Cap and Trade or Cap and Cause Problems???

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry is possibly headed for a very uncomfortable debate in the upcoming 2019 session of the legislature. Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, previously reluctant to adopt Carbon Cap and Trade legislation, has stated his intention to pass such a bill in 2019.

To demonstrate his commitment, Sen. Courtney has joined Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, in chairing the Joint Committee on Carbon Reduction. The Committee has been meeting in preparation for Carbon legislation adoption in 2019 since the adjournment of the 2018 Short Session in March.

Carbon legislation means different things for the various sectors of the Forest Products Industry. Forest landowners see the opportunity for additional revenue from selling carbon allowances for growing forests to carbon dioxide emitters in Oregon and throughout North America.  The allowances can mitigate the Carbon dioxide emissions from forest product manufacturing.

Forest product manufacturers may be taxed for their carbon dioxide emissions. To avoid the fees they may be forced to curtail their operations to reduce emissions. One option is for manufacturers to purchase emission allowances from forestland owners who agree to restrict harvests on their own forestland.

Forest operators, like loggers, see the impending Cap and Trade legislation as more restrictions and increased taxes on diesel which is a critical component for converting forests to logs for mills. Expect to see manufacturers, loggers and forestland owners all seeking Cap and Trade specifications that protect their forestry interests. 

The forestry interests could lead to different stances on the Cap and Trade legislation. Landowners may choose to increase the harvest age of their forests to generate carbon credits. Recently much of Oregon’s private forestland has been transferred to Timber Investment Management Organizations and Real Estate Investment Trusts. These new landowners have investors with different financial objectives then Oregon’s traditional large forest landowners.

Most Oregon wood processing plants have adapted to the drastic curtailment of large logs from Federal Forest land since the 1990s. The small log processing mills can’t use large logs that would come from older trees which have carbon credits as their objective. Landowners must weigh the revenue from Carbon credits against the lower prices for their large logs.

Debates over the price of Carbon credits and the limits forest product manufacturers may be the theme of the negotiations over 2019 Cap and Trade legislation.

A vibrant wood products market is good for Oregon and the climate

A vibrant wood products market is good for Oregon and the climate

The Oregonian

By Kristina McNitt

In his April 21 op-ed "Our forests can make Oregon the first carbon-neutral state," Dominick DellaSala proposes that the state can achieve this feat by disincentivizing wood production from our forestlands. He believes that Oregon's forests have the potential to be a large carbon sink, and that they should be managed to more aggressively offset emissions from other sectors. We are confident that his proposals would not actually decrease global carbon emissions and would come at great cost to Oregonians.

DellaSala alludes to the fact that Oregon's forests are already sequestering huge amounts of carbon. What he doesn't tell you is that this is true across all ownership classes. Federal forestlands, state forestlands and private industrial forestlands are all growing more trees every year than are harvested or lost to wildfire or mortality. In fact, the 30 million acres of forestland across the state are sequestering approximately half of all of Oregon's carbon emissions every year.

But rather than praise Oregon forest landowners for being part of the climate change solution, DellaSala proposes that they bear ever more of the burden. By taxing industrial landowners and paying others to stop cutting trees, he believes that even more carbon emissions from other sectors can be stored on Oregon forestlands. Putting aside the fundamental inequity of making forestland owners solve a problem caused by others, curtailing harvest means curtailing the forest products industry and all of the otherwise carbon-neutral employment in rural communities those industries support.

But the real punchline is this: Domestic development and redevelopment will not stop. New houses are built every day in Oregon and across the United States. By reducing the state's wood production, we only ensure that developers turn to wood from other jurisdictions with more lenient environmental protections than we have here. Or worse, that they use less-climate-friendly alternatives to wood. For this reason, DellaSala's proposals would not actually decrease global carbon emissions and, in fact, could increase net emissions depending on what products are substituted for wood. 

We hope that reasonable people see DellaSala's op-ed for what it is: A thinly-veiled anti-logging agenda. In most mainstream circles working on climate change issues, including the International Panel on Climate Change, use of wood products is strongly encouraged. The panel concluded that in "the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fiber or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit."

Of course, wood products come from trees. And there's no better place in the world to grow (and re-grow) trees than Oregon. In light of its positive contribution to climate change, we look forward to working with state lawmakers on finding ways to encourage the use of more Oregon wood, not less.

Kristina McNitt is president of the Oregon Forest & Industries Council, which is based in Salem.

Using Oregon's forests for bioenergy production has a down side: increased carbon emissions

By Eric Mortenson, The Oregonian

View full size 

Matthew Preusch/The OregonainWood chips are piled next to a biomass burner at the D.R. Johnson Company's Prairie City power plant.

 

Oregon's blue-sky thinking on alternative energy envisions the state's forests as a terrific source of biomass. Woody debris from thinning, brush clearing and removing dead trees could generate electricity, heat manufacturing plants and be turned into biofuels.

 

Better yet, the thinking goes, such work could restore forest health and provide jobs in rural communities in addition to helping the state meet its renewable energy goals. The Oregon Forest Resources Institute calls it the "woody biomass triple win."

 

Researchers at Oregon State University rain on that notion.

 

In a four-year study OSU describes as the largest and most comprehensive to date, researchers say managing the forests for biofuel production will increase carbon dioxide emissions from the forests by at least 14 percent.

 

"Most people assume that wood bioenergy will be carbon-neutral, because the forest re-grows and there's also the chance of protecting forests from carbon emissions due to wildfire," researcher Tara Hudiburg  said in an OSU news release. But the study shows removing forest debris for bioenergy use will release more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than current practices burning it or leaving it in place, she said.

 

The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, involved 80 types of forests in 19 regions of Oregon, Washington and California, ranging from wet coastal forests to semi-arid woodlands.

 

Hudiburg and OSU forestry professor Beverly Law, co-author of the report, said the implications of managing forests for energy production have not been fully considered. "If our ultimate goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, producing bioenergy from forests will be counterproductive," Law said in the news release.

 

Others believe the researchers examined the issue from too narrow a view.

 

Paul Barnum, executive director of the forest research institute, said Oregon's dry eastern forests have "unnaturally high levels of biomass" that can be used to generate electricity and heat.

 

"If we don't actively manage these forests, we run the risk of catastrophic wildfire" that would be disastrous to wildlife, water quality and buildings, he said in an email.

 

Norm Johnson, also a forestry professor at Oregon State, is a biomass supporter. Burning wood doesn't produce energy as efficiently as burning fossil fuels. But new tree growth will recapture the excess carbon emissions from biomass over time, he said.

 

"In the long run, it's better" than burning fossil fuels, Johnson said. "In the short run, yes, we'd probably conclude it's not as efficient."

 

At this point, Oregon burns "slash," mainly branches and tree tops, left over from logging to reduce fire risk. Using it to produce energy in place of fossil fuels is a better alternative for the environment, Johnson said.

 

The idea has bipartisan political backing in Oregon and nationally. Gov. John Kitzhaber, U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and U.S. Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., are among its strong supporters.

 

Oregon treats biomass as renewable power, the same as solar and wind, when it comes to meeting green power generation requirements. Oregon and the federal government also subsidize forest biomass energy projects.

 

Kitzhaber remains committed to developing biomass energy for the wide range of benefits it provides, said Tim Raphael, the governor's communications director.

 

Rural economic development, forest health, reducing the use of fossil fuels and even international energy security are among the factors, Raphael said.

 

"That's really the filter that we've looked at it through, and I'm not sure that was the filter of the study," he said.

 

"I don't know much about producing jobs, habitat restoration or wildlife restoration -- I know a lot about carbon," Hudiburg responded in a telephone interview. "If your goal is reduce carbon emissions, then it will not help. But if you have other goals, then yes, maybe."

 

"It's never going to be a win-win situation for everything," she said.

--Eric Mortenson

American forests can store more carbon emissions than previously thought

Published: Thursday, April 14, 2011, 5:08 PM     Updated: Thursday, April 14, 2011, 5:49 PM

By Eric Mortenson, The Oregonian
Follow

Share4

Share Email Print

View full sizeThe Associated PressA dense forest of Douglas fir, madrone and oak cover a steep hillside on federal forest land outside Ruch, Ore.

A research project headed by an Oregon State University professor showed American forests can absorb up to 40 percent of the nation's fossil fuel carbon emissions -- much more than previously thought.

The findings demonstrate the role U.S. ecosystems play in slowing down the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the researchers concluded in the study. It provides one of the most accurate assessments to date of the nation's carbon balance, according to an OSU news release.

The results were published in the journal "Agricultural and Meteorology." Beverly Law, a professor at OSU's Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, co-authored the study. The research team included scientists from 35 institutions.

Previous studies estimated forests and other vegetation could sequester only about 30 percent of emissions or less. Carbon dioxide, released by burning fossil fuels such as gasoline used in cars, is a major greenhouse gas and a factor in what most scientists believe is a pattern of global warming.

The research team said major disturbances such as droughts, wildfires and hurricanes can reduce the forests' ability to absorb carbon in any given year. Droughts in 2002 and 2006 reduced the sequestration rate to about 20 percent in the lower 48 states.

--Eric Mortenson