This paper is glimpse into a new paradigm that will soon become increasingly popular for many countries around the world. This paper will outline trends and delve into research regarding carbon sequestration through the use of trees and forests. More specifically I will be looking into the feasibility and potential for smaller landowners to benefit from the potential tax credits and investments. WaF is a local soil type that happens to not be suitable for farmland because of the class F. Since its a class F it has high slopes 25-45% which make it more difficult for industrial forestry operations to setup and harvest the lumber but provides a route for other options like carbon sequestration though at this point it is difficult to know the comparison to what you would receive for harvesting the wood. Instead of working against nature you can work with nature and promote what will work which provides a route for growing trees. What's interesting here is the many number of ways this could all be setup. For instance, instead of clear cutting land for a 1 time lump sum of cash you could potentially earn a significantly lower sum of cash but be paid yearly for carbon your land is sequestering potentially providing an alternative to clearcutting which releases carbon that is sequestered by disrupting the forest ecosystem and removing the sink for future potential storage.
Capturing Carbon
While most modern literature that's out on these topics are involved with or revolve around carbon capturing technologies, I find the information still relevant as it shows the current regulatory position around capturing carbon that I think will ultimately lead to tax credits and regulation solely around natural sequestration. “The law itself and precedent involving other credits will give the private sector some room to establish creative models to optimize their tax structures. Most of Section 45Q is self-effecting and not dependent on Treasury guidance. However, businesses contemplating installing new equipment will need guidance on some matters, such as procedures for shifting the credit from the entities involved in capturing carbon dioxide to the entities involved in disposal or use of carbon dioxide. Like the old Section 45Q, new Section 45Q also requires the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate regulations that provide for recapture of a credit with respect to carbon oxide that ceases to be captured, disposed of or used as a tertiary injectant. The government is unlikely to provide guidance soon on matters under Section 45Q. While the credit will reduce the tax liability of some companies that either capture or dispose of carbon oxide, its biggest benefit well may be its role in encouraging the development of technologies that contribute to the slowing of climate change (Schutzer 2018)”. These reforms and credits present an opportunity to educate the society on climate change and the potential solutions. While I am not opposed of technologies that are trying to combat climate change via carbon sequestration I do think our best path forward would be to utilize as many natural solutions as possible, creating better forest ecosystems and natural habitats while ending deforestation should be our number one priority when trying to combat climate change, “Trees are the No. 1 way in which carbon can be removed from the atmosphere and stored in vegetation over the long term,” said Brian Kittler, the western regional office director for the Pinchot Institute for Conservation, which has a program in Oregon to help the owners of family forests develop potentially profitable carbon projects (Goode 2018)”. We are already bearing the consequences of meddling too much with nature, carbon capture technologies and the storing of this carbon could be disastrous in the future. These technologies and the stored carbon are natively tied to the internet which is vulnerable to hacking and malware attacks. These hacks can be performed from any location in the world all from a laptop. This presents a vulnerability for all of humanity needing just one cruel individual to release the stored carbon back to the atmosphere. If these technological solutions are the only ones we are using over the next ten years the amount stored could be massive and releasing that back into the atmosphere at once could send us back into the ice age. This presents a dire need to distribute the investments into carbon storing into sectors other than technology and silvicology is the main one. As the mindset changes from one where we are dominant over nature to one where we are co existent with it I believe the tax credits and regulatory framework will shift to one that is more friendly to natural solutions. When this transition happens my hope is that small forest owners will have equal share and rights to these credits and that a monopoly esq system is not created. While land and forests are an investment, one I find could be very rewarding in the future, its important that these new incentives do not create a land grab of sorts where the 1% buy up all the forests and prevent others less fortunate from having a chance at land ownership. New projects and ideas are currently making some serious headway giving hope for small forest landowners to add the selling of carbon sequestration credits for annual revenue. Traditionally, harvesting lumber has been one of the only sources of income for forest owners. Having an option that promotes better forestry management to create better forests and not solely focus on harvesting timber and still earning an income is a great way to promote better forest ecosystems around the world. This will inevitably promote a higher quality of life for both people and animals having cleaner air and water and healthier soils. Ms. Lonnquist is a small forest owner in Oregon having a family forest that is 157 acres. She has taken part in a new project to potentially lock her land in an agreement for 125 years to use her forest to sequester carbon. This does not mean you can’t harvest trees on the land but the forest must maintain a certain threshold of carbon sequestration. “Ms. Lonnquist and her family could still log on a limited basis, as long as they stuck to a plan for managing the forest and maintained a steady level of carbon storage through the forest’s continued growth (Goode 2018)”. Her concerns are the long length of time which is understandable. This would eliminate the future generation from having a say on the land management and would be a difficult decision to make. I do think 125 years is from the California tax credit market and the global one may have a lower contract which may be more appealing to others like Ms. Lonnquist. “The nice thing about carbon is essentially people are being paid to improve forest management.”
“In fact, if small-forest owners can get past the barriers, the carbon markets can be profitable, providing an initial flush of money and then regular yearly payments in much smaller amounts. The carbon credits from Ms. Lonnquist’s forest could bring an estimated $235,000 over the first six years, and about $6,000 a year after that (Goode 2018)”. This would bring Ms. Lonnquist and her brothers who own the land with her, $949,000 dollars over the 125 years. That is bringing them in $6,044/Acre over 125 years while maintaining the integrity of the land and encouraging healthier more diverse forest ecosystems during that time, it sounds almost too good to be true. Extrapolated down by 10, would put a landowner with 15.7 acres earning close to $100,000 during the same time period. While this may not sound like much at first this drastically lowers the barriers for lower income families with land to take part in the system, potentially leading to a scenario for third world countries to as well. Right now, the main barrier to entry is the large costs of feasibility studies, tree inventorying, and doing the carbon calculations.
Conclusion
“whether privately owned or publicly held, sustainably managed woodlands are an extraordinarily valuable resource.
In aggregate they have provided the foundation for human, plant, and animal life in New England for centuries. Traditional estimates of timber resources, and even recent attempts to estimate the value of ecosystem services delivered by forested landscapes, place an insufficient price tag
on what forests mean to New England (Harvard University 2010)”. While the context of this quote was shaped on landscape and ecosystem of New England, I think it is just as relevant for every locale in the world that as native forests of any kind or type. Creating better forest ecosystems is not only the best way to combat climate change but to increase the quality of life for a vast majority of the population. Creating better ways for small landowners to take part in tax credit systems though not directly forcing those companies to quit pushing out carbon I think will indirectly help get us there in the future.
