Browsing by Subject "Carbon offset"

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8

Open Access
A Business Plan for Blue Carbon Offsets at Duke University
(2012-04-26) Huo, Jian; Fisher, Rebecca
Marine ecosystems such as salt marshes, sea grasses and mangroves absorb from the atmosphere and store large amounts of carbon, both in their vegetation and in the soil beneath them. In light of rapid climate change and global warming, it is imperative that we invest in protecting and increasing the carbon and greenhouse gas sinks on our planet. Given the large quantity of carbon in coastal ecosystems relative to their area, these regions and their potential emissions are of great significance. By preserving and revitalizing coastal ecosystems, organizations can utilize this stored carbon to offset their carbon emissions. This is what the Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative is considering in North Carolina. By investing in the protection of the North Carolina shoreline, Duke University has the capacity to generate “blue carbon” Offsets to offset on campus emission. Building on existing scientific data, analysis, and available methodologies, this report presents a Business Plan for a potential blue carbon project in North Carolina and offers the following recommendations for moving this effort forward: 1. The initially proposed avoided erosion project for Ocracoke Island, NC does not appear to a viable source of blue carbon credits. 2. As an alternative, consider a project that involves preserving wetlands from avoided conversion to another land use rather than an avoided erosion project. 3. Do not engage in projects that will set the offset price above $20 per ton of carbon, as these projects are far more expensive than alternative sources of emission reduction. 4. Because blue carbon is a newly developing offset category, utilize the current methodologies for coastal ecosystems until specific guidelines become available. 5. To achieve cost effectiveness, the initial project should involve a partner organization(s). This will decrease the financial resources DCOI will need to provide the project and will utilize the skills of professionals who have years of experience with wetland preservation along the coastline.
Open Access
A Business Plan for Blue Carbon Offsets at Duke University
(2012-04-26) Fisher, Rebecca
Marine ecosystems such as salt marshes, sea grasses and mangroves absorb from the atmosphere and store large amounts of carbon, both in their vegetation and in the soil beneath them. In light of rapid climate change and global warming, it is imperative that we invest in protecting and increasing the carbon and greenhouse gas sinks on our planet. Given the large quantity of carbon in coastal ecosystems relative to their area, these regions and their potential emissions are of great significance. By preserving and revitalizing coastal ecosystems, organizations can utilize this stored carbon to offset their carbon emissions. This is what the Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative is considering in North Carolina. By investing in the protection of the North Carolina shoreline, Duke University has the capacity to generate “blue carbon” Offsets to offset on campus emission. Building on existing scientific data, analysis, and available methodologies, this report presents a Business Plan for a potential blue carbon project in North Carolina and offers the following recommendations for moving this effort forward: 1. The initially proposed avoided erosion project for Ocracoke Island, NC does not appear to a viable source of blue carbon credits. 2. As an alternative, consider a project that involves preserving wetlands from avoided conversion to another land use rather than an avoided erosion project. 3. Do not engage in projects that will set the offset price above $20 per ton of carbon, as these projects are far more expensive than alternative sources of emission reduction. 4. Because blue carbon in a newly developing offset category, utilize the current methodologies for coastal ecosystems until specific guidelines become available. 5. To achieve cost effectiveness, the initial project should involve a partner organization(s). This will decrease the financial resources DCOI will need to provide the project and will utilize the skills of professionals who have years of experience with wetland preservation along the coastline.
Open Access
AN ANALYSIS OF A CARBON OFFSET PROGRAM FOR THE UNITED STATES
(2007-05) Uchida, Ryoto
In the current absence of the federal government’s strong leadership to address climate change in the United States, mandatory regional tradable permit programs for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions are being planned by several state governments. A carbon offset program, combined with a tradable permit program, induces a wider range of entities to implement offset projects that reduce GHG emissions within a wider range of industries than the industries regulated by the tradable permit program. An offset project has to be additional, meaning that it generates emission reductions as compared to the baseline emissions. Therefore, the additionality assessment is the most important element of a carbon offset program, but it is complicated because it requires estimating a counterfactual baseline scenario. For a carbon offset program in the United States, energy efficiency projects to reduce GHG emissions on the demand-side of energy are important. However, energy efficiency projects are prevented from being undertaken due to the high transaction costs of the project-specific additionality assessment method adopted by the Clean Development Mechanism. In this paper, a policy analysis is conducted to produce recommendations to solve this problem. First, along the rationally selected evaluative criteria, a qualitative comparative assessment is made on the policy alternatives implementing different additionality assessment methods as a definitive test. Then, based on the assessment, this paper discusses how to more flexibly implement and combine the different methods to address the problem. Finally, the recommendation is made for a comprehensive, simple and practical policy to assess additionality for a carbon offset program in the United States.
Open Access
Carbon Offset Opportunities at the Duke University Health System
(2012-04-26) Shown, Erin; Wallis, Kimberly; Lin, Ye
The Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative (DCOI) is collaborating with the Duke University Health System (DUHS) to obtain carbon offsets that will aid in fulfilling the University’s pledge to be carbon neutral by 2024. This study identified and prioritized financially feasible projects within the DUHS that would lead to carbon offsets. A number of carbon reduction opportunities were identified within the DUHS: medical waste management, renewable energy opportunities, energy efficient kitchen equipment, lighting upgrades, organic waste management, and sustainable tableware. Funding from the DCOI would allow the DUHS to invest in projects beyond what its current budget allows while at the same time generating carbon credits for the University thereby benefitting both parties.
Open Access
Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative: Energy Efficiency Carbon Offsets
(2013-04-26) Chen, Yunzhong; Chauhan, Sugandha; Lu, Aaron
Duke University aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2024 by a combination of efforts to reduce on campus energy consumption and off campus carbon offset generation. One of the offset options that DCOI is evaluating is energy efficiency retrofits in residential buildings leading to indirect emission reductions. The problem we have attempted to address in our project is how Duke University can identify potential carbon offset opportunities in terms of improving energy efficiency in homes and businesses and how these offsets can be verified and quantified. In order to determine the feasibility of energy efficiency carbon offsets the team started with evaluating data from a similar residential retrofitting project implemented by the City of Durham’s Sustainability Office. The pre and post retrofit energy consumption data from these houses was analyzed to determine the energy savings and resultant carbon emissions reduction. The average emission reduction obtained from this project was then used to determine the carbon price. This carbon price was used to conduct a comparative analysis with carbon prices found in the market, literature and regulations. The second step of the project involved studying energy efficiency retrofit projects that have been undertaken in other regions at various levels and sizes. The last question that this project aimed to answer was regarding the suitability of various financing mechanisms for the retrofitting project. In order to address this question a demand assessment survey was designed to determine the willingness of Duke employees to participate in such a program and pay for the retrofits. DCOI plans to conduct the survey in the foreseeable future. The results of our analysis showed that average electricity savings of 113.13 KWh per month can be generated through retrofits including air and duct sealing and insulation enhancement. The average cost of retrofit was determined to be $1/sq feet of heated area. Using this investment cost and annual savings, the carbon price was determined to be 133.37 $/metric ton of CO2 equivalent reduction. Sensitivity analysis conducted for this carbon price showed that the factors that had the largest impact on carbon price are the initial investment and annual energy savings. To further evaluate the results, we compared the City of Durham’s returns on investment in terms of energy reduction, 0.97 kWh/$, and in terms of greenhouse gas reduction, 0.00046 metric ton of CO2 equivalent/$, to returns on investment of 22 other residential energy efficiency programs around the U.S. The City of Durham program lies in the middle of the range of return on investment indicators. The calculated carbon price of 133.37 $/metric ton of CO2 equivalent reduction, compared to 13.00 $/metric ton of CO2 equivalent reduction median of 44 other carbon prices found in regulation, literature, and market is extremely high. The final set of recommendations provided to DCOI are based upon the results obtained from the City of Durham data analysis and the comparative programs and carbon price study along with the essential project requirements for meeting the Verified Carbon Standard carbon offset program criteria.
Open Access
Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative: Energy Efficiency Carbon Offsets
(2013-04-26) Chauhan, Sugandha; Lu, Aaron; Chen, Yunzhong
Duke University aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2024 by a combination of efforts to reduce on campus energy consumption and off campus carbon offset generation. One of the offset options that DCOI is evaluating is energy efficiency retrofits in residential buildings leading to indirect emission reductions. The problem we have attempted to address in our project is how Duke University can identify potential carbon offset opportunities in terms of improving energy efficiency in homes and businesses and how these offsets can be verified and quantified. In order to determine the potential savings in energy consumption, we evaluated energy data from a similar energy retrofit project conducted by the City of Durham. The pre and post retrofit energy consumption data from these houses was analyzed to determine the energy savings, the resultant carbon emissions reduction and the carbon price. The second step of the project involved studying energy efficiency retrofit projects that have been undertaken in other regions at various levels and sizes. The last question that this project aimed to answer was regarding the suitability of various financing mechanisms for the retrofitting project. In order to address this question a demand assessment survey was designed to determine the willingness of Duke employees to participate in such a program and pay for the retrofits. The results of our analysis showed that average electricity savings of 113.13 KWh per month can be generated through retrofits including air and duct sealing and insulation enhancement. The average cost of retrofit was determined to be $1/sq feet of heated area. Using this investment cost and annual savings, the carbon price was determined to be 133.37 $/metric ton of CO2 equivalent reduction. Sensitivity analysis conducted for this carbon price showed that the factors that had the largest impact on carbon price are the initial investment and annual energy savings. The final set of recommendations provided to DCOI are based upon the results obtained from the City of Durham data analysis and the comparative programs and carbon price study along with the essential project requirements for meeting the Verified Carbon Standard carbon offset program criteria.
Open Access
Stumpage Price Impacts on Carbon Accumulation
(2021-04-30) Ruan, Leyi; Scofield, Evan
California’s Cap-and-Trade program, created by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), allows large-scale polluters in the state to partially offset their greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing carbon offset credits. Although there are several types of allowable credits, by far the most common are credits generated by forest carbon projects. These projects require landowners to demonstrate that their forests are storing carbon at levels that exceed what CARB has determined to be the Common Practice Baseline for the associated ecological region and forest type. CARB does not disclose its procedure for calculating these baselines, but it is known to use data collected by the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program. Forest carbon offset developers like our client, Bluesource LLC, rely on the CARB baselines and data on forest carbon stocking levels to identify potential development opportunities. In this report, we seek to determine if CARB baselines and FIA carbon levels can be predicted by prices received by forest owners for their timber, otherwise known as stumpage prices. Previous studies have demonstrated a theoretical effect of stumpage prices on timber harvests, hence on aboveground forest carbon levels, but none has modeled the empirical relationship between stumpage prices and either the CARB baselines or FIA carbon levels. The first section of this report provides an overview of the carbon market in California, focusing on how forest carbon offsets are developed by third-party organizations like Bluesource. This section also states our three research questions: 1. Can stumpage prices be used to explain CARB baselines? 2. Can stumpage prices be used to explain FIA aboveground carbon levels? 3. If the answers to questions 1 and 2 are affirmative, can the associated statistical models be used to predict future CARB baselines and FIA carbon levels? The second section describes the work done to collect data on stumpage prices from Maine, Michigan, and West Virginia, the CARB baseline report from 2011 and 2015, and the FIA carbon data from the same three states. There were significant differences in the reporting styles of the various datasets, so this section also explains how the data were cleaned and reformatted in preparation for our analyses. It provides as well some descriptive statistics to orient the reader on data characteristics. The third section describes the methods undertaken in our analyses. We used regression models to examine the relationship between stumpage prices and both the CARB baselines and the FIA carbon levels. Because the CARB and FIA data differ in the years in which they are reported, so to do the analysis methods. The CARB analysis utilized a cross-sectional regression, whereas the FIA analysis utilized a panel analysis. Beyond stumpage prices, we tested the effects of a number of other explanatory variables in each analysis and ultimately selected two models to be used to project future CARB baselines and FIA carbon levels. The model results and the results of their projections are also included in this section and are shown using maps of the expected percentage increase for each geographic region of our study. The fourth and final section highlights the implications of our findings both to our client and to the relevant literature. We also acknowledge limitations of our models and offer suggestions of how the models could be improved and adjusted for use in other geographic regions. Although stumpage prices influence forest owner harvesting behavior and thus forest carbon levels and CARB baselines too, they likely do not capture all forces influencing landowners’ forest management decisions. A more sophisticated model with more complete data may have greater predictive capability. This report makes several key points and recommendations: • Stumpage prices can be used as predictors of both CARB baselines and FIA carbon levels. • The models we developed could be improved by including more complete stumpage price data from the study region, including sales from both public and private forests instead of only one or the other. • The effects of other variables should be investigated, particularly interest rates and price trends (vs. price levels). • Analyzing the effect of FIA carbon levels on CARB baselines may provide a more direct way to project future CARB baselines. • These models are applicable only to Maine, Michigan, and West Virginia, but the methods used can be replicated for any region with similar data.
Open Access
Tennessee Forest Carbon
(2013-08-12) Alexander, Leslee T.
In 2012, the California Air Resource Board initiated the first Cap-and-Trade (Cap) compliance market in the United States. It is a rigorous and iterative program that was launched under extreme scrutiny, with protocols that command high performance. So far, the Cap appears to be promoting new opportunities for greenhouse gas reductions and improving land conservation. Forest carbon is one of the four approved protocols under the Cap and projects can be developed throughout the United States. There is a projected shortfall in forest carbon offsets available to satisfy the growing demand. This could be a new incentive for land conservation throughout forested areas of the United States. The Southeastern United States contains a large amount of forested land in the hands of non-industrial private landowners, and appears to be a prime target for new forest carbon projects under the protocol. The region is also under immense development pressure, even though more agricultural land is turning back into forests than being developed. But ecosystem services are not well-understood throughout the United States, and resource conservation services in general are under-utilized in Tennessee. So the situation begged whether or not the forest carbon market could incentivize land conservation by non-industrial private landowners in Tennessee. A policy analysis was conducted to compare four alternatives that are in practice elsewhere in the United States with six separate criteria developed from the extensive research of existing literature. The Cap came out on top dues to its rigorous protocols, current success, and strict oversight. The compliance regime also assured a new level of assurance for the price of the carbon offsets. Project developers certainly have an opportunity in Tennessee, but the real challenge will be in identifying and developing relationships with willing landowners.