Carbon farming. Trying to get my head around this. Help would be great.

Wesspur
Rugged made
Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
StihlKiwi said:
I'm not sure but i think the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative ( an incentice scheme in the ETS) differentiates between different species or groups of species by their carbon sequestration rates

The 'wilding' forests of lodgepole pine and douglas-fir surrounding queenstown are a perfect example of the part in bold above
Click to expand...

From the MAF site:
To be eligible, the [PFSI] forest must be "direct human induced .... through planting, seeding and/or the human-induced promotion of natural seed sources". Am I misinterpreting 'wilding' in this context? I though 'wilding' was basically running wild, of it's own making. Although it's obviously sparked in many or all cases by nearby forestry, it's not an intentional forest.

The PFSI is for post '89 forestation only, so are the Queenstown forest post '89?

It looks like a minimum 50 years before deforestation (or b4 can opt out of the PFSI scheme) although they allow some harvesting if on a 'continuous cover' basis?
 
KiwiBro said:
From the MAF site:
To be eligible, the [PFSI] forest must be "direct human induced .... through planting, seeding and/or the human-induced promotion of natural seed sources". Am I misinterpreting 'wilding' in this context? I though 'wilding' was basically running wild, of it's own making. Although it's obviously sparked in many or all cases by nearby forestry, it's not an intentional forest.

The PFSI is for post '89 forestation only, so are the Queenstown forest post '89?

It looks like a minimum 50 years before deforestation (or b4 can opt out of the PFSI scheme) although they allow some harvesting if on a 'continuous cover' basis?
Click to expand...

Good point, its more of an existing carbon sink isn't it. Probably not a bad indication of what the PFSI could potentially achieve.

The continuous cover option in the PFSI would suit native well i reckon. Red beech is harvested this way on the west coast and it seems to work well
 
I looked over my friend's contract this weekend and while i am hesitant to divulge all the details, it is a onetime payment of $400/acre up front, with annual payments thru the 20 year contract term. The land was planted to white and red pine, white spruce, two years prior to the contract offer. The payments are annual, and they drop in pay considerably for the twenty year term. Stand must be healthy and stocked according to sound forestry principals as recognized in the state of WI.

Right of refusal to the buyer at contract expiration (chance to meet any other carbon credit contract terms) provided the stand is healthy and ready for thinning in accordance with sound forestry principals.
 
Thanks for that info.

From what I can gather, say someone here (it's broken down into regions in our ETS, so let's say Rotorua, which is the Bay of Plenty region here) planted a forest of P.Radiata after '89. Let's say they planted 100 Ha in 2003. Over here, they have until the end of this year to register under the ETS if they want to be allocated NZUs for the first of our ETS allocation periods: Jan '08 - Dec '12. So at the start of that allocation period, the trees were 5 years old, and at the end of the period they were 10 years old (I still don't like the way they work out the eligible ages in this context - the maths doesn't stack up in my head but I don't make the assumptions, just use the ones they say in their guides the publish here in NZ).

So the opening carbon stock is deemed to be 51 tonnes of CO2/Ha and the closing is deemed to be 169, a difference of 118. So the forestry owner is allocated 118 x 100 Ha=11, 800 NZUs. If I were to guess, I'd say the NZUs are trading very low at around $10 (let's make the maths easy) so that's an allocation of NZ$1,180 per Ha. At today's exchange rate that's about US$920/Ha over the assumed 5 year growth period at that ages of the trees.

The guide to all this is anyone is interested is here:
http://www.mpi.govt.nz/portals/0/documents/forestry/forestry-ets/2011-ETS-look-up-tables-guide.pdf

It's hard to compare that to the example you provided, lmbrman. If you are able to provide such figures, what is the total payment (I'm assuming it's a carbon credit type payment?) per Ha over the 20 years and why 20? I mean do they assume there is no negligible increase in carbon stocks beyond that? Also, 20 years doesn't seem to jive with the maturity period - are they harvesting the 20 year old trees or is just that the period they work off for now (ours is 5 year blocks) and they will calculate another payout thereafter?
 
Last edited:
tramp bushler said:
What the heck are you guys talking about .
It's wierd , I understand the words , but not the sentences . :dizzy:
Click to expand...

Don't worry. I went to a seminar on it. The seminar reminded me of the confusing Forest Service meetings about something new. The presenter knew quite a bit about carbon credits, but not enough and the program hadn't been around long. I don't know if it still is.

I think it was 2009 and the timber market was in the dumps, so it was being offered as a way to make a LITTLE money off your timber land. You had to submit a harvest plan and have that approved, prior to making a commitment.

It was confusing.
 
tramp bushler said:
What the heck are you guys talking about .
Click to expand...
To be honest, I don't know. I'm still figuring out if it's my gut feeling that it's an abysmal, impotent money-go-round that's selling large parts of our manufacturing (emitting) sector down the river for SFA gain, or whether the scheme and the motivation behind it has merit. Part of me would like the whole thing to fall over, but the more people that pile into it, the more financial incentive to perpetuate the myth (if it is just a myth).

Anyone ever get read that story about the Emperor's new clothes when they were kids?
 
Last edited:
KiwiBro said:
From what I can gather, say someone here (it's broken down into regions in our ETS, so let's say Rotorua, which is the Bay of Plenty region here) planted a forest of P.Radiata after '89. Let's say they planted 100 Ha in 2003. Over here, they have until the end of this year to register under the ETS if they want to be allocated NZUs for the first of our ETS allocation periods: Jan '08 - Dec '12. So at the start of that allocation period, the trees were 5 years old, and at the end of the period they were 10 years old (I still don't like the way they work out the eligible ages in this context - the maths doesn't stack up in my head but I don't make the assumptions, just use the ones they say in their guides the publish here in NZ).

So the opening carbon stock is deemed to be 51 tonnes of CO2/Ha and the closing is deemed to be 169, a difference of 118. So the forestry owner is allocated 118 x 100 Ha=11, 800 NZUs. If I were to guess, I'd say the NZUs are trading very low at around $10 (let's make the maths easy) so that's an allocation of NZ$1,180 per Ha. At today's exchange rate that's about US$920/Ha over the assumed 5 year growth period at that ages of the trees.

The guide to all this is anyone is interested is here:
http://www.mpi.govt.nz/portals/0/documents/forestry/forestry-ets/2011-ETS-look-up-tables-guide.pdf

It's hard to compare that to the example you provided, lmbrman. If you are able to provide such figures, what is the total payment (I'm assuming it's a carbon credit type payment?) per Ha over the 20 years and why 20? I mean do they assume there is no negligible increase in carbon stocks beyond that? Also, 20 years doesn't seem to jive with the maturity period - are they harvesting the 20 year old trees or is just that the period they work off for now (ours is 5 year blocks) and they will calculate another payout thereafter?
Click to expand...


total payment was $600US per acre over the 20 years- cash/check. Contact transeferred all carbon credits to the buyer. Seller had lots more land and nothing to lose. He was willing to sell more carbon credits, but the buyer has all he wants for now. Here in the US the carbon credit thing was referred to as cap-and-trade and while beaten down somewhat, temporarily,, it will likely come back. The original plan was each invidivual as well as corporation would have it's carbon footprint measured by our EPA(environmental protection agency) then each entity would need to produce or purchase credits to offset that footprint. Latest thing at our federal government level is in the courts and very similar if somewhat watered down. EPA would asses each chimney in the entire country and there would be a carbon tax applied. Most likely, some smart businessmen would have purchased a bunch of these carbon credits already at a cheap price, since at current they have no real value. Then once this carbon tax is in place, this group lobbies gov't to sell credits and they unload at a nice profit.

Most pine plantations in this area have a first thinning at around 20 years. The contract buyer had a name that was worded "power company",, but I cannot prove it actually is a power company. My friend found out about the contract offer thru the state DNR(department natural resources). The buyer was looking to purchase credits to offset state laws requiring credits, and at the time, the whole Cap-and-trade thing looked likely to become federal law. The land can be divided, sold, developed, subdivided, etc,, as long as the average stocking level was in accordance with sound forestry. It had zero effect on the use of the land, and the trees had already been planted. Nothing to lose. The cost of the land i believe was about $2000/acre.

-dave

Whole thing is a joke, but how to fight it -
 
tramp bushler said:
Sounds like some left wing land grab . The only people who will get screwed are the middle class workin people . Environmentalism is highly predatory .
Click to expand...


Seems like a suspicous thing is in the works-

Makes you wonder what is coming when people are buying carbon credits when they have no real use right now. Basically selling something invisible.

The buyer prolly knows what is comin
 
forgot about the 20 year question:)

I think maybe few people are willing to plan/commit further than that?
 
sorry for the interuption - daughter wanted me to read to her :)

back to the 20 years. His contract had the terms "right of refusal" which means right to match any other offer and receive priority. In his case, the contract was expired at twenty years, but the buyer had the first 'right of refusal' to match any other offer on the carbon credits and repurchase them if a deal could be made. If no new contract was agreed to, the carbon credits were property of the landowner once again -

until the gov't decides it owns all the credits :)
 
The whole carbon credit thing is a joke. Every company forester I talk to besides the ones I've worked with, don't see it going anywhere. There is no benefit for the timber owners whatsoever over the long term.
 
OlympicYJ said:
There is no benefit for the timber owners whatsoever over the long term.
Click to expand...

There's one, and it's BS: buy a bunch of carbon credits to offset wasteful or harmful practices, and the government will give you a "Passover" regarding fines on the same.

Meanwhile: FSC or SFI certification grants the owner pretty much the same leeway (or more), costs less, and is better for long-term productivity of the land.

I say again: Carbon Credits = Indulgences
 
OlympicYJ said:
The whole carbon credit thing is a joke. Every company forester I talk to besides the ones I've worked with, don't see it going anywhere. There is no benefit for the timber owners whatsoever over the long term.
Click to expand...

certainly is a joke, but the scary part is when the gvot makes you purchase the credits to offset your carbon footprint, or taxes you for the footprint. It is comin. Wife's workplace had a mandatory carbon footprint survey- ie,, what vehicle you drive, how many miles per year to commute to work, etc. She had to fight a little to get some credits on the survey for trees owned, but they did give her some credits. The whole thing was a feel good thing for the workplace. For now -

For now.

My friend bought his land for hunting and recreation, bought trees for .10/piece thru the state nursery, 600 trees per acre cost him $60/ acre to plant. I let him use my tractor and planter. Along comes a carbon credit buyer who pays $400/acre to 'rent' the credits and another $200 per acre over the 20 year lease. Selling something invisible, how is the $600/ acre not a benefit to the landowner. He can do all he pleases with the land.

$600/acre times 120 acres = $72000 ,, $48000 up front payment.

I put money on those carbon credit buyers knowing what is coming.
 
madhatte said:
There's one, and it's BS: buy a bunch of carbon credits to offset wasteful or harmful practices, and the government will give you a "Passover" regarding fines on the same.

Meanwhile: FSC or SFI certification grants the owner pretty much the same leeway (or more), costs less, and is better for long-term productivity of the land.

I say again: Carbon Credits = Indulgences
Click to expand...

Like this post very much. Hit it on the head, especially with the term indulgences.

EPA and federal govt are certain to tax indulgences ,, twice or more. I say the carbon tax will fly somehow, eventually, and people will point at those who drive a truck, use a motorboat, whatever and say "they can afford to pay more"

-dave
 
Canada Free Press :

There's an elephant in global warming's living room that few in the mainstream media want to talk about: the creators of the carbon credit scheme are the ones cashing in on it.

The two cherub like choirboys singing loudest in the Holier Than Thou Global Warming Cathedral are Maurice Strong and Al Gore.

This duo has done more than anyone else to advance the alarmism of man-made global warming.

With little media monitoring, both Strong and Gore are cashing in on the lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as "the world's first and North America's only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil."

Gore buys his carbon off-sets from himself--the Generation Investment Management LLP, "an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C." of which he is both chairman and founding partner.
 
madhatte said:
There's one, and it's BS: buy a bunch of carbon credits to offset wasteful or harmful practices, and the government will give you a "Passover" regarding fines on the same.

Meanwhile: FSC or SFI certification grants the owner pretty much the same leeway (or more), costs less, and is better for long-term productivity of the land.

I say again: Carbon Credits = Indulgences
Click to expand...

I agree. But they were referring to the seller. If the timber owners don't see a benefit to it and aren't willing to partake it will most likely flop unless the govt mandates it and follows through on it. Even then it could still flop. I have no faith in govt administering anything efficiently.

All it is is a Pyramid scheme with forests. However if there is to be a "free market" carbon credit market I could see it being a voluntary component of FSC and SFI certification. More so with FSC since it is the "greener" certification.

I sat in on a carbon sequestration lecture up at Evergreen done by a prof from OSU. As I understood it the huge amounts of Forests needed aren't there. Ie there aren't enough to go around to meet everyone's needs. Therefore making it an ideological shell game. All this was started by Al Gore, who is not a scientist, as a get rich quick scheme. I think that explains everything that needs to be known about carbon credits. Oh and maybe that Global Warming has been proven to be a world conspiracy by scientists... :angry:

:angrysoapbox:
 
I would just about bet though that 99%of the people that attended the lecture at Evergreen thought it would be the best thing since sliced bread. But I could be wrong since I still don't know what the hell this thing is about.:confused2:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top