Browsing by Subject "Carbon offsets"
Now showing 1 - 19 of 19
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access A Protocol For Co-Digestion Systems as a Source of Carbon Offsets for the Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative(2012-04-27) Foote, Madeleine; Hilton Spiegel, Karina; Feistritzer, Jenna; McElwee, KellyThe mission of the Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative (DCOI) is to help Duke University achieve its commitment to carbon neutrality by 2024. DCOI also seeks to effect environmental change at the local, state, regional and national levels. In pursuit of these goals, DCOI is interested in working with North Carolina swine farmers to develop carbon offset projects. Julian Barham is a Johnston County swine farmer and early adopter of several environmentally progressive technologies. His recently installed anaerobic digester combines food and swine waste to produce a biogas that can be used to power a boiler or generator. This process helps to minimize the greenhouse gases emitted by his farm, and also presents an opportunity for the creation of carbon offsets, a possibility that we are exploring on behalf of DCOI. Additionally, we are investigating other potential revenue streams that Mr. Barham could access now that the digester has come online. These include grant proposals for funding of an electricity generator, and the possibility of renewable electricity sales, among others. If Mr. Barham's waste-to-energy anaerobic digestion project produces as many offsets as anticipated, it would fulfill 27% of Duke University's offset obligation.Item Open Access A Protocol for Co-Digestion Systems as a Source of Carbon Offsets for the Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative(2012-04-26) Hilton Spiegel, Karina; Feistritzer, Jenna; McElwee, Kelly; Foote, MadeleineThe mission of the Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative (DCOI) is to help Duke University achieve its commitment to carbon neutrality by 2024. DCOI also seeks to effect environmental change at the local, state, regional and national levels. In pursuit of these goals, DCOI is interested in working with North Carolina swine farmers to develop carbon offset projects. Julian Barham is a Johnston County swine farmer and early adopter of several environmentally progressive technologies. His recently installed anaerobic digester combines food and swine waste to produce a biogas that can be used to power a boiler or generator. This process helps to minimize the greenhouse gases emitted by his farm, and also presents an opportunity for the creation of carbon offsets, a possibility that we are exploring on behalf of DCOI. Additionally, we are investigating other potential revenue streams that Mr. Barham could access now that the digester has come online. These include grant proposals for funding of an electricity generator, and the possibility of renewable electricity sales, among others. If Mr. Barham's waste-to-energy anaerobic digestion project produces as many offsets as anticipated, it would fulfill 27% of Duke University's offset obligation.Item Open Access AN ANALYSIS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY, ENERGY EFFICIENCY, AND CARBON OFFSETS AT DUKE UNIVERSITY(2015-04-24) Kazarov, Elena; Baehr, Ellis; Tan, Jing; Zhang, Yee; Brasovan, AshleyMany universities globally are embarking on voluntary efforts to become climate neutral to combat global warming. In 2007, Duke University adopted a goal to be climate neutral by 2024. The Office of the Executive Vice President established the Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative (DCOI) in June 2009 to develop the University’s strategy for meeting its carbon offset goals. As the client for this report, the DCOI charged Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment Masters team with preparing a purchasing guide to aid in its strategy. The paper analyzes the options considered by Duke to meet its carbon neutrality goals, which include: reducing on-campus emissions through improving energy efficiency; buying carbon offsets on the market; creating carbon offsets through local projects; purchasing Renewable Energy Credits; and developing renewable energy resources on-campus. The final product sets forth a recommended strategy to meet the carbon offsets goals, including a timeline of purchases and an overview of costs. Given the University’s role as an institution motivated by both financial and non-financial goals, such as education and economic benefits to the local community, combinations of purchasing options are presented in three portfolios: the cheapest portfolio, the portfolio yielding the greatest co-benefits to the community and university, and the portfolio balancing costs and benefits. The cheapest portfolio recommends energy efficiency through behavioral changes on campus; purchased methane capture offsets; and methane capture offsets generated through local projects. The balanced portfolio recommends on-campus renewable energy (a Duke-owned solar PV system); forestry offsets purchased from local vendors; and Green Source Rider renewable energy (an experimental program implemented by the Duke Energy utility designed to give non-residential, energy-intensive customers the option of offsetting some or all of their energy consumption from new load with renewable energy). The highest co-benefits portfolio recommends Duke-developed forest offsets and Duke-developed methane capture offsets. A sensitivity analysis examines potential changes in the policy landscape that would affect the purchasing decisions favorable to Duke, including a price on carbon; changes in the cost of renewable energy; and a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard.Item Open Access Analysis of aboveground carbon for indigenous communities in Oaxaca, MX(2021-12-08) Harrigan, EliseManaging forests for carbon is a productive and sustainable way to provide conservation and economic and ecological value. Oaxaca, the most biologically diverse state in Mexico, located in the southwestern region of the country, is looking to expand carbon offset opportunities on indigenous lands. The client for this project, a Oaxacan-based NGO, Integrator Campesino and Indigenous Communities of Oaxaca (ICICO), is working in conjunction with indigenous communities, to manage and protect natural resources while providing sustainable livelihood opportunities. Carbon offset programs are emerging as a promising method in conserving the forests’ biodiversity, while still providing monetary value to the local people by selling credits on the carbon market. This project aims to (1) evaluate the current methodologies and allometric equations in use to calculate the aboveground carbon in the forest, (2) analyze if the current aboveground biomass map accurately depicts the carbon distribution across the state, and (3) identify future carbon offset project locations across the communally owned lands. As forests continue to be at risk of deforestation, the importance of creating community-based conservation opportunities is increasingly more valuable.Item Open Access Applications of Environmental Modeling in the Financial Services Sector(2021-04-29) Parker, ShannonCurrently, personal carbon footprints and environmental impact are not well understood in the United States. Existing solutions aimed at educating people about these topics are stagnant and lack personalized details to help enable meaningful action. Yet, there is a willingness among the public to live a more sustainable lifestyle. In 2020, there was a 4550% increase in Google keyword search terms for “how to live a sustainable lifestyle 5. Moreover, 80% of people have indicated they would be willing to change their lifestyle as much for climate change as they have for the COVID-19 pandemic21. This project aimed to explore the value and viability of addressing the gap between current levels of concern and action to address climate change, known as the value-action gap, by first exploring current perceptions of carbon footprinting and offsets here in the US and subsequently conducting a market sizing analysis to determine the environmental impact and market opportunity. Specifically, this project explores the application of a well-established carbon accounting method, EIO-LCA, within the financial services sector as a means of addressing the value-action gap. Findings included the potential for a 640 million MTCO2E annual reduction within the United States and a recommended go-to-market strategy.Item Open Access Attracting Investment to REDD+: Capitalizing on Co-Benefits?(2014-04-25) Poirson, Evan; Hartman, Ashley; Hoagland, Chris; Yu, MichaelAt its inception in 2007, the United Nations-sponsored Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism had one primary goal: to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions from the global forest sector, which currently account for approximately 10% of global carbon emissions. REDD+ has undergone various modifications to its scope and approach in the succeeding nine years, but little has yet come from subsequent UN climate negotiations in the way of creating an obligatory financing scheme that would require participation from actors in developed countries. Today, dozens of preliminary REDD+ projects are operational across the world, but these projects receive strictly voluntary funding from a suite of public and private actors, including national governments and companies engaged in social responsibility practices. Despite some successes in this voluntary realm and promises of REDD+ advancement at recent negotiations, it has become clear that without assured funding – and pending an international financing mechanism for REDD+ – projects face an increasingly difficult environment for attaining capital resources. Scaling up the mechanism will be virtually impossible without addressing the imbalance between supply and demand for REDD+ credits in the voluntary stage. Code REDD, a San Francisco-based non-governmental organization whose mission is to support and scale the REDD+ mechanism, is attempting to discover whether untapped opportunities exist for sustaining REDD+ before the commencement of an international financing scheme, specifically by capitalizing on the co-benefits of REDD+ projects: the social and environmental outcomes that inherently accompany responsibly designed carbon offset projects. These co-benefits can include biodiversity benefits, freshwater provision, community economic development, and women’s empowerment. This question of the potential for co-benefit quantification and sale as a means to sustain REDD+ in the voluntary phase was the foundation of the research we undertook here. We aimed to determine how REDD+ stakeholders envisioned the role of co-benefits within the financing of REDD+, and if further efforts to quantify and sell them could bear meaningful results for the future of the mechanism. Splitting the REDD+ community into two distinct categories – practitioners (those who design, implement, and monitor REDD+ projects) and investors (both those who purchase REDD+ credits and those who invest in REDD+ projects) – we held more than twenty interviews to determine the answer to the above question. We found that, though co-benefits were considered an important – even indispensable – part of REDD+ success, few practitioners or investors were interested in their further quantification or expected that voluntary REDD+ could be sustained based on such action. That said, many current and potential investors offered insight into how the business case for REDD+ could be better articulated in order to attract more investment. Also, in speaking with practitioners, we identified ways that the mechanism could be better integrated with other contemporary environmental efforts, including biodiversity offsetting and water funds, offering what we believe could represent partial solutions to the REDD+ demand shortfall.Item Open Access Carbon Offset Opportunities at the Duke University Health System(2012-04-27) Wallis, Kimberly; Shown, Erin; Lin, YeOver the past century, global temperatures have increased in large part due to anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion. The impact of this change can already be seen in disappearing ice cover across the world. This trend has caused concern about the impact climate change will have on the environmental systems that civilization depends upon. Governments and other large bodies are acting now to address climate change; Duke University is among them. In 2007, Duke University President, Richard H. Brodhead, signed the American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment, and made the pledge to be carbon neutral by 2024. This master's project can aid the University in achieving its carbon neutrality pledge through the discovery of new and innovative carbon emission reduction opportunities within the Duke University Health System (DUHS). The opportunity exploration process consisted of: engaging in discussions with senior management, engineers, and staff; performing a broad literature review; and researching best practices at other institutions. Initial research areas identified were: energy efficient lighting, Energy Star equipment, sustainable medical and organic waste disposal, sustainable tableware, renewable energy, green purchasing, workplace transportation, and retrofits to existing buildings. After identification of the initial research areas, we reiterated the exploratory process and narrowed our focus to energy efficient lighting, sustainable organic waste disposal, sustainable tableware, and Energy Star equipment. In particular, the project focused on these areas within the boundaries of the Duke University Hospital (DUH) commercial-scale kitchen. After exploring each of these options, several promising opportunities became apparent. The upgrades in lighting efficiency are most viable at this time, although several other opportunities are likely to become feasible in the near future. The results of the lighting analysis in the DUH kitchen revealed a total carbon reduction potential of 100 tons over the lifetime of the project and the hospital would realize annual savings of $2000 in reduced electricity and maintenance costs. The results of the organic waste and sustainable tableware analysis are promising in terms of carbon reduction potential but prohibitive due to high costs. We recommend further analysis and collaboration with key stakeholders to discover strategies to reduce these costs. A broader application of lighting efficiency upgrades could further aid the University to achieve carbon neutrality, and simultaneously provide cost savings to the institutions involved.Item Open Access Cashing in on Carbon--Land and Offset Project Valuation: Incorporating Climate Legislation and Environmental Incentives in Property and Project Appraisal(2010-04-30T18:29:50Z) Davis, Nicholas J.The CBO, EIA, and EPA predict carbon offset prices will rise to $15-30/ton CO2e in the next decade (ACESA). The creation of carbon offsets markets provides landholders with an alternative means of income generation on suitable tracts. Relevant businesses might recognize what carbon and offset prices mean for their companies, but little information exists for prospective suppliers of offsets like land owners, farmers, land trusts, etc. This project presents a customizable tool based on assumptions including but not limited to offset price forecasts, expected sequestration rates, and tax data (State, Federal). Users can tailor inputs like acreage availability, forest type, and start-up costs to yield rough estimates of project and property value based on planting-for-carbon initiatives. This paper demonstrates sample outputs produced by the model, conducts sensitivity analyses to evaluate project variability, and runs financial forecasts using Oracle’s Crystal Ball to predict outcome probabilities. It is important to note that at the current stage, this tool predicts carbon sequestration and financial outcomes for tree planting projects, not existing forest tracts.Item Open Access Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative: Energy Efficiency Carbon Offsets A Project Evaluation(2013-04-26) Lu, Yichen (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.Item Open Access Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative: Energy Efficiency Carbon Offsets A Project Evaluation(2013-04-26) Lu, Yichen (Aaron); Chauhan, Sugandha; Chen, YunzhongDuke 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.Item Open Access Economic Viability of Blue Carbon Offsets in Coastal North Carolina & Louisiana(2013-04-26) Kraft, Natalie; Moss, Leland; Dong, Xiaoyun; Wang, YifeiCarbon offsets are becoming a necessary tool in carbon emission reduction. The offsets obtained through sequestration in coastal wetland vegetation and sediment is referred to as blue carbon. Our client, the Duke Carbon Offset Initiative (DCOI), is currently researching blue carbon to help meet Duke University’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2024. Through cost-benefit analyses and stakeholder collaboration a matrix was constructed to a) characterize the current state of blue carbon opportunities in North Carolina and Louisiana and b) guide DCOI’s development of a blue carbon decision. The unit cost of a blue carbon project in North Carolina is 170 times greater than the cost in Louisiana, mainly due to the lack of wetland restoration infrastructure in North Carolina. Environmental factors, such as land conversion and sea level rise, have a significant effect on the feasibility of the blue carbon projects. Although net wetland loss rate is low in North Carolina, the total converted wetland area is large. These areas are undesirable for blue carbon projects as they lack permanence. A risk analysis shows that in the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula, there are low elevation counties with a lower wetland replacement rate; these areas are more prudent choices for blue carbon project sites. In addition, an analysis of sea level rise impacts indicates that due to smaller critical tidal range, Louisiana has a higher carbon sequestration rate than North Carolina when sea level rises from 0.1-1 cm/year, not taking into account natural disturbances. Recommendations from this broad assessment of blue carbon include identifying potential sites for economical pilot studies and monitoring policy developments.Item Open Access Evaluating the Use of Carbon Offsets in IPCC 1.5C Warming Scenarios(2022-04-22) Watson, AndrewThe world faces the daunting task of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Integrated Assessment Models help us understand pathways to achieve this goal in the most efficient way. In most scenarios where the international community can limit warming to 1.5℃ carbon dioxide removal is deployed to help reach net-zero emissions targets by sequestering carbon through land-based sinks like afforestation and reforestation or technology like bioenergy or carbon capture & storage. Therefore, it is theoretically important that the international community uses available forms of carbon sequestration, specifically readily available ones like terrestrial carbon offsets, carefully to offset emissions from difficult to decarbonize industries like aviation, steel production, and ferrous metals. As a key part of emissions reductions strategies, using carbon offsets for anything but offsetting emissions that cannot readily be decarbonized theoretically risks our ability to meet reduction targets. This MP seeks to examine data from Integrated Assessment Models and how they use carbon offset credits to limit warming to 1.5℃ and study the carbon offset credit market in the real world to identify purchasers and find out whether offsets are being used in the most efficient way. Objectives: The objectives of this study are fourfold. Analyze emissions and carbon sequestration data from IPCC scenarios in the IAMC 1.5℃ Scenario Explorer; analyze the compliance and voluntary carbon offset markets for evidence and patterns in the use of offset credits; compare the deployment of Agriculture/Forestry/Other Land Use (AFOLU) CDR in Integrated Assessment Models to current offset market trends to establish a gap in efficient use; and establish policy recommendations for using offset credits. Methods: Of the 177 scenarios in the IAMC Scenario Explorer, 75 of them limit global temperature increase to 1.5℃. 74 of those scenarios employ carbon dioxide removal in some way. The method in this study was to focus primarily on scenarios with a “land-use change” variable in their underlying data, as the study focuses on carbon offsets through AFOLU carbon dioxide removal rather than BECCS or other methods. From the underlying data for these scenarios we pulled out, cleaned, and calculated CO2 emissions, residual positive CO2 emissions, N2O emissions, carbon capture and storage, and carbon sequestration from land-based sinks. These variables gave us the information needed to establish the average Gt/year of CO2 the scenarios were sequestering through land-based sinks, and if that amount was enough to offset emission from difficult to decarbonize industries. Thes study also used data from the European Emissions Trading System. Variables in the underlying data included the carbon offsets traded in a two-year period, what economic sector the offset was being employed by, and the total CO2 emissions from each sector. This allowed us to determine that carbon offsets, at least in Europe, are largely being used by the power sector for electricity generation and other processes, rather than airline fuel, steel production, or other industries. For the voluntary market, a literature review on relevant information was conducted and we were able to establish the largest institutional purchasers of offsets and what they were offsetting when making those purchases. Findings and Results: The study found that the average yearly residual positive emissions that need to be offset is about 10.3 Gt/CO2 per year in the data subset where both the land-use change variable and N2O emissions were accounted for. According to the 2020 Production Gap Report sponsored by the UN environment program, the feasible amount of CDR available each year around 2050 is only 8.6 Gt/CO2 per year. This confirmed our theory that all available offsets for carbon dioxide removal must go directly to offsetting the dirtiest industries or we risk being unable to meet warming targets. The study also found that in practical use, this is not what is occurring. In Europe, more than 60% of carbon offsets are being used to offset emissions from power generation at stationary installations, and none of the top five corporate purchasers of carbon offsets are from the difficult to decarbonize sectors of the global economy. This suggests that there is a sizable gap between what Integrated Assessment Models assume carbon offset credits are being used for and how they are being employed in reality. Broader Ramifications: The data from this study suggests a ban on offsets for anything other than offsetting the dirtiest industries must be considered. This could be on an international (Conference of Parties or binding international agreement) or national (federal/state laws). Integrated Assessment Models also should consider accounting for misuse of offsets when calculating emissions targets. Finally, institutional purchasers of offsets should take a hard look at the effects of their purchases. Although it may balance their emissions sheet and provide public relations fodder, in the long run it is a detriment to our collective goal of limiting warming to 1.5℃ .Item Open Access Forestry Carbon Assets under California AB 32: Current Business Practices, Future Viability and Ancillary Benefits(2017-04-27) Schwartz, AlexisThe primary objective of this study was to conduct an encompassing analysis of current forestry carbon offset business practices under California A.B. 32. This study goes beyond the critiques of the forestry carbon offset approach and highlights current business practices, examines fringe benefits, and hypothesizes the viability for small and large landowners moving forward. ARB faces an issue when it comes to large and small landowners: to require immense reporting deters TIMOs and large landowner companies, while having such high transaction costs deters small land-owners from engaging in climate change mitigation tactics, but the asset proves itself to be a worthy investment going beyond climate change mitigation tactics and entering a realm of biodiversity conservation and improving community economic development. Thanks to an industry wide survey, the business practices of this newly developed asset are becoming clear and showcases future business strategy plays.Item Open Access Project Evaluation of Sustainable Upland Hardwood Management in the U.S. South with the Monetization of Carbon(2011-04-29) Grinnell, JosephMany studies have demonstrated that working pine forests can be cost-effectively managed to enhance carbon sequestration under various, mostly hypothetical compensation frameworks but none have assessed the creditable carbon potential or financial viability of rarely employed sustainable forestry practices in upland hardwood forests, the South’s most abundant, complex and exploited forest type. This study examines the economics of sustainable forestry in the Southern Appalachian Mountains with and without the monetization of carbon due to the region’s importance to eastern hardwood timber production and its overarching ecological significance. The primary constituent of the landscape, upland oak forests, face a confluence of threats to their continued prevalence in the region and are declining in the absence of recommended oak-sustaining silviculture, which will have serious implications on the biota of these forests. This analysis was therefore conducted to assess the viability of oak-management at the project level for a hypothetical Appalachian hardwood forest according to the updated Climate Action Reserve (CAR) forestry protocol to see if this program lends itself to mitigating both greenhouse gas emissions and the potential ecological calamity associated with oak decline. A dynamic 100 year model was built with the Forest Vegetation Simulator to best approximate real world conditions. Even with an appreciable reduction in harvesting on 20 percent of project area and lower harvest intensities on the rest of the forest compared to business as usual (BAU), the accrual of creditable carbon was almost negligible, suggesting the hurdles required of such projects are too high. Project implementation under all but one tested-variation of the protocol was found to dramatically worsen its viability relative to the timber-only project scenario; though none were as cost-effective as the BAU scenario. While CAR employs a standardized performance benchmark and requires proof of regulatory additionality, its forest management methodology appears to lend itself primarily to forestland owners that value non-timber benefits over benefits from sustainable timber harvesting. An alternative baseline linked to anticipated management was the only variation that rendered CAR participation more economic than the timber-only scenario. The problems and potential solutions identified herein certainly need to be examined in future CAR protocol revisions and studies.Item Open Access Quantifying Albedo and Surface Temperature over Different Land Covers: Implications for Carbon Offsets(2008-04-24T17:01:50Z) Igusky, KristinMany organizations, both internationally and within the United States, have invested in forest sequestration projects to offset their carbon emissions. However, changes in albedo and surface temperature due to reforestation and afforestation projects may have unintended regional and global climate consequences. The objective of this study was to quantify the change of surface albedo and temperature across different land covers over the eastern United States using Landsat 7 ETM+ satellite images. A second objective was to evaluate the results in the context of potential net climate effects of reforestation and afforestation and their implications on carbon offsets. Most land covers were found to differ in their shortwave albedo and surface temperature. Specifically, open land (cropland and grassland) had a higher shortwave albedo and surface temperature compared to forests. Albedo and temperature also differed seasonally and with latitude for the same land cover type, suggesting that other factors influence local energy balance and climate. The shortwave albedo results are consistent with previous studies, but this study is one of only a few that examined both albedo and surface temperature for many different land cover types. Additional research is needed to quantify all of the physical and environmental factors affecting local and regional climate over different land covers, how these factors relate to each other, and how they will change through time due with carbon offset projects. In this way the true value of carbon mitigation tools can be predicted.Item Open Access Quantifying Land Cover Change to Inform Carbon Offset Projects in Madagascar(2022-04-19) Golden, IsraelDuke University has committed to becoming carbon neutral by the year 2024. This commitment will be met through a combination of local emissions reductions and global carbon offset projects. In support of this effort, the Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative (DCOI) and the Duke Lemur Center (DLC) have teamed up to identify potential carbon offset project sites in the SAVA region of Madagascar. The SAVA region is home to globally significant biodiversity, including twelve species of lemur and many other rare, endemic species. Unfortunately, many of these species are threatened with extirpation from habitat loss. Intensified shifting agriculture and unsustainable forestry practices have reduced primary humid forest habitat by at least 48% in the SAVA region since 2002. DCOI and DLC have identified four potential project sites on degraded former agricultural land for Afforestation, Reforestation, and Revegetation (ARR) carbon offset projects. ARR offset projects sequester atmospheric carbon by restoring ecosystem function through forestland restoration. Successful restoration of these project sites could assist Duke University in its climate goals, restore habitat for Madagascar’s unique biota, and protect ecosystem services for local Malagasy communities. Carbon offset projects must satisfy the requirement of sequestering additional carbon to receive verified carbon credits. The additionality of a project is assessed through evidence- based, counterfactual logic outlined in Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) methodology. In this Masters Project, we investigate one aspect of additionality for the four proposed carbon offset project sites with an analysis of past land cover trends and estimated aboveground carbon flux at each project site. Land cover trends were assessed with a classification and regression tree (CART) model trained on Landsat 8 imagery and validated with ground control points collected by collaborators in the SAVA region in 2021. This model was then used to classify representative images for each year to reveal changes in forest, grassland, marshland, water, and built up land cover extent since 2013. Aboveground carbon flux was then estimated based on carbon-by-area coefficients for each land cover derived from Alcorn et al. (2021). Based on this analysis, forested land cover has either remained stable or slightly declined over the study period at each of the proposed project sites. As expected, estimated carbon fluxes mirror land cover trends on each site. Additionally, there has been little to no natural forest regeneration on any of the proposed project sites since 2013. This outcome suggests that funding an ARR offset project would likely support the sequestration of additional atmospheric carbon. However, the remaining social and economic analyses required by VCS must be completed before moving forward with the proposed offset project. Finally, we recommend field-based biomass surveys of each project site to produce fine-scale estimates of aboveground carbon for accurate carbon accounting.Item Open Access The Proposition of Value: Leveraging Carbon Capital to Finance Biodiversity Conservation in Peru(2021-04-28) Gonzalez Natera, Andrea; Su, YingleCarbon offsets and carbon markets have generated great interest in their potential as a market-based source of funding for biodiversity conservation. Since the concept of creating markets for “offsetting” greenhouse gas emissions was first discussed, there has existed an accompanying narrative that such markets would inevitably generate both profits for investors and “co-benefits” in the form of biodiversity conservation and associated sustainable development goals. However, because direct financial returns from forest-based carbon offsets seem both low, while also high risk, we ask why this approach is being so heavily promoted and implemented as a means to finance conservation. Employing a comparative case study design, we examined four carbon-financed conservation projects in Peru to explore the set of “value propositions” offered by these projects and for whom to explore what is driving the continued interest and implementation of these schemes and to understand how various types of value (e.g. direct and indirect financial returns, reputational or social license value, political capital, etc.) are produced and captured and the barriers to doing so. Through analysis of project documents, promotional materials and the transcripts of key actor interviews, we developed detailed stakeholder maps and written case studies. Our final assessment maps and characterizes the values, costs, and risks accrued by each set of actors in the value chain and the ways in which these dynamics influence the viability of employing carbon offsets to finance biodiversity conservation.Item Open Access The State of The International Forest Carbon Market 2009(2009-04-24T14:47:14Z) Kohlhoff, LindsayCovering roughly 30% of global land area (4 billion ha2) and storing more than double the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, forest ecosystems act as an enormous carbon reservoir or “sink”. The potential of forests to play a significant role as emissions offsets in carbon markets and mitigate climate change is immense. A number of factors including the uncertainty of offset potential, project verification and additionality, and uncertain methodology for offset credit transferability have led to limited use of forest carbon offsets in current compliance markets. While current uncertainties prevent forest carbon from playing a large-scale role in established compliance markets, the introduction of credible forest offset standards which reduce project uncertainty, coupled with the ability of forest carbon offsets to act as the “low hanging fruit” of carbon offsets, make forest carbon projects a more favorable option for widespread inclusion in policy making. Seeking to fill information gaps within the highly fragmented forest carbon market, this report is the first of its kind to educate market participants, policy makers, and the general public about the current status of the international forest carbon market. This project serves to accelerate the transfer of information between stakeholders and offer insights into the state, health and future viability of the forest carbon market.Item Open Access UNDERSTANDING VOLUNTARY CARBON OFFSETS: A REVIEW OF BEST PRACTICES FOR CORPORATE PARTICIPATION IN THE VOLUNTARY CARBON MARKET AND AN ANALYSIS OF OFFSET-RELATED DISCLOSURES(2023-04) Tuckman, ErinControversy surrounding the quality of offsets sold in the voluntary carbon market (VCM) has led to the emergence of multiple verification bodies, governance schemes, and planning resources. Investors, who increasingly link climate risks and decarbonization strategies to companies’ bottom lines, are interested in evaluating the quality of selected VCM offsets and their use in corporate climate transition plans. For the project client, State Street Global Advisors (SSGA), this report provides: (1) a review of the available literature, frameworks, and resources for offset quality assurance and use; (2) key takeaways from an analysis of corporate carbon offset disclosures; (3) questions for engagements with companies utilizing VCM offsets; and (4) a best practices reference guide for offset selection and utilization.