GOOD

Carbon Karma: How Companies Use Forests to Offset Pollution

Why would you pay someone just to own a forest?

Erica Grieder's weekly series explores how businesses are responding to consumers, governments, and markets to make their practices and their products more sustainable.

Why would you pay someone just to own a forest?




In the United States, at least, a handful of companies are buying
 forest carbon offsets—paying landowners to maximize the carbon-
absorbing properties of their trees to offset the fossil fuel energy the companies rely on. They do it for corporate social
 responsibility reasons, to show leadership in the industry, or perhaps
 as a marketing move.



The biggest challenge is convincing companies that paying for offsets makes sense. “So far, it is purely a
 voluntary market,” says Keister Evans, president of Forest
 Carbon Offsets, a for-profit offsets outfit headquartered in Virginia.



One of the company's credit-purchasing customers is a travel company that sails to Central America. 
Forest Carbon Offsets has some projects there, so cruise ship
 customers may be attracted to the idea of their passage fees 
boosting a sustainability concern. In other cases, the company’s
 interest is more general; Texas-based Dell, for example, has a project
 with Conservation International to protect some 600,000 
acres of forest in Madagascar, keeping half a million metric tons of 
carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.



\n
While “save the forests” has been a rallying cry for decades, the rise of 
forest carbon offsets as a business is quite new. During the
 United Nations’ 2007 climate change talks in Bali, the 
international community announced the Reducing Emissions from 
Deforestation and Forest Degradation program, which encourages 
reforestation and the creation of new forests, and establishes some standards toward bringing forest carbon closer to the mainstream. But REDD projects weren’t included in the Kyoto 
Protocol because of a sense among negotiators that forestry projects
 are too complex to be as attractive as other offsetting efforts, like 
renewable energy credits or efficiency improvements. Forest carbon is still a small part of the
 overall offsets market.

Forest carbon can be a tough sell to the landowners, too. It’s not that people in 
Kentucky or West Virginia don’t believe in climate change, says Scott 
Shouse, who manages a program called the Appalachian Carbon
 Partnership, but that after generations of 
business pitches—from the coal industry or timber companies—they’re a
 little leery when someone turns up promising to make them money on a
slightly abstract investment. So Shouse gives interested landowners a low-key
 pitch: Get to know a forester. Not a forest ranger—a more common 
character in the area—a forester is an advocate, like a doctor or a
 lawyer: not always right, but highly trained and expert in their 
field. They’ll come look at your land, and if it looks like a good fit
 for the program, you can implement some sustainable forestry 
techniques and sell the carbon credits through the partnership.
 There’s some up-front cost, about $1,500 to cover the auditors who will
 figure out a management plan.



\n
The offsets depend on rigorous oversight and
 compliance requirements. An initial inventory establishes how much 
carbon the trees are capturing, and determines whether a proposed
 project has “additionality”—whether active management would yield a 
greater net benefit. 

Recurring verification audits check that the project is proceeding as
 planned. In some cases, this entails a hike into the forest to see if a reference tree has grown as predicted by the models 
several years earlier. 



If certain improvements are made—planting species with a greater
 carbon uptake, for example, or selective harvesting to foster a more 
sustainable growth cycle—more carbon will be sequestered on a homeowner's 
land, and companies will buy those offsets for the next 15 years. An acre of forested land sequesters perhaps three metric tons of carbon dioxide a 
year, each ton being worth one credit. At about $15 a credit, 
depending on market rates—Shouse’s partnership is a nonprofit, and takes a 10 percent cut—a landowner with a 100-acre plot could recoup her costs in about a year.



From an environmental perspective, forest carbon offsets are a clear
 winner: Trees hoover up carbon dioxide during 
photosynthesis and store it. (Conversely, deforestation is a 
major source of global greenhouse gas emissions.) Forests have huge benefits: They protect wildlife, water, soil, and
 livelihoods. Even aside from offsetting, people want
 to save the forests.



\n
Regulations could change the business landscape pretty quickly. The 
failure of the 2009 cap-and-trade bill was disheartening for 
environmentalists who have high hopes for offsets—and for some
 industry interests, which would rather pick their offsets than get hit
 with a systemic carbon tax.



There is, however, movement on the state level; California plans to
 launch a cap-and-trade program next year, which will allow power
 plants, refineries and factories to meet up to 8 percent of their air-
quality compliance obligations through offsets rather than emissions 
reductions. Other states might follow suit. Evans argues that carbon 
credits are a good investment; they can be traded, and if you
 believe regulations are forthcoming, now may be a time to buy low.



\n
The forest carbon crowd did draw some hope from the United Nations’s
 recently-concluded climate-change talks, which saw renewed 
international enthusiasm for the idea of encouraging private companies 
to invest in carbon credits and interest in establishing 
more rigorous verification for same—although the practical impact of 
those discussions remains unclear.

Photo via (cc) Flickr user Fugue

Articles
via Chela Horsdal / Twitter

Amazon's "The Man in the High Castle" debuted the first episode of its final season last week.

The show is loosely based on an alternative history novel by Philip K. Dick that postulates what would happen if Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan controlled the United States after being victorious in World War II.

Keep Reading Show less
Politics
via Mike Mozart / Flickr

Chick-fil-A is the third-largest fast food chain in America, behind McDonald's and Starbucks, raking in over $10 billion a year.

But for years, the company has faced boycotts for supporting anti-LGBT charities, including the Salvation Army, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and the Paul Anderson Youth Home.

The Salvation Army faced criticism after a leader in the organization implied that gay people "deserve to die" and the company also came under fire after refusing to offer same-sex couples health insurance. But the organization swears it's evolving on such issues.

via Thomas Hawk / Flickr

The Fellowship of Christian Athletes explicitly announced it was anti gay marriage in a recent "Statement of Faith."

God instituted marriage between one man and one woman as the foundation of the family and the basic structure of human society. For this reason, we believe that marriage is exclusively the union of one man and one woman.

The Paul Anderson Youth Home teaches boys that homosexuality is wrong and that same-sex marriage is "rage against Jesus Christ and His values."

RELATED: The 1975's singer bravely kissed a man at a Dubai concert to protest anti-LGBT oppression

In 2012, Chick-fil-A's CEO, Dan Cathy, made anti same-sex marriage comments on a radio broadcast:

I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, "We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage". I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.

But the chicken giant has now decided to change it's says its charitable donation strategy because it's bad for business...Not because being homophobic is wrong.

The company recently lost several bids to provide concessions in U.S. airports. A pop-up shop in England was told it would not be renewed after eight days following LGBTQ protests.

Chick-fil-A also has plans to expand to Boston, Massachusetts where its mayor, Thomas Menino, pledged to ban the restaurant from the city.

via Wikimedia Commons

"There's no question we know that, as we go into new markets, we need to be clear about who we are," Chick-fil-A President and Chief Operating Officer Tim Tassopoulos told Bisnow. "There are lots of articles and newscasts about Chick-fil-A, and we thought we needed to be clear about our message."

RELATED: Alan Turing will appear on the 50-pound note nearly 70 years after being persecuted for his sexuality

Instead, the Chick-fil-A Foundation plans to give $9 million to organizations that support education and fight homelessness. Which is commendable regardless of the company's troubled past.

"If Chick-Fil-A is serious about their pledge to stop holding hands with divisive anti-LGBTQ activists, then further transparency is needed regarding their deep ties to organizations like Focus on the Family, which exist purely to harm LGBTQ people and families," Drew Anderson, GLAAD's director of campaigns and rapid response, said in a statement.

Chick-fil-A's decision to back down from contributing to anti-LGBT charities shows the power that people have to fight back against companies by hitting them where it really hurts — the pocket book.

The question remains: If you previously avoided Chick-fil-A because it supported anti-LGBT organizations, is it now OK to eat there? Especially when Popeye's chicken sandwich is so good people will kill for it?

Lifestyle

Oh, irony. You are having quite a day.

The Italian region of Veneto, which includes the city of Venice, is currently experiencing historic flooding. Venice Mayor Luigi Brugnaro has stated that the flooding is a direct result of climate change, with the tide measuring the highest level in 50 years. The city (which is actually a collection of 100 islands in a lagoon—hence its famous canal streets), is no stranger to regular flooding, but is currently on the brink of declaring a state of emergency as waters refuse to recede.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet
via Gage Skidmore / Flickr and nrkbeta / flickr

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) dropped a bombshell on Tuesday, announcing it had over 900 emails that White House aide Stephen Miller sent to former Breitbart writer and editor Katie McHugh.

According to the SPLC, in the emails, Miller aggressively "promoted white nationalist literature, pushed racist immigration stories and obsessed over the loss of Confederate symbols after Dylann Roof's murderous rampage."

Keep Reading Show less
Politics
via Twitter / Bye,Bye Harley Davidson

The NRA likes to diminish the role that guns play in fatal shootings by saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Which is the same logic as, "Hammers don't build roofs, people build roofs." No duh. But it'd be nearly impossible to build a roof without a hammer.

So, shouldn't the people who manufacture guns share some responsibility when they are used for the purpose they're made: killing people? Especially when the manufacturers market the weapon for that exact purpose?

Keep Reading Show less
Business