Land Use Carbon Mitigation Options in the Northeastern US

Transcription

1 Land Use Carbon Mitigation Options in the Northeastern US Sarah Walker, Brent Sohngen, Sean Grimland, Jon Winsten, and Sandra Brown Winrock International

2 Winrock International Ecosystem Services Knowledge Transfer $/t CO2e < $7 $7 - $10 $10 - $20 $20 - $40 n/a Regional and project scale carbon methodology and monitoring development Potential Changeover time Advanced monitoring techniques aerial imagery Regional scale assessments Spatial carbon emission projection modeling Winrock International 2

3 Acknowledgements Project support from the US DOE, EPA, EPRI, and TNC Winrock team: Sarah Walker, Tim Pearson, Sean Grimland, Jon Winsten, John Kadyszewski Brent Sohngen of OSU Neil Sampson of The Sampson Group Bill Stanley and David Shoch of TNC Winrock International 3

4 Global Carbon Cycle Study examined potential carbon mitigation through altering land management to increase sequestration and reduce emissions Winrock International Source: Vital Graphics. 4 GRID-Arendal 2001

5 Terrestrial Carbon Research: Study covered eleven north east states Examines the potential in this large land area for carbon mitigation by changing current land use practices Winrock International 5

6 Terrestrial carbon mitigation potential analyzed across much of country:

7 Overall questions addressed: What options are there for changing land use and management practices on the land? What is potential quantity of carbon sequestered and where for each option? What is the price?? (i.e. economic potential) Winrock International 7

8 Land management options examined: Agricultural lands: Afforestation of croplands Afforestation of grazing lands Conversion to no-till Conversion to permanent vegetation crops Forest Lands: Improving stocking conditions in poorly stocked stands Extending the rotation age in softwood forests Enhancing riparian zones along streams Winrock International 8

9 Overview of Approach for each land management option: Land Management Option Marginal Cost ($/ton CO 2 e) Carbon Quantity (ton CO 2 e) Area of Available Land Economic Analysis Carbon Sequestration Winrock International 9

10 Area of land available in region: Cropland: 6.7 million acres Pasture land: 14.7 million acres Forest Land: 4.6 out of 76.9 million acres available for management change No-till: 5.7 million acres Permanent Crops: 6.1 million acres Winrock International 10

11 Afforestation of agricultural lands Winrock International 11

12 Economic Analysis: Afforestation Marginal Cost ($/ton CO2e) Area of Land Available Economic Analysis Carbon Accumulation Opportunity Cost Conversion Cost Maintenance Cost M&M Cost County Agric Data Forest Type Forest Type Project Duration Agric Land Type Land Preparation Treatment Type Accuracy and Precision Economic Analysis Planting Costs Treatment Frequency Winrock International 12

13 Economic Analysis: Contribution of each cost component to total costs for 20 year period 100% % of Total Costs 80% 60% 40% 20% M&M Conversion Opportunity 0% Connecticut Delaware Maine Maryland Massachusetts New Hampshire New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Rhode Island Vermont Winrock International 13

14 Carbon accumulation: Potential carbon sequestration per area of land afforested t CO2/acre < years years > 112 Winrock International years

15 Marginal Carbon Costs: 20 year period Cropland Average: $100 $/t CO2e < $40 $40 - $50 $50 - $60 $60 - $70 $70 - $80 $80 - $90 $90 - $100 $100 - $110 $110 - $120 > $120 n/a Pasture Land Average: $60 Winrock International 15

16 Counties where afforestation is economically attractive at lower prices: Cropland Pasture land $/t CO2e < $7 $7 - $10 $10 - $20 $20 - $40 n/a For 20 year period Winrock International 16

17 Marginal Carbon Costs: Comparison on cropland between northeast and southeast for 20 year period $/t CO2e < $40 $40 - $50 $50 - $60 $60 - $70 $70 - $80 $80 - $90 $90 - $100 $100 - $110 $110 - $120 > $120 (revised values from Brown and Kadyszewski 2005) Winrock International n/a 17

18 Altered Forest Management All options assume: permanent contracts e.g. once change the management then assume to change forever Winrock International 18

19 Re-stocking of under-stocked stands Potential sequestration at <$10/t CO 2 e Marginal Costs t CO2e (thousands) 0 < > 400 Winrock International 19

20 5 year rotation extensions - softwoods Potential sequestration at <$10/t CO 2 e Marginal Costs t CO2e (thousands) 0 < > 400 Avg $/t Avg CO2e $/t CO2e no carbon no carbon < $3 < $3 $3 - $6 $3 - $6 $6 - $9 $6 - $9 $9 - $12 $9 - $12 > $12 > $12 Winrock International 20

21 Comparison of land use practices Winrock International 21

22 Estimated quantities of carbon sequestered after 20 years, t CO 2 e/acre Mean Range Agricultural Lands Afforestation No-till Permanent Vegetation Forest Lands Restocking understocked Stands 9 < year Rotation Extension Riparian Buffer 4 <1-22 Winrock International 22

23 Total potential estimated tons of CO 2 e sequestered for each land use Afforestation of Cropland Agricultural Lands Afforestation of Pasture No-till Permanent Vegetation million tons CO 2 e Restocking understocked Stands Forest Lands 5 year Rotation Extension Riparian Buffer Connecticut Delaware Maine Maryland Massachusetts New Hampshire New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Rhode Island Vermont All States Assuming 20 year period for agricultural lands, and permanent land management change in forest lands Winrock International 23

24 Area weighted mean marginal costs for all Land Uses examined (at 20 yrs) Afforestation of Cropland Agricultural Lands Afforestation of Pasture No-till Permanent Vegetation $/t CO 2 e Restocking understocked Stands Forest Lands 5 year Rotation Extension Riparian Buffer Connecticut Delaware Maine Maryland Massachusetts New Hampshire New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Rhode Island Vermont All States Minimum , Maximum * Negative numbers in average cost estimates indicate that the projects would potentially generate profits over the cycle. Winrock International 24

25 Land Use with lowest marginal cost ($/ton CO 2 e at 20 yrs) Land Use No-Till Restocking under-stocked stands 5 yr Rotation Extension Riparian Buffers Non-cultivated crops Winrock International 25

26 Potential area and amount of emission reductions available at price points (at 20 yrs) Price Points Afforestation Cropland Pasture No-till Crop Management Permanent Vegetation potential t CO 2 e Restocking Understocked Stands Forest Management 5 yr Rotation Extension Riparian Buffers < $7/t CO 2 e 8 million 6.6 million 10 million 8.4 million 137,000 < $10/t CO 2 e 8 million 1.2 million 6.6 million 10.8 million 11 million 143,000 < $20/t CO 2 e 21 million 32 million 7.6 million 12.9 million 11.6 million 201,000 < $40/t CO 2 e 116, million 33 million 13 million 14.3 million 11.8 million 490,000 potential area (acres) < $7/t CO 2 e 169, ,000 1 million 1.4 million 79,000 < $10/t CO 2 e 169, , ,000 1 million 1.9 million 87,000 < $20/t CO 2 e 351, million 636, million 2.1 million 123,000 < $40/t CO 2 e million 5.7 million 1 million 1.5 million 2.2 million 193,000 Winrock International 26

27 Conclusions Afforestation has potential to sequester large amounts of CO 2, however has higher marginal costs No-till, restocking under-stocked stands, and rotation extension have lowest marginal costs Sub-optimally producing lands will be the locations where management for carbon maximization will have low or even negative marginal costs Regionally, potentially 19 million t CO 2 e could be sequestered for less than $10/t CO 2 e Winrock International 27