TO MARKET, TO MARKET?
In the face of increasing development pressures, forest owners large and small can find it tempting to clear or sell their land, which would destroy not only the sequestration potential of their trees but the many other benefits an intact forest offers. But a carbon market could help persuade them to sit tight.

The boiled-down premise of a carbon market is this: utilities and other polluters agree to “reduce” their emissions by buying credits from those who pollute less. In a sense, the good guys get financial compensation, while the bad guys get let off the hook for a bit.

There are several carbon markets currently operating. The Northeast’s version, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI, or “Reggie”), launched this fall. An agreement among 10 states to lower their collective climate-related emissions, RGGI spells out several types of credits that polluters can buy. One type that’s not on the list—but that, at press time, was still being discussed—is forest management.

The original RGGI agreement offered credits for afforestation only, or planting forests where none existed previously. The problem with that, says the Manomet Center’s Hagan, is “there’s not that much opportunity for growing trees where there aren’t any” in the region, because the Northeast is already two-thirds forested. So the more pertinent issue in this neck of the woods is what to do about trees already standing.

Cautious supporters say attaching value to the carbon in trees and wood products could be a way to help fend off development. If someone wants to pay you regularly for the carbon stored in your forest, that could look more appealing than the one-shot payment you’d reap from turning it into a mini-mall. “If trading carbon becomes a viable option, it could tip the balance...making it more likely for landowners, who must consider multiple factors, to maintain their land as forest,” Davidson says.

But there’s a veritable thicket of related questions to wade through—and even when the RGGI question is ironed out, observers say, the market won’t solve everything. “Landowners are interested,” Publicover says. But with per-acre annual values estimated somewhere in the range of $1 to $10, and with the recent economic instability giving investors pause, “nobody’s going to get rich off carbon in the Northeast.” Ultimately, say Publicover and others, the financial incentive of a carbon market would be but one implement in the forest-protection toolbox.

CAN'T SEE THE FOREST FOR THE CARBON
At the end of the day, several truths about trees are evident: They store carbon. Putting a dollar value on that carbon could affect forest management—could, says Si Balch of NEFF, “offer one more good reason not to convert land from forest into something else.” Keeping those forests intact could, in turn, help maintain carbon storage and fight climate change. And the whole wild, sprawling debate over carbon sequestration doesn’t even begin to encompass the big picture.

Forests, after all, “do more than provide income and store carbon,” says Davidson. All those interviewed agree that other issues, including biodiversity, water quality, and recreation, must be factored into management and policy decisions. 

The biggest issue may be that, as climate change advances, forests themselves are changing: migrating to new ranges, succumbing to insects and disease, adapting in the face of extreme drought and wetness. Ultimately, they need our help as much as we need theirs; sequestration, the experts say, is just one piece of a climate-change solution that must include energy conservation and the development of alternative fuels.

“Forests are not going to come rescue us from what we’re doing through burning fossil fuels,” Davidson says. “But they could be managed to help make things better.”
 

Katharine Wroth is a former co-editor of AMC Outdoors who edited White Mountain Guide: A Centennial Retrospective. She is currently a senior editor at Grist.org.

PREVIOUS PAGE

1 | 2 | 3