Carbon Sequestration

[Rich]

Penny Phillips from the climate change team at the Forestry Commission is currently conducting a piece of research and wondered if any of us could help her with this?

She writes:

"The Forestry Commission is currently developing a 'Code of Good Practice' for forest carbon projects, to ensure that woodland creation for the specific purpose of carbon sequestration follows internationally accepted standards of sustainability and integrity. It will ensure all projects are verified to third-party standards and will provide confidence in forest carbon projects to the voluntary carbon market in the UK.

My question is, if a private woodland owner signs up to the Code and becomes verified as an approved project, do you know of any routes that they might take in order to sell this carbon on (to a carbon broker/aggregator, for example)?

For example, have any companies in the UK, or internationally, contacted you displaying interest in purchasing carbon credits to re-sell into the larger voluntary market?

Any thoughts of information would be most gratefully received."

If you can help with the question, I'm sure she would be grateful if you contacted her directly

07785 772223

0131 314 6210 VOIP 6210

Email: [email protected]

[RichardKing]

Firstly I should like to see a total ban on the burning of brash in forestry operations.

Either it should be left to slowly decay so that it adds carbon to the woodland soil, or chipped for biomas fuel so as to reduce use of fossil fuels.

[Darren]

Wouldn't brash just get in the way of the next coppice cycle and hinder natural regeneration?

[RichardKing]

What length of cycle are you thinking of ? 7 years ?, 9 years ? or more ?

It could be roughly cut so that it lies on the ground, or chipped on site.

[carlight]

ok , after not understanding a word of the quote from the fc ,have reread . is the pertinent point ; "woodland creation" .ie ,folk that are planting new land .

and ,more to the point ,somehow charging companies to sponser plantings ,in a debatable payoff .

[Darren]

Richard

- I'm thinking of a 7 year cycle. I've burned the spruce brash and have left the hardwood brash for the forest school camp fire this winter. Don't like to waste anything, but i don't think they can use it all.

Carlight-

I don't understand it either. It looks like carbon offsetting. which i think is a load of rubbish much better to reduce the carbon footprint

[woodbodger]

Yep it seems all very dodgy to me but I think I get the idea: you give some one a few quid to help plant the trees so that you can justify pouring loads of extra carbon into the air and feel self satisfied as you pollute the planet; the trees spend a few years growing and then are chopped down , burn or rot and release there carbon again. Now I was never brilliant at maths so I am having trouble seeing the plus side in all this.

[Darren]

A valid ppoint from greenpeace http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/carbon-scamand here http://www.foei.org/en/media/archive/2009/carbon-offsetting-exposed-as-con

[Henrietta]

These offsetting companies are operating a scam, which big business is happy to go along with. If we burn carbon, we pollute. We can't say Joe Bloggs has got some woodland and we'll offset it against that. The woodland was already in place, and even if we plant new woodland, instead of that doing some good, it has already been used and added to the problem. We need to cut pollution, not pretend we can offset it, because we can't.

[Kris Hemin]

Yeah, offsetting is a miserable con which as others have already suggested, encourages smug expressions on those who take that path. However on a personal level, if you can get someone to subsidise your planting a new hundred acre woodland or even pay for it totally then you do have a net gain. And the smug offsetter may even send you a postcard from the Seyshelles. I'll set up an offset wood for anyone as will pay me to!