H. Lee. 2004.“Estimating Leakage from Forest CarbonSequestration Programs.” Land Economics80(1):109-124.

Oregon Office of Energy. 1996. ExhibitOE-37, Order in the matter of the 500megawatt exemption from the demonstration ofshowing need for a power plant before the Stateof Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council,August. Salem, OR.

Pearson, T. R. H., S. Brown, and N.H.Ravindranath. 2005. Integrating carbonbenefit estimates into GEF projects. UnitedNations Development Programme. GlobalEnvironment Facility. New York. 64 p.

Literature Cited


174

Perez-Garcia, John, Bruce Lippke, JeffreyCommick and Carolina Manriquez. 2004.Tracking carbon from sequestration in the forestto wood products and substitution. CORRIM[Consortium for Research on RenewableIndustrial Materials]: Phase I Final Report.Module N. Seattle, Washington: University ofWashington, College of Forest Resources. 26 p.

Row, C.; Phelps, R.B. 1996. Wood carbon flowsand storage after timber harvest. In:Sampson, N.; Hair, D., eds. Forests and globalchange. Volume 2: Forest managementopportunities for mitigating carbon emissions.Washington, DC: American Forests 27-58.

Smith, J. E., L. S. Heath, J. C. Jenkins. 2002.Forest volume to biomass models and estimatesof mass for live and standing dead trees of U.S.forests. U.S.DA Forest Service NortheasternResearch Station. General Technical ReportNE-298. 57 p.

Smith, James E.; Heath, Linda S.; Skog,Kenneth E.; Birdsey, Richard A. In Press.Methods for calculating forest ecosystem andharvested carbon, with standard estimates forforest types of the United States. Gen. Tech.Rep. NE-XXX. Newtown Square, PA: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Northeastern Research Station. xx p.

Trexler, Mark. C., Derik J. Brockhoff, and LauraH. Kosloff. 2006. A statistically-driven approachto offset-based GHG [Greenhouse Gas]additionality determinations. SustainableDevelopment Law and Policy Winter 2006: 30-40.

TRC Global Management Solutions. 2005.Klamath Cogeneration Project – 2005 AnnualReport to the Energy Siting Council.September 1. Houston, TX. 30 p.

[U.S. Department of Energy]. [Undated].Sector-Specific issues and reportingmethodologies supporting the general guidelinesfor the voluntary reporting of greenhouse gasesunder section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Actof 1992. Volume II – Part 4: TransportationSector, Part 5: Forestry Sector, Part 6:Agricultural Sector. [Washington DC: EnergyInformation Administration] [Unconventionalpagination]. Available from: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/guidelns.html

U.S. Department of Energy. 2006a. TechnicalGuidelines for Voluntary Reporting ofGreenhouse Gas Program Chapter 1, EmissionInventories Part I Appendix: Forestry.[Washington DC: Office of Policy andInternational Affairs.] 280 p.Available from: http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregistry/technicalguidelines.html

U.S. Department of Energy. 2006b.Guidelines for voluntary greenhouse gasreporting. 10 [Code of Federal Regulations]CFR Part 300. RIN 1901-AB11. [WashingtonDC]: Office of Policy and International Affairs.139 p. Available from: http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregistry/


175

Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings Chapter Ten

176

West Coast Governors’ GlobalWarming Initiative

■ Impacts from global warming are likely tobe extensive and destructive.

■ Governors from Oregon, California andWashington created an initiative.

■ New technologies can protect environmentand grow region’s economy.

■ Recommendation for forests: market-basedcarbon allowance program.

Oregon Governor’s Advisory Groupon Global Warming

■ Goal: to achieve measurable and meaningfulreductions in greenhouse gases.

■ Sixty recommendations — would stopgrowth of greenhouse gases and begin toreduce them by 2010.

■ Recommendation for forests:● Increase carbon “captured” in forests.● Reduce wildfire risk through market for

small trees that fuel flames.● Consider greenhouse gases in forest land

use decisions.● Increase forestation on marginal

agriculture and pasturelands.

Renewable Energy Action Plan

■ Plan directs the achievement of greenhousegas reduction goals.

■ Working group of 33 members appointed toimplement, track and promote the plan.

■ Directives for forests: Focus on biomass asan renewable energy source.● Generate electric power.

● Convert into gas to produce liquid fuelsin biorefineries.

● Create small biomass heating/electricalsystems.

■ Directives for Department of Forestry:● Study and seek funds for biomass energy

generation.● Support aggressive fire suppression on

public and private forestlands.● Work with federal agencies to promote

forest biomass energy.

Next Stage: Climate ChangeIntegration Group

■ Citizen-led group appointed to trackimplementation of the strategy, work asclearinghouse for shared information, makeadditional recommendations.

CHAPTER TENHIGHLIGHTS:

GOVERNOR’S GLOBAL WARMING INITIATIVE

Chapter Ten Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings

177

CHAPTER TENGOVERNOR’S GLOBAL WARMING INITIATIVE

Gail L. Achterman

“Global warming is underway and the impacts of its changes on Oregon citizens,businesses and environmental values are likely to be extensive and destructive. Coastaland river flooding, snowpack declines, lower summer river flows, impacts to farm andforest productivity, energy cost increases, public health effects, and increased pressureon many fish and wildlife species are some of the effects anticipated by scientists atOregon and Washington universities.”

-Executive Summary, Oregon Strategy for Greenhouse Gas Reduction,Governor’s Advisory Group on Global Warming

Introduction

In 1997, Oregon became one of the firststates to regulate carbon dioxide emissionsfrom energy facilities. Oregon’s leadership

continues in cooperation with other West Coaststates and through several broad citizen-ledinitiatives. This chapter describes Oregon’sstrategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissionswith a focus on those that affect Oregon’s forests.

West Coast Governors’ GlobalWarming Initiative

A regional commitment to reducegreenhouse gas emissions

After he took office, Governor Ted Kulongoskidirected his staff and the Oregon Department ofEnergy to participate in negotiations andprepare recommendations for a tri-stateinitiative on climate change and clean energy.On September 22, 2003, the governors ofOregon, California and Washington created theWest Coast Governors’ Global WarmingInitiative. With this effort, they committedtheir states to act individually and regionally toreduce greenhouse gas emissions because ofglobal warming’s serious adverse consequences

on the economy, health, and environment of thewhole West Coast. This effort is widelyconsidered one of the leading state initiatives onclimate change in the United States.

In late 2004, the three states agreed on adetailed list of recommendations.1 The onemost relevant to forests is the development of amarket-based carbon allowance program.Through this service, new power plants andother sources emitting greenhouse gases couldpurchase CO

2 offset dollars to fund forest-

biomass renewable energy projects and carbonsequestration, along with other projects thatreduce emissions. Such a program could fosternew investment in forests and reforestation.The governors restated their belief that, giventhe promise of new technologies, reducinggreenhouse gases will simultaneously protect theenvironment and grow the economy across theregion.

Governor’s Advisory Group onGlobal Warming

Developing directives for Oregon to achievemeasurable and meaningful reductions ingreenhouse gas emissions

In late 2003, to complement the work of theInitiative, Governor Kulongoski appointed abroad-based group of citizens and public

1 West Coast Governors’ Global Warming Initiative, http://www.ef.org/westcoastclimate/


178

officials to draft a Global Warming Strategy forOregon. The Advisory Group was co-chaired byMark Dodson (President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of NW Natural) and Dr. Jane Lubchenco(Wayne and Gladys Valley Professor of MarineBiology at Oregon State University). The 23voting members included utility executives,farmers, local government officials, scientists,representatives from businesses, environmentaland religious organizations, and others.

The Advisory Group’s work was supported byState agency staff, and informed by the ScientificConsensus Statement on the Impacts of ClimateChange on the Pacific Northwest,2 which resultedfrom a conference, “The Impacts of ClimateChange” held at Oregon State University on June15, 2004. This Statement underscored that globalwarming caused by greenhouse gas emissions fromhuman activities poses a serious threat to humancivilization and natural ecosystems.

The Advisory Group attempted to determineOregon’s share of the global responsibility toreduce greenhouse gas emissions. Worldwide, theaverage of CO

2 emissions per capita is about four

metric tons. Oregonians emit almost 17 metrictons of CO

2 per capita.

Several principles were adopted, including a focuson cost-effective solutions, the creation of long-term investment strategies for efficiency andenergy savings, and a commitment to innovation.Particular emphasis was placed on achieving real,measurable and meaningful reductions ingreenhouse gas emissions, goals firmly groundedin science and commensurate with the state’s shareof the larger global problem.

One strategy consistent with these principles is anincrease of biological sequestration in farms andforests. The Advisory Group recommendedtaking action to increase the amount of carbonthat can be captured and fixed in new or restoredforest growth. Land management choices could

restore much of the natural sequestration capacitythat has been lost to development. Reforestationand conservation reserves in lands of marginaleconomic value could be stepped up dramatically,encouraged and sustained with governmentpolicies and public investment dollars.

A draft report was released for public review andcomment, three public meetings were held, andover 250 comments were received.3 TheAdvisory Group unanimously adopted its report,Oregon Strategy for Greenhouse Gas Reductions onDecember 17, 2004.4

The report made 60 recommendations, noting“We can arrest and reverse Oregon’s contributionsto these global warming trends. In doing so, wewill set ourselves on a path to reduce emissionsover time and stabilize the local climate conditionswe bequeath to our children.”

Table 1 shows the reductions possible from thevarious recommended actions.

“If we continue ‘business as usual,’ by 2025Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions would be 61%higher than 1990 levels.” The report’s goals aim tostop the growth of Oregon’s greenhouse gasemissions and begin to reduce them by 2010.Based on 1990 levels, a 10% reduced in greenhousegases would be achieved by 2020, and a 75%reduction, or a “climate stabilization” level, by 2050.

Besides reducing greenhouse gas emissions, othersignificant strategies include energy efficiencytargets, increasing the amount of electricity suppliedby renewable energy, reducing carbon emissions —particularly for utilities and transportation — andadopting stricter auto tailpipe standards.

Biological sequestration is an important strategy,and of the six measures proposed, three directlyrelate to forests. Cumulatively, the three actionswould decrease CO

2 emissions by 4.3 metric

million tons by 2025.

2 Scientific Consensus Statement on the Likely Impacts of Climate Change on the Pacific Northwest,http://inr.oregonstate.edu/download/climate_change_consensus_statement_final.pdf3 Draft report and comments, http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/GBLWRM/Draft_Intro.shtml.4 Report, Oregon Strategy for Greenhouse Gas Reductions, http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/GBLWRM/Strategy.shtml


179

BIOSEQ-1. Reduce wildfire risk by creatinga market for woody biomass from forests.Some forests are at risk of catastrophic firebecause small-diameter trees act as fuel for theflames. When forests burn, large amounts ofstored carbon in trees are released into theatmosphere as CO

2. If these small trees (also

known as woody biomass) can be removed, therisk of large CO

2 emissions from extreme fires is

reduced. An added benefit is that that thisbiomass, when used to general electric power,produces less greenhouse gas emissions thanfossil fuel. Currently, only a limited amount offorest thinning is done because of the lack of amarket for biomass fuel. Since existingbiomass-generating plants are not located nearforests, the “emissions” cost of trucking the fueloutweighs the value of power generated. Arecommendation is to locate small(two- to four-megawatt) biomass-fueledgenerating plants near forests to reap all theadvantages.

BIOSEQ 2: Consider greenhouse gas effectsin farm and forest land use decisions.Oregon’s statewide land use planning programreduces CO

2 emissions by keeping forest land in

forest production. It is estimated that Oregon’sprogram prevented 51 million metric tons ofCO

2 (1.7 MMT annually) from 1974 through

2004 by avoiding conversion of farm and forestlands to development.

BIOSEQ-3: Increase forestation ofunderproducing lands. Oregon already hasprograms that encourage reforestation ofunderproducing lands by providing a 50 percenttax credit. If more marginal lands —agriculture, pasture and unproductive brushlands capable of growing forests — wererestored to healthy forests, carbon dioxideemissions could be reduced by 0.5 millionmetric tons of CO

2 per year.

In the table above, column three shows estimated CO2 sequestration in million metric tons (MMT) in 2025. Column four asksif the action is cost-effective (C/E) - yes (Y) or no (N) to the consumer over the action’s lifetime. (This does not address whetherit is cost-effective to Oregon and Oregonians broadly, considering the projected effects of global warming and the costs ofadapting to those effects.) A question mark means that the estimates of cost-effectiveness are uncertain and more analysis isneeded. Because actions interact, CO2 savings cannot be added. Refer to Figure 8 in Part Two, Section 1 (Introduction toRecommended Actions) for the cumulative effect of actions.

CATEGORY 1: MMTSIGNIFICANT ACTIONS CO2EFOR IMMEDIATE STATE ACTION 2025 C/E?

BIOSEQ-1 Reduce wildfire risk by creating a market forwoody biomass from forests. 3.2 Y

BIOSEQ-2 Consider greenhouse gas effects in farm andforest land use decisions. 0.6 Y

BIOSEQ-3 Increase forestation of under-producing lands 0.5 Y?

TABLE 1. Biological Sequestration (BIOSEQ)Refer to Part One, Figure 8 in Section 4 for the cumulative effect of all actions.


180

Other strategies that involve forests relate to thetechnology and construction of biomass-fueledelectric generation. Directives advise theOregon University System to target researchand develop demonstration programs forgreenhouse gas reduction technologies such asrenewable energy production using forestrybiomass. Development of incentives forrenewable energy hold great promise for forestland management. Twenty-five megawatts ofbiomass-fueled electric generation are underwayin plants already built or under construction.

The report notes, “Oregon has significantcompetitive advantages. We have a broad arrayof technical expertise in energy-efficiencyresearch, forestry and renewable energy. Thestate’s entrepreneurs, supported by Oregon’sacademic and technological capabilities, canprosper by positioning themselves at the leadingedge of change.”

Renewable Energy Action Plan

A process to achieve the greenhouse gasreduction goals

On April 13, 2005, the governor formallyaccepted the Working Group’s report andannounced new greenhouse gas emissionreductions goals based on theirrecommendations. He stated that this work will“put Oregon on the map as a national leader inthe efforts to combat global warming andreduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

To achieve those goals, the governor asked theDepartment of Energy and several state agenciesto develop a comprehensive state RenewableEnergy Action Plan (REAP).

The Plan contains numerous renewable energypolicy goals and a long list of actions forpromoting the development of renewable energy.Relative to forests, it centers on biomass as anenergy source. Not only can biomass be used togenerate electric power with lower greenhouse gasemissions, it can be used to fuel integrated

biorefineries. Such refineries can gasify (ratherthan burn) biomass to produce liquid fuels andhigh-value chemicals, as well as electricity, in thesame facility. The state Department of Forestry isencouraged to join with the state Department ofEnergy to seek federal funds for the developmentof this industry.

As further support for forest-generated biomassenergy, the Plan suggests aiding the formationof partnerships between private companies andconsumer-owned utilities to develop energysystems for local communities. Small, energy-efficient biomass heating and electrical systemscould be created for heating and providingpower to institutions, state offices, schools andother buildings, especially in rural Oregon. ThePlan suggests identifying how to secure long-term biomass supplies, determining whetherfinancial support or incentives are necessary totransport the supplies, and generating aprogram of greater public awareness of all thebenefits of biomass energy production.

In February, 2006, the governor created aRenewable Energy Working Group toimplement the Plan. Currently, this 33-membergroup includes representatives of electricutilities, municipalities, agriculture, forestbiomass, environmental groups and industry,along with legislators and a representative fromthe governor’s office. The Working Group willguide implementation of the Renewable EnergyAction Plan, acting as advocates and advisors inthe private and public sectors to encourage thegrowth of renewable energy and accompanyingeconomic development. They also will trackrenewable energy development in Oregon andsubmit regular status reports on theimplementation of the Plan to the governor’soffice for public dissemination.

In addition, the governor created a separateForest Biomass Working Group to developpolicy proposals on how best to achieve thePlan’s renewable energy goals, and moregenerally, how to expand the market for forestbiomass in Oregon. Staffed by the Department


181

of Forestry, the group is comprised ofrepresentatives from the forest product sector,energy developers and advocates, environmentaladvocates, and academia.

The governor has asked both the RenewableEnergy Working Group and the Forest BiomassWorking Group to complete their work andpresent information or proposed legislation intime for consideration by the 2007 legislaturesession.

A number of directives of the Renewable EnergyAction Plan are aimed at the OregonDepartment of Forestry — mainly to study,support, promote, and seek federal funds forbiomass energy generation. For example, thedepartment is urged to investigate the benefitsof reduced and avoided carbon dioxideemissions from forest fuel reduction projects inconjunction with biomass energy generation.Foresters are asked to promote active fuels andvegetation management, along with aggressivefire suppression on public and privateforestlands, as key tools to produce biomass forenergy generation and to manage forest health.They will work with federal agencies to promoteforest biomass energy opportunities throughadministration of the National Fire Plan, theHealthy Forests Restoration Act and the TribalForest Protection Act. Along with the stateDepartment of Energy, foresters will monitoravailable federal funds for biomass projects andprovide assistance with the application process.

Next Steps: Climate ChangeIntegration Group

Continuing to carry out the Strategy

The governor highlighted the importance of theforest biomass sector to his energy policy in hisspeech to the Oregon Business Council inJanuary 9, 2006, and again in his response toquestions at his State of the State Address onFebruary 24, 2006.

The governor is currently in the process ofappointing a new citizen-led Climate ChangeIntegration Group. This group will trackimplementation, receive reports from stateagencies, provide a clearinghouse for sharedinformation, and continue to make additionalrecommendations to achieve the Strategy’s goals.Fortunately, through all of the efforts at thelegislative, administrative, local government,academic and citizen levels, Oregonians aregrappling with what they can do to reducegreenhouse gas emissions and address theimpacts of climate change. There is growingrecognition of the fundamental need for real,meaningful emission reductions and arealization that Oregon can capture economicopportunities by doing so.

The author served on the Governor’s Advisory Group onGlobal Warming and was a member of the draftingcommittee that prepared the Final Report. The authorwould like to acknowledge that this chapter is based, inlarge part, on materials provided to the Advisory Group, theFinal Report, and Oregon’s Renewable Energy Action Plan.


182

Oregon Forest Resources Institute317 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 400Portland, Oregon 97204(971) 673-29441-800-719-9195

www.oregonforests.org

OREGON FORESTRESOURCES INSTITUTE

Forests, Carbon and Global Warming: A SYNTHESIS OF SCIENCE FINDINGS

Documents

Transcript of Forests, Carbon and Global Warming: A SYNTHESIS OF SCIENCE FINDINGS