Carbon credit for trees?

[Fermion]

When scouting our 30 acres of forest land in NE Washington state for a Christmas tree, I came to realize we have A LOT of trees growing on our land.

Has anyone managed to obtain some sort of financial boon from the carbon capture of these trees? I did a little research and it seems there was a program in California but unsure if there are good programs out there.

I estimate we are probably capturing 50 to 100 tons of CO2 and I know our state is flush with cash from making oil companies buy carbon credits, so...

 

[Sunset]

^^^^^^^^ Also interested as I have a bunch of trees on my land, they might as well get paid for the work they do !!

Free the Trees !!

 

[Fermion]

^^^^^^^^ Also interested as I have a bunch of trees on my land, they might as well get paid for the work they do !!

Free the Trees !!

After doing a bit more research, it looks like (for now) the minimum is 40 acres and a fair bit of paperwork involved. Dang.

Maybe in the future they will have some way of letting the little guy benefit but for now it is a big boy playfield.

 

[Music Lover]

...but for now it is a big boy playfield.

I'm pretty sure that was the plan all along. It's never been about the weather

 

[Car-Guy]

Never heard of such a thing, but why am I'm not surprised. OTOH, I see on my annual property tax statement that they include the estimated value of the timber on my property when calculating my property taxes... Maybe I should cut down all the trees I have, sell the timber and save on my property taxes! Then they would probably start taxing the grass, pond water, fence posts, etc.

 

[Koolau]

When scouting our 30 acres of forest land in NE Washington state for a Christmas tree, I came to realize we have A LOT of trees growing on our land.

Has anyone managed to obtain some sort of financial boon from the carbon capture of these trees? I did a little research and it seems there was a program in California but unsure if there are good programs out there.

I estimate we are probably capturing 50 to 100 tons of CO2 and I know our state is flush with cash from making oil companies buy carbon credits, so...

I found a site here: https://carbon-calculator.climatehe...MIitTAn_eKgwMVmtTCBB1BTgunEAAYAiAAEgIeW_D_BwE

I make no claims to its accuracy and it is clearly a site asking for money. Based on that, I find it questionable. BUT, just to put things in perspective, the site offers a quiz to see what your individual carbon footprint might be. Mine came out 8 tons (average is 10 IIRC.)

To "offset" my footprint, the site offers participation in a number of current projects. The "cost" is "only" $12/month. There are a fair amount of details about the projects and I assume a very interested person could check out at least some of these to see that they are legitimate. As to how much CO2 they save, I have no idea.

In any case, I mention all this because your estimate of as much as 100 tons of CO2 might be looked at as 100/8 units of $12/month offsets (I realize this is not a direct comparison, but I present it as one way to estimate the value of your trees for CO2 reduction.)

So the answer I get is (100tons/8tons) * $12/month * 12months/year = $1800/year. Of course, how you would claim your share of the $1800/year would be problematic. Heh, heh, I'm sure whoever "manages" the process would have a bunch of "expenses" to extract from your share of the pot.

So, I'm just extrapolating some numbers that the site suggests. Probably a bogus approach, but it's something to think about. Obviously, YMMV.

 

[Fermion]

$1800 a year is a bit low I think.

The state has a program going for itself where they claim 10,000 acres is capturing 900,000 tons of CO2 over 10 years.


To me that works out to about 9 tons per acre per year.

So our 30 acres could capture about 270 tons of CO2 per year using the state's figures.

The recent oil company carbon credit auction in Washington was right around $56 per ton.

Technically our 30 acres of trees would then be worth $15,000 a year according to the state of Washington's figures.

 

[Koolau]

$1800 a year is a bit low I think.

The state has a program going for itself where they claim 10,000 acres is capturing 900,000 tons of CO2 over 10 years.


To me that works out to about 9 tons per acre per year.

So our 30 acres could capture about 270 tons of CO2 per year using the state's figures.

The recent oil company carbon credit auction in Washington was right around $56 per ton.

Technically our 30 acres of trees would then be worth $15,000 a year according to the state of Washington's figures.

I hope you are able to claim that figure (or close to it.) That would be a nice FIRE bonus!

 

[Fermion]

I hope you are able to claim that figure (or close to it.) That would be a nice FIRE bonus!

Oh, I am sure there is not a chance. They will tout their own numbers but no way will they pay private small owners for growing trees.

The price of forest land (about 2,500 an acre out here) would quadruple overnight.

 

[ERD50]

... Technically our 30 acres of trees would then be worth $15,000 a year according to the state of Washington's figures.

I guess I don't understand what's going on (not surprising when politics is involved). The trees are already there capturing carbon (although that gets complicated, when they die, they rot and return the carbon to the planet - though the time-lines are different, if that matters?).

Seems that maybe they should require you to pay a carbon tax to cut them down? No, that wouldn't be fair, but what's fair got to do with it (imagine Tina Turner singing that).

Does the government get to 'pay themselves' for all the trees on Federal land? It all seems very convoluted.

To be clear - hey, if you can tap into those funds, go for it. It's the system that I'm questioning, since they offer it, it's fair game for you if you qualify.

....

So our 30 acres could capture about 270 tons of CO2 per year using the state's figures.
.....

Do you have to subtract the carbon footprint of your family from the credit? Just kidding, mostly.

-ERD50

 

[Sunset]

I guess I don't understand what's going on (not surprising when politics is involved). The trees are already there capturing carbon (although that gets complicated, when they die, they rot and return the carbon to the planet - though the time-lines are different, if that matters?).

..

+1

It's really a way so people/companies can continue to pollute and feel good about it.

I can fly in a plane and pollute "X" or I can fly in a plane and know the airline bought carbon credits to offset the pollution by charging me a little extra and make me feel good.

Both cases the plane still pollutes "X" . And the forest that offset the carbon has always been there.

In some cities, it's now illegal to cut down a tree on your own property. You have have get permission to do it if the tree is greater than a few years old...

 

[Fermion]

All I am thinking is that if they are going to charge people a fee when they generate CO2 (about $0.50 a gallon for gas in WA state) then people who are absorbing or storing CO2 should get a credit.

It makes sense.

 

[ERD50]

All I am thinking is that if they are going to charge people a fee when they generate CO2 (about $0.50 a gallon for gas in WA state) then people who are absorbing or storing CO2 should get a credit.

It makes sense.

No, I think it's different. And I'll limit "making sense" to just this narrow example, not the greater issue of carbon credits/tax.


If the goal is to limit carbon emissions, well, gasoline will emit carbon when burned, and making it more expensive through taxation will reduce demand and consumption, 24/7/365.

Your trees are already there. Getting a credit for tress already planted doesn't change a thing. Charging a fee for removing them, or maybe providing a credit for new trees (what are they replacing?), might help to reduce carbon emissions (again, limited to the scope of this example only).

-ERD50

 

[GrayHare]

I view it not as a credit for trees themselves but rather for the CO2 sequestration they perform annually. This becomes part of a marketplace for CO2 which, if left to trade freely, allows market forces to efficiently determine fair pricing.

 

[Koolau]

I view it not as a credit for trees themselves but rather for the CO2 sequestration they perform annually. This becomes part of a marketplace for CO2 which, if left to trade freely, allows market forces to efficiently determine fair pricing.

Yeah, but what IS the market for CO2? It's all too confusing. If anything makes sense (and that's questionable) it would be a new source for removing CO2 (sequestration) like planting new trees. Maybe there is a market for NOT cutting down old trees? I think it's complicated.

 

[ERD50]

I view it not as a credit for trees themselves but rather for the CO2 sequestration they perform annually. This becomes part of a marketplace for CO2 which, if left to trade freely, allows market forces to efficiently determine fair pricing.

OK, pay me for my lawn:

https://www.earth.com/news/trees-grass-carbon-sink/

“Looking ahead, our model simulations show that grasslands store more carbon than forests because they are impacted less by droughts and wildfires,” says lead author Pawlok Dass, a postdoctoral scholar at UC Davis. “This doesn’t even include the potential benefits of good land management to help boost soil health and increase carbon stocks in rangelands.”

-ERD50

 

[Koolau]

OK, pay me for my lawn:

https://www.earth.com/news/trees-grass-carbon-sink/



-ERD50

This may all be correct, and natural prairie grass lands probably used to be a great CO2 sink. But what is the carbon foot-print of the average lawn in the suburbs when you count all the chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, pumped water) and what about mowing, etc? I'm guessing it's a source of CO2 instead of sink for CO2. YMMV

 

[Fermion]

I wasn't really arguing if the science and math behind trees being a carbon sink was true but rather the fact that Washington state believes it to be true:

https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/st...es-carbon-reserve/VPPSHUCACNHWRMIESWIMCWBUFY/


And if they believe it to be true, then pay me for my trees please.

 

[ERD50]

This may all be correct, and natural prairie grass lands probably used to be a great CO2 sink. But what is the carbon foot-print of the average lawn in the suburbs when you count all the chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, pumped water) and what about mowing, etc? I'm guessing it's a source of CO2 instead of sink for CO2. YMMV

I was being a bit tongue in cheek - I suspect you are correct.

I wasn't really arguing if the science and math behind trees being a carbon sink was true but rather the fact that Washington state believes it to be true:

https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/st...es-carbon-reserve/VPPSHUCACNHWRMIESWIMCWBUFY/


And if they believe it to be true, then pay me for my trees please.

Understood. But as I said, if they are already there...

-ERD50

 

[GrayHare]

The CO2 market is one government(s) can create. It could be similar to the pollution emissions trading market overseen by EPA. And ERD50, under that system, if your lawn is big enough to absorb a significant amount of CO2, IMO you should indeed get paid for that, even if it is already there.

 

[Koolau]

I wasn't really arguing if the science and math behind trees being a carbon sink was true but rather the fact that Washington state believes it to be true:

https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/st...es-carbon-reserve/VPPSHUCACNHWRMIESWIMCWBUFY/

And if they believe it to be true, then pay me for my trees please.

I understand.

If big companies or even states are playing this "game" then why shouldn't you be able to play??

Heh, heh, wonder how much I could get for the plants on my lanai? Well, the ones I haven't killed yet.