Abstract

The commercial asset value of sequestered forest carbon is based on protocols employed globally; however, their scientific basis has not been validated. We review and analyze commercial forest carbon protocols, claimed to have reduced net greenhouse gas emissions, issued by the California Air Resources Board and validated by the Climate Action Reserve (CARB-CAR). CARB-CAR forest carbon offsets, based on forest mensuration and model simulation, are compared to a global database of directly measured forest carbon sequestration, or net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of forest CO2. NEE is a meteorologically based method integrating CO2 fluxes between the atmosphere, forest and soils and is independent of the CARB-CAR methodology. Annual carbon accounting results for CAR681 are compared with NEE for the Ameriflux site, Howland Forest Maine, USA, (Ho-1), the only site where both methods were applied contemporaneously, invalidating CARB-CAR protocol offsets. We then test the null hypothesis that CARB-CAR project population data fall within global NEE population values for natural and managed forests measured in the field; net annual gC m−2yr−1 are compared for both protocols. Irrespective of geography, biome and project type, the CARB-CAR population mean is significantly different from the NEE population mean at the 95% confidence interval, rejecting the null hypothesis. The CARB-CAR population exhibits standard deviation ∼5× that of known interannual NEE ranges, is overcrediting biased, incapable of detecting forest transition to net positive CO2 emissions, and exceeds the 5% CARB compliance limit for invalidation. Exclusion of CO2 efflux via soil and ecosystem respiration precludes a valid net carbon accounting result for CARB-CAR and related protocols, consistent with our findings. Protocol invalidation risk extends to vendors and policy platforms such as the United Nations Program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) and the Paris Agreement. We suggest that CARB-CAR and related protocols include NEE methodology for commercial forest carbon offsets to standardize methods, ensure in situ molecular specificity, verify claims of carbon emission reduction and harmonize carbon protocols for voluntary and compliance markets worldwide.

Highlights

  • How to cite this article Marino BDV, Mincheva M, Doucett A. 2019

  • Three assumptions of the California Air Resources Board (CARB)-Climate Action Reserve (CAR) protocol are evaluated in this review: (1) offsets represent complete forest carbon accounting, (2) results are compliant with CARB-CAR 5% invalidation rule for overcrediting, and (3) results reflect actual net annual forest carbon ecosystem dynamics resulting in verified forest carbon financial products

  • A selected interval of the box plot excluding the CARB-CAR outliers is presented in Fig. 1B to illustrate the population differences (CARB-CAR median of −445.4 gC m−2yr−1 compared to the NEE1 median value of −172.5 gC m−2yr−1 ) corresponding to the larger spread and left-skewness of CARB-CAR values

Read more

Summary

Introduction

How to cite this article Marino BDV, Mincheva M, Doucett A. 2019. California air resources board forest carbon protocol invalidates offsets. We review and analyze California Air Resources Board (CARB) protocols representing net annual forest carbon sequestration (Marland et al, 2017) to characterize carbon accounting uncertainty, and how well the protocol reflects actual net forest carbon sequestration compared to independent and direct measurement of carbon. We address the validation gap by comparing CARB-CAR estimated results (e.g., CO2 is not observed directly) with a global database of in situ measured net forest carbon sequestration flux, or net ecosystem exchange (NEE) (Baldocchi, Chu & Reichstein, 2018; Baldocchi & Penuelas, 2019; FLUXNET, 2019). Three assumptions of the CARB-CAR protocol are evaluated in this review: (1) offsets represent complete forest carbon accounting, (2) results are compliant with CARB-CAR 5% invalidation rule for overcrediting, and (3) results reflect actual net annual forest carbon ecosystem dynamics resulting in verified forest carbon financial products. Protocols related to the CARB-CAR methodology are assessed for uncertainty and impact on forest carbon markets

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call