In honor of the opening of the movie, Earth, Disney has partnered with The Nature Conservancy to plant 2.7 million trees (pdf) in Brazil (one tree for each ticket sold on the opening day). In honor of Arbor Day, the ABA Section of Environment, Energy and Resources is planting 1 million in the US. In honor of the ongoing debate over the inclusion of offsets in proposed federal carbon legislation, we’re wondering whether those 3.7 million new trees could count as carbon offsets under RGGI or voluntary markets today.
Despite their ambitious scope, both projects would likely fail to qualify as RGGI offsets. The Brazilian project would likely fail due to RGGI’s project location requirement: under the RGGI model rule (pdf), to be certified as offsets, “afforestation projects” must be located within the RGGI member state or in a US state or jurisdiction in which the regulator has agreed to comply with RGGI’s standards. Even if every tree was rooted in a suitable jurisdiction, the ABA program would also likely fail to qualify due to RGGI’s easement requirement: RGGI standards require a permanent conservation easement on the land on which the afforestation project is located.
Disney’s project may fit the typical mold of a reforestation offset, at least as defined by major voluntary offset markets and standards: replanting land, often in remote and ecologically important areas, using diverse native species where possible, and using prescribed methodology to calculate the carbon captured. For example, see this Costa Rican Forest Offset Case Study (pdf) from the Chicago Climate Exchange. The Atlantic Forest, where Disney will plant its trees, is home to 60% of Brazil’s endangered species and provides clean drinking water to 120 million people, but only 7% of the original forest remains.
But urban trees, like those included in the ABA project, would not be certified under most voluntary market rules, even though urban trees provide special benefits beyond carbon offsets that a remote rainforest tree can’t. As one advocacy group notes, “one tree that shades your home or office is more efficient in saving fossil fuels and carbon emissions, than 15 trees in the forest.” Another study (pdf) have found that “on a per-tree basis, energy simulations from 12 U.S. cities found that annual energy savings for cooling from a well-placed 25 ft tall deciduous tree ranged from 100 to 400 kWh (10 to 15%), and peak demand savings ranged from 0.3 to 0.6 kW (8 to 10%).”
The California Climate Action Registry is the only voluntary market we know of providing offsets for urban tree projects, having added urban forest offsets in August 2008. Using the Urban Forest Project Reporting Protocol (pdf) developed by the US Forest Service and other stakeholders, the Climate Action Registry will certify qualifying projects developed by – and contained within the boundaries of – California municipalities, educational campuses and utilities. Other organizations, like tree-planting non-profits, may participate (pdf) in an offset project by partnering by a municipality, educational institution, or utility.
Comments