Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-jr75m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-10T20:17:46.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - A sensitivity analysis of forest carbon sequestration

from Part III - Mitigation of greenhouse gases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2010

By
Brent Sohngen  and
Robert Mendelsohn
Edited by
Michael E. Schlesinger ,
Haroon S. Kheshgi ,
Joel Smith ,
Francisco C. de la Chesnaye ,
John M. Reilly ,
Tom Wilson  and
Charles Kolstad
Brent Sohngen
Affiliation:
AED Economics Ohio State University Columbus, USA
Robert Mendelsohn
Affiliation:
Yale FES CT, USA
Michael E. Schlesinger
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Haroon S. Kheshgi
Affiliation:
ExxonMobil Research and Engineering
Joel Smith
Affiliation:
Stratus Consulting Ltd, Boulder
Francisco C. de la Chesnaye
Affiliation:
US Environmental Protection Agency
John M. Reilly
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Tom Wilson
Affiliation:
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto
Charles Kolstad
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Get access

Summary

Introduction

This paper examines the sensitivity of estimates of both the baseline of carbon in forests and the efficacy of carbon sequestration programs to the supply of land for forests, timber demand, and technology change in forestry. We explore how changes in these parameters affect estimates of the amount of carbon that forests will store in the absence of carbon sequestration programs. We also explore how changes in these parameters will alter how much an efficient carbon sequestration program will store. Although we have previously estimated expected outcomes for the baseline (Sohngen and Sedjo, 2000) and for efficient carbon sequestration programs (Sohngen and Mendelsohn, 2003), the model used for this analysis has been updated from these earlier versions, and this sensitivity analysis is new. Given that the parameters we are exploring in this analysis are highly uncertain, especially at the global level, it is important to see how these adjustments affect the conclusions of earlier studies.

In this study, we follow the definition of an efficient carbon sequestration program established in an earlier paper (Sohngen and Mendelsohn, 2003). We assume that carbon sequestration programs must be embedded in the overall effort to control greenhouse gases. The marginal cost of sequestering carbon in forests should be equated to the marginal cost of sequestering carbon in other resources such as agriculture and the marginal cost of preventing carbon emissions in the energy sector at each moment in time.

Type
Chapter
Information
Human-Induced Climate Change
An Interdisciplinary Assessment
 , pp. 227 - 237
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, D. M., Alig, R. J., McCarl, B. A., Callaway, J. M. and Winnett, S. M. (1999). Minimum cost strategies for sequestering carbon in forests. Land Economics 75, 360–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. K., Brown, S., Houghton, R. A.et al. (1994). Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems. Science 263, 185–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fang, J., Chen, A., Peng, C., Zhao, S. and Ci., L. (2001). Changes in forest biomass carbon storage in China between 1949 and 1998. Science 292, 2320–2322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FAO (2003). State of the World's Forests 2003. Rome: United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization.
FAOSTATS (2003). FAOSTATS Database of Global Forest Production. Rome: United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization.
Fischer, G., Velthuizen, H., Shah, M. and Nachtergaele, F. (2002). Global Agro-ecological Assessment for Agriculture in the 21st Century: Methodology and Results. Research Report RR-02–02. Vienna: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).Google Scholar
Hardie, I. W. and Parks, P. J. (1997). Land use with heterogeneous land quality: An application of an area base model. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79, 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynes, R. (2003). An Analysis of the Timber Situation in the United States: 1952–2050. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-560. Portland, Oregon: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houghton, R. A. (2003). Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and land management 1850–2000. Tellus 55B, 378–90.Google Scholar
Ianchovichina, E., Darwin, R. and Shoemaker, R. (2001). Resource use and technological progress in agriculture: a dynamic general equilibrium analysis. Ecological Economics 38 (2), 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IPCC (2000). Emissions Scenarios: A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. Nakicenovic, N. and Swart, R.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
IPCC (2001). Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change, ed. Metz, B., Davidson, O., Swart, R. and Pan, J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarl, B. A. and Schneider, U. A. (2001). Greenhouse gas mitigation in United States agriculture and forestry. Science 294, 2481–2482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, B. C., McCarl, B. A. and Lee, H. (2004). Estimating leakage from forest carbon sequestration programs. Land Economics 80 (1), 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nabuurs, G. J., Päivinen, R. and Schelhaas, M. J. (2003). Development of European Forests until 2050. Research Report 15. Helsinki: European Forestry Institute.Google Scholar
Nordhaus, W. and Boyer, J. (2000). Warming the World: Economic Models of Global Warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Plantinga, A. J., Mauldin, T. and Miller, D. J. (1999). An econometric analysis of the costs of sequestering carbon in forests. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81, 812–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, K. R. and Stokes, C. (2004). A review of forest carbon sequestration cost studies: a dozen years of research. Climatic Change 63, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sathaye, J., Makundi, W., Dale, L. and Chan, P. (2006). GHG mitigation potential, costs and benefits in global forests: a dynamic partial equilibrium approach. Energy Journal 27, 127–163.Google Scholar
Sedjo, R. (1999). Land use change and innovation in US forestry. In Productivity in Natural Resource Industries, ed. Simpson, R. D.. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, pp. 141–174.Google Scholar
Sedjo, R. (2004a). The potential economic contribution of biotechnology and forest plantations in global wood supply and forest conservation. In The Bioengineered Forest: Challenges for Science and Society, ed. Strauss, S. H. and Bradshaw, H. D.. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Sedjo, R. (2004b). Transgenic Trees: Implementation and Outcomes of the Plant Protection Act. Discussion Paper DP-04–10. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Smith, J. E., Heath, L. S. and Jenkins, J. C. (2003). Forest Volume-to-biomass Models and Estimates of Mass for Live and Standing Dead Trees of United States Forests. General Technical Report, NE-298. Radnor, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sohngen, B. and Brown, S. (2004). Measuring leakage from carbon projects in open economies: a stop timber harvesting project as a case study. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34, 829–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sohngen, B. and Mendelsohn, R. (2003). An optimal control model of forest carbon sequestration. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(2), 448–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sohngen, B. and Sedjo, R. (2000). Potential carbon flux from timber harvests and management in the context of a global timber market. Climatic Change 44, 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sohngen, B., Mendelsohn, R. and Sedjo, R. (1999). Forest management, conservation, and global timber markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sohngen, B., Mendelsohn, R. and Sedjo, R. (2001). A global model of climate change impacts on timber markets. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 26 (2), 326–343.Google Scholar
Vuuren, D. P., Eickhout, B., Lucas, P. L. and Elzen, M. G. J. (2006). Long-term multi-gas scenarios to stabilise radiative forcing: exploring costs and benefits within an integrated assessment framework. Energy Journal 27, 201–234.Google Scholar
Winjum, J. K., Brown, S. and Schlamadinger, B. (1998). Forest harvests and wood products: sources and sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Forest Science 44, 272–284.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×