The major issues of terrestrial carbon sequestration before any GREED and CONTROL freaks get involved is that it takes time and the carbon stays there.
In theory, the government (at any scale) wouldn't have to be involved because it can be a contract between a party needing a service (say a company that produces "too much" carbon and needs some offsets) and a party that provides some sort of land base (forest or grassland) that can store carbon in various ways. The companies who are producing "too much" carbon may not have the time to track down willing land owners on their own so another part of this economy got hatched, as mentioned, the carbon broker. These could be private companies or NGOs acting like private companies (NGOs as "non-profits" or "not-for-profits", just like many health care systems, have great gigs under present tax laws). A deal is then made between the parties but because most of the parties seeking carbon offset credits and many of the brokers are big companies or entities, they can hire more lawyers and write the contracts in the most beneficial light to their interests. Most private land owners being approached don't have the capital to hire a whole bunch of lawyers, thus the landowner is typically at a disadvantage in writing up the contracts. The landowner can always decline the deal, as long as the CONTROL freaks in various scales of government (so far it appears to be certain state governments that are the most aggressive in getting involved in CONTROL), stay out of the deal making.
Again, the major sticking points is that carbon storage in terrestrial systems takes time and the carbon stays there.
I was researching a presentation circa 2010 and the carbon credit exchange that was up and going was paying about $50 a sequestered ton. Out here in the plains, under good grass conditions, it was estimated that about 2 tons of carbon a year per acre could be sequestered in the soil below the grass so that would be a $100 a year. Good cropland rent at the time around here was around $200 a year so its easy math to see that market was going to be limited to people willing to lose potential revenue in the present for a potential investment when the price for sequestered carbon was greater and/or were doing it solely for their social benefits beliefs. The latter can work if that landowner has plenty of coin already and doesn't need to make money off of the land on a regular basis. For most landowners, that is not an option.
As for the comments on CO2 "fertilization" (that's the term used), supposedly its an initial thing and after a point the plants involved get saturated with all they can take in and thus "too much" CO2 is still out there that can't be taken up as fertilization.
As for the comment that younger trees take in more carbon than mature trees, yes, typically. And in some carbon credit modeling, building materials such as panels used in house construction can be considered a form of longer term storage but then there needs to be calculations used to figure out how much carbon was released in the harvest and manufacturing, and then transportation of these building materials. More formulas are needed to "figure" that all out so its easier for a lot of these contracts just to deal with the trees staying there and growing up until the die naturally. I'm not defending that laziness of not including such "real world, working land" situations into carbon rental contracts, I'm just saying for these carbon credit people it takes more work in writing the contracts.
As for NGOs, especially big one such as TNC, I trust them about as far as I can throw them. I've seen the TNC wield great influence on projects within my agency. Its a "good" gig when an entity can act like the federal government without actually being the federal government and supposedly under the various checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution.
Last edited by NonPCfed; 04/30/23 10:18 AM.
