首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     检索      


The influence of crediting and permanence periods on Australian forest-based carbon offset supply
Institution:1. Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, 115 Green Hall, 1530 Cleveland Avenue North, St. Paul, MN 55108, United States;2. USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 1992 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, United States;3. Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5003, 1432 Ås, Norway;1. Oregon State University, Department of Forest Engineering, Resources and Management, Corvallis, OR, United States;2. University of Maine, School of Economics, Orono, ME, United States;3. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, OR, United States;1. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80526, United States;2. UNE Business School, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
Abstract:Governments globally are developing increasingly ambitious carbon emissions reduction schemes that include significant emissions offset credits for forest-based carbon sequestration. Such strategies can present significant challenges in highly modified and intensively farmed regions where forest land use opportunity and establishment costs are high. This article evaluates the economics of land-use change via active afforestation for local carbon abatement in the Australian state of South Australia, a region with high supply costs representative of long-established temperate farming regions. We found that there is no economically viable abatement below $38 tCO2e?1, however up to 154 Mt CO2e of abatement could be available up to prices of $50 tCO2e?1.Variation in current Australian Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) policy parameters related to permanence and crediting periods were also assessed. Recent ERF contracts involve a 100-year land-use change commitment (permanence period) and a 25-year crediting period where payments for growth in carbon from the land-use change is contracted. We compared outcomes of this arrangement to a scenario with equal 100-year permanence and crediting periods. We found substantial differences in carbon supply at some price points for a 25 rather than a 100-year crediting period. Under ERF parameters the first economically viable revegetation options occur at $42 tCO2e?1, however, we found a 69 percent reduction in economically viable supply at a carbon price of $50 tCO2e?1. The results highlight the role offset crediting policy can have on dis-incentivising land-use change and the need for landholders to be compensated fully for temporal opportunity costs.
Keywords:Carbon neutral  Emissions reduction fund (ERF)  Climate change mitigation  Land use change  Agriculture  Australia
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号