EPA 12 (United States Environmental Protection Agency, OSRTI Abandoned Minelands Team, “ Carbon Sequestration through Reforestation A LOCAL SOLUTION WITH GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS ”, March 2012, www.epa.gov/aml/revital/cseqfact.pdf)
Before the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere remained relatively constant. Except for slow changes on a geological time scale, the absorption and release of carbon was kept in balance. During that time, changes in biomass and soil organic carbon were the main sources of fluctuation in atmospheric levels of carbon.By clearing forests and burning fossil fuels more rapidly than the carbon can be sequestered, industrialization may have altered this equilibrium. Currently, human activity is directly or indirectly responsible for the release of six to seven billion metric tons of carbon annually. Since before the Industrial Revolution, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased from 280 parts per million (ppm) to nearly 380 ppm in 2005. CO2 emissions from energy use are projected to increase between 40 to 110 percent between 2000 and 2030. Increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration may be generating increases in average global temperature and other climate change impacts. Although some of the effects of increased CO2 levels on the global climate are uncertain, most scientists agree that doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations may cause serious environmental consequences. Rising global temperatures could raise sea levels, change precipitation patterns and affect both weather and climate conditions. In light of these potential impacts, strategies to help reverse these emission trends are increasing in importance. Many state, national and international governments are taking steps to more effectively manage and slow the growth of their carbon emissions. For many of these governments, terrestrial sequestration is part of a portfolio of approaches to inventory and reduce GHG emissions. Their experience is demonstrating that establishing new forests can offer cost-effective management options for offsetting carbon emissions, particularly in the near future.
Solves Biodiversity
Reforestation solves air quality and biodiversity
EPA 12 (“Carbon Sequestration through Reforestation” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, March 2012 http://www.epa.gov/aml/revital/cseqfact.pdf) MLR
What are the Benefits of AML Reforestation for Land Owners and Companies? Environmental Benefits Air Quality Improvements in air quality generated by reforestation extend beyond the sequestration of CO2. Research has shown that reforestation benefits air quality in other ways. For example, the leaf and needle surfaces of trees remove air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, ammonia and sulfur dioxide. Trees also play a role in intercepting and filtering particulate matter in the air. A study of Chicago’s air quality concluded that the city’s trees alone produced $9.2 million (1994 dollars) worth of air quality improvements in just one year. Wildlife Habitat Reforestation of land after it has been disturbed by surface mining can create valuable wildlife habitat. In turn, wildlife habitat generates forest litter, which is an important part of the food chain and enriches the soil. A forest’s tree canopy moderates the temperatures of rivers and streams, which aids the survival of aquatic species.
Leakage has a small impact on overall emissions and is easily managed
Virgilio, et al. 10 – Forest Carbon Specialist, Forest Carbon Development Team – Marshall, Global Climate Change Team; Zerbock, Managing Director for The Nature Conservancy's Global Climate Change Team; Advisor, Climate Change Initiatives; Holmes, Wildlife Conservation Society (Nicole, Sarene, Olaf, and Christopher, “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD): A Casebook of On-the-Ground Experience.”The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International and Wildlife Conservation Society. 2010. http://www.hedon.info/docs/REDD_Casebook-TNC-CI-WCS.pdf) MLR
Leakage can be managed and accounted for Many projects are currently managing leakage using a threefold strategy: 1) incorporating leakage prevention elements into project design and choice of location, 2) calculating leakage that is likely to occur through risk assessments and monitoring, and 3) discounting carbon benefits accordingly if leakage cannot be prevented. Most projects incorporate community development aspects into their design, which provide options for community members to meet their needs without simply deforesting elsewhere. Some projects target degraded lands in their choice of location, which are unlikely to displace agriculture or timber harvest. Nonetheless, even if leakage cannot be completely avoided, economic models and risk assessments have been developed and used to discount project carbon benefits and assure they remain real.
Virgilio, et al. 10 – Forest Carbon Specialist, Forest Carbon Development Team – Marshall, Global Climate Change Team; Zerbock, Managing Director for The Nature Conservancy's Global Climate Change Team; Advisor, Climate Change Initiatives; Holmes, Wildlife Conservation Society (Nicole, Sarene, Olaf, and Christopher, “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD): A Casebook of On-the-Ground Experience.”The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International and Wildlife Conservation Society. 2010. http://www.hedon.info/docs/REDD_Casebook-TNC-CI-WCS.pdf) MLR
Permanence refers to how robust a project is to potential risks that could reverse the carbon benefi ts of the project at a future date. Although all sectors have the potential for impermanence (see “Permanence in other Sectors” box for more information), REDD projects face particular scrutiny due to an inflated perception of risk from poor management, fire, pests, etc. that can lead to the destruction of forests and the subsequent release of emissions. The concept of permanence is the cause of much confusion mainly because of a lack of consensus about “how long is permanent” and inconsistencies with the way it is talked about across scale and scope. There is an inherent risk of partial or total reversal of carbon benefits within all sectors, forest carbon included, attributable to both natural and anthropogenic causes (e.g., changes in government). The magnitude of this risk, be it negligible or substantial, is particular to the place in which the activity is being carried out and to the drivers of deforestation, political situation, ecological conditions, socio-economic circumstances, economy, etc., and it is possible to quantifiably estimate this risk. In recognition of the risk of impermanence, it is common practice for those undertaking REDD activities to implement strategies to prevent reversal of carbon benefits and design measures to account for the unlikely event of a reversal, which will ensure the credibility of generated carbon benefits. First and foremost, it is important that all stakeholder interests (e.g., government, communities and business) are aligned with the long-term project objectives. Several legal, financial and institutional tools are available to both prevent and manage the possibility of impermanence. Specific approaches, such as the purchase of conservation easements (or similar contractual agreements), creation of protected areas, community development and the establishment of endowments for project management and monitoring, can help ensure permanence. ultimately, strategies must be tailored to the particular project site and situation.