You are here: Home > SWOG Forum » General > Carbon Sequestration

1. Rich
   Key Master

   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: penny.phillips@forestry.gsi.gov.uk

   Posted 2 months ago #

2. RichardKing
   Member

   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.

   Posted 2 months ago #

3. Darren
   Member

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

   Posted 2 months ago #

4. RichardKing
   Member

   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.

   Posted 2 months ago #

5. carlight
   Member

   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 .

   Posted 2 months ago #

6. Darren
   Member

   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

   Posted 2 months ago #

7. woodbodger
   Member

   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.

   Posted 2 months ago #

8. Darren
   Member

   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

   Posted 2 months ago #

9. Henrietta
   Member

   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.

   Posted 2 months ago #

10. Kris Hemin
    Member

    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!

    Posted 1 month ago #

11. Forestry_Commission
    Member

    Hi Everyone - Vicky here from the Forestry Commission. I'll have a go at explaining where we're coming from:
    Firstly, the UK's woodlands do sequester carbon at the moment, so each year they take around 10 megatonnes of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. This is equivalent to around 2% of the UK's emissions of greenhouse gases. OK not a massive proportion, but a start. Interestingly, UK emissions of greenhouse gases are around 2% of global emissions, but we can't just say we (the UK) can't be bothered to do anything about our emissions - we need to do everything we can to cut them. In the same way although the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by UK woodlands is small, it does help, from the atmosphere's point of view.

    Second, woodlands sequester in their growth phase and become 'carbon neutral' once they reach maturity so for the woodlands to keep removing CO2 from the atmosphere, we need to keep planting new ones (or harvest timber from the ones we've got, use the timber in long-life products, and make sure there's new trees growing somehow).

    And finally ... like it or not there are lots of companies out there who offer 'woodland carbon sequestration' as an option to 'offset' carbon emissions. As you all point out there is some scepticism surrounding their real benefits. What we are trying to do is to create a standard (The Woodland Carbon Code) for such businesses, or any landowner/manager interested in 'selling' the carbon accrued on their land. Whoever wants to meet the standard would have to get certified to the Code in a manner similar to UK Woodland Assurance Standard, so that there is more confidence that the carbon they say is sequestered really is. We're not advocating this as the preferred 1st option - we want people to a) stop emitting if they can b) reduce the emissions they still end up making c) then think about planting some new woodland to sequester carbon.

    And last not least - like Kris says: Hopefully it will mean that there is more money available for those of you interested in creating new woodlands ;-)

    See also this thread: http://www.swog.org.uk/forum/topic.php?id=705

    Vicky

    Posted 1 week ago #

12. carlight
    Member

    hi FC / Vicky ,
    - just a quick thank you for the input ,that is written in a style that a humble manual worker , such as i , can understand . - the official- press -release -type of communication generally leaves me baffled ,and seems to be created solely for other office inhabitants to understand .

    (am still not sure whether running a carbon-using office to find a solution ,is in fact part of the problem . I think douglas adams presented an idea )

    Posted 1 week ago #

13. woodbodger
    Member

    Yes I am with Carlight I understood most of that, but what about my existing woodland, as I understand things it is still sucking up co2's and any work or replanting I do sucks up more of these Co2's couldn't somebody purchase my woods sponging ability, I'm thinking about £500 per acre per year would seem reasonable!

    Posted 1 week ago #

14. Forestry_Commission
    Member

    Hiya

    Well, we have to remember that younger woodlands pre-maturity grow fastest and take up CO2 the quickest - Once the woodland is mature, the bigger trees grow more slowly and it kind of reaches an equilibrium where the carbon 'soaked up' is balanced by carbon 'removed' from the woodland by a) any timber removed or b) deadwood and leaf litter which releases carbon as it decays. At the moment, mature woodlands wouldn't be covered by the Woodland Carbon Code - Sorry!

    However, there may be ways in future to count what your woodland does if you are managing it and creating long-lasting products from the timber. ..... Although the mature woodland is in effect 'carbon netural', you are also taking carbon out in the form of timber products and in future you may be able to count the carbon which is 'locked' into a joist or timber frame for the next 100 years. Equally even if you are harvesting woodfuel in future you may be able to claim the carbon benefit of using woodfuel instead of coal, oil or gas (for heat and electricity generation).... Watch this space ..... and enjoy your woodland in the mean time!

    Vicky

    Posted 1 week ago #

15. Darren
    Member

    What about coppice? It grows alot quicker that a newly planted trees.

    Posted 1 week ago #

16. woodbodger
    Member

    I can remember at school many many years ago being convinced that if I connected the shaft of an electric engine to a generator I could generate enough power to run my engine as well as other tools as well, my physics teacher was good enough to point out the errors in my thinking but I was only twelve: I am over 60 now and what he taught me still holds true and no I can't pull myself up by my own shoelaces! So what an earth is any body doing messing around with trying to offset carbon by planting trees! Perhaps Carlights hint is right we need an improbability machine and a cup of tea!

    Posted 1 week ago #

17. wrekin
    Member

    Keeping carbon out of the atmosphere for the next hundred years is a worthwhile thing in itself.

    Even if it was all released in August 2110, it would still have helped keep CO2 levels down while we were transitioning away from fossil fuels. We're not going to be in the same situation then as we are now.

    Posted 1 week ago #

18. woodbodger
    Member

    My ghast is flabbered methinks I must retire.

    Posted 1 week ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.