The Forestry Forum

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is a big theme here in Europe. The fact that the forest binds a lot of CO2 is used as an excuse to manage your forest well, and get environmental "points". But can a forest owner get money out of it? Not as far as I know, but according to an article I read, it should be possible. The article is here (https://www.forestry.com/editorial/carbon-sink-financial-value/) and is based on a calculation of the total emission from the transport sector and the CO2-taxes in Sweden. Theoretically it seems that it should be profitable for the forest owners - if the authorities would go for it, which is not likely to happen. My question is:
Is there anywhere in the World a system where the "carbon sink" has a financial value for the forest owners? 
In a reply to my post in that other forum, someone claims that New Zeeland have something ... but it's a bit unclear to me exactly what they have. (Here is my forum post (https://www.forestry.com/topic/getting-payed-for-letting-the-forest-stand/) )

My understanding is that UPM is receiving a payment for carbon credits on there extensive forest land in northern MN, though I don't know the specifics 

I have only seen 'organizations', such as Community Forest International, make a claim that they have sold $300,000 in carbon credits to the rest of Canada. That was off a 700 acre woodlot. That was a 'one of' as far as I have seen. There seems to be a very limited small market for it.

UPM, was a company here that continued to harvest and export wood off public land while closing down their mill they acquired from REPAP in Miramachi. They claimed over production on the market spurred the move, yet continued to harvest wood for export. ::) If they look good in one corner of the globe, they don't shine too brightly in others. :D

Quote from: SwampDonkey on January 20, 2021, 04:51:29 AM
I have only seen 'organizations', such as Community Forest International, make a claim that they have sold $300,000 in carbon credits to the rest of Canada. That was off a 700 acre woodlot. That was a 'one of' as far as I have seen. There seems to be a very limited small market for it.

UPM, was a company here that continued to harvest and export wood off public land while closing down their mill they acquired from REPAP in Miramachi. They claimed over production on the market spurred the move, yet continued to harvest wood for export. ::) If they look good in one corner of the globe, they don't shine too brightly in others. :D

We have some kind of carbon emission exchange system here where companies have "emission rights/shares" that they can sell if they don't use them. That means that an industry that have low emissions can make money on that. I guess UPM and such companies are using something like that? Or using a balance between their industries and their forests (that bind CO2)?

This is actually very very common.  It is carbon tax credit trading.  The constraint is usually that the forest has to be guaranteed to stay as forest for 100 years.  This pretty much removes the ability to do this in a tropical country, don't tell big carbon tax credit trading banks like goldman sachs that though.  Anyway, in the US this is a big business and going to get larger.  Our state has two pilot programs, one in our county, that aggregates small parcels so they the landowners can bid on carbon tax bids at scale.  

It is a business we are exploring.  Googling carbon tax credit and forest and you'll find many links.

Constraints:

Long term commitment
Must prove forest would otherwise be converted to other use or move non forested lands into forest.
Usually you compete in a bid process to provide forest carbon tax credits and you may be competing with entities in warm climates  ;D that have faster rates of carbon sequestration.
Certification can be expensive, you have to model and have documentation regarding the sequestration rates.  It can force reliance on fast growing low value trees (cottonwood vs white oak).
Can't convert native forests.
Age constraint can hinder ability to put land into pine plantations that must be around 100 years.  You could do a mixed pine/hardwood forest but that impacts some industrial silviculture.
It is not a panacea for undervalued slow growing forest unless they are impacted by development.

Barely scratching the surface, I encourage any that is interested to do your own research.  

In reality though, if reality matters, plants store carbon for a relatively short period, a few years, a hundred years, we are thinking in that time scale. The carbon that this is supposedly offsetting has been stored deep within the planet for hundreds of millions of years. These are feel good programs rather than real solutions. Purchase a forest and bury it deep underground, now you are sequestering that carbon.

I will withhold 99% of my thoughts on the matter to stay on target and say only that i speculate it will go like most other government savior efforts.  normal joe will be unlikely to get paid for sequestering carbon, while politically connected special joe will potentially make a fortune at it.  Like solar farm programs. 

@mike_belben (https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?action=profile;u=33722) spot on!

Mike is spot on actually, it is a giant feel good scheme.  However it may lock up a few hundred thousand acres of Mississippi delta in something other than pine crops.  

Don, I think that the biggest forest planting need is to offset the loss of the Amazon which will be almost completely lost within 20 years.  Huge amounts of sink gone.  Electric cars are going to move transport to electrons and solar will supply most of that.  So carbon problem is goi g to be no sink vs sequester those fossil fuels.  Just my opinion but I think leadership is lagging vs trend which is accelerating at over 40% year on year.  

Mike the cost of residential solar is only 1/2 of what is was 5 years ago.  In 10 years the average joe will not need a grid connection for other than charging the car and not even that if they have enough roof/ land area to get good production.  Today we rely on utilities to provide our energy,  natural gas or electricity or liquid fuel products.   All of those industrial activities are completely in the air.  

Wall Street know this.  Follow the money.  Oil is going to be gutted and that is great for average joe having energy independence.  

I've been connected with woodlot organizations for years, and all I have ever seen was talk. In fact, not even 1% of private woodlots (excluding industrial freehold) have been certified for anything in 25 years here in New Brunswick. That would be the first step before your even considered for these other schemes. Current survey results indicated that N.B. woodlot owners don't want anyone to have any say in how they manage their woods, ~25% neutral, ~ 45% are against it, ~ 25% would allow it, ~5 no response. There's some folks living in the clouds, let them carry on. ;D

I've been seeing where there are some forestry firms going around and trying to sign up landowners in certain areas.  They were offering the typical free mgmt scheme, so I looked into it a little deeper.  Seems like they are sort of like the Nature Conservancy, but for profit.  They sign up landowners, get their land into compliance, and they sell the carbon credits to companies that need to offset them.  The landowner doesn't see much of the money, if at all.  They also have their fingers in any timber removals.  I didn't look into it deep enough to get past the basic scheme.

I also read an article where forestry companies were looking to convert lands over to plantations, mainly in the south.  Again, the jist of the scheme is to plant for free, sell the carbon credits.

One big problem for all these programs is what happens when technology catches up and carbon credits aren't necessary?  What practices can the landowner opt out of as a mgmt technique?  No cutting at all is a mgmt option.

There is recent "talk" here in Maine about paying landowners to grow trees
instead of cutting them . Notice I said "talk".
I'll be 1st in line for them to pay me to grow trees instead of cutting them.
Here is the most recent article on the subject of carbon storage.

"In December, the Maine Climate Council, a panel convened by Gov. Janet Mills to create a plan to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, called for the formation of a group to develop a voluntary forest carbon program. The program would provide financial incentives for the state's 86,000 woodland owners with between 10 and 10,000 acres to "increase carbon storage in Maine's forests" while "maintaining current timber harvest levels."

Read the entire article here at Bangor Daily news:

Maine wants to pay landowners to fight climate change with their trees (https://bangordailynews.com/2021/01/15/mainefocus/maine-wants-to-pay-landowners-to-fight-climate-change-with-their-trees/)

SD, UPM isn't doing the Blandin Paper Company up here any favors, either.

I think the whole sequestration and carbon credits scheme is a bunch of BS. Kinda reminds me of someone visiting a brothel and then giving money to charity to make themselves feel better.

I know there are companies in Europe that plant trees in remote areas. I'm not sure but I think they sell CO2 storage/rights to the big companies. So probably they get paid by the companies, and receive income from the European Union and several governments. Sounds like a good business model. But I'm afraid that most landowners or logging companies are too small and miss the network and connections to governments and the big multinationals. For an example;


https://landlifecompany.com/ (https://landlifecompany.com/)

Planting trees in an area so remote that the no one checks if you planted anything at all sounds like a great gig. 


What area of fertile soil on the planet doesnt simply plant itself?  


Its a year round job for me to keep the forest from reclaiming everything that isnt paved, which is none.

Yeah, I have been in the Amazon few times. If you just leave a skidtrail a few weeks you can't even find it anymore. And still people give money to organisations who replant the rainforests. All those animals, wind, water etc will seed it anyway imo. But growing trees on poor, not fertile soil is interesting. Cause of the shade there should be less evaporation so it could turn into fertile soil after a long enough period. That could be a good way to store carbon. 

Quote from: Don P on January 20, 2021, 07:50:06 AM
In reality though, if reality matters, plants store carbon for a relatively short period, a few years, a hundred years, we are thinking in that time scale. The carbon that this is supposedly offsetting has been stored deep within the planet for hundreds of millions of years. These are feel good programs rather than real solutions. Purchase a forest and bury it deep underground, now you are sequestering that carbon.

Feel good programs?  It may be the right time.

Why not make biochar out of carbon based products, grind it, and incorporate it into soils on farms, gardens and forests?  Charcoal will stay in the soil for hundreds of years and make the soil better for growing.

I looked at it when carbon credits first became available, but the amount of money being offered to tie up the property for a hundred years was a pittance. 

 There's a farm down the road from me that contracted with a bio-generator / elect Co to bury the ash leftover. They've been hauling in there for over 2 yrs. They pay the farmer to take the stuff, and  have a dozer,loader and a 6wheel drive end dump to do the dirt work. The corn field their working on now looks like it's 8' 10' higher than it use to be. Rumor is that they make more $$$ than they do milking 140 head.

Quote from: Cedarman on January 21, 2021, 06:51:40 AM
Why not make biochar out of carbon based products, grind it, and incorporate it into soils on farms, gardens and forests?  Charcoal will stay in the soil for hundreds of years and make the soil better for growing.

There are probably ways to do it clean but charcoal production is typically a pretty dirty operation. When you see that greenish/yellow smoke rolling off you're releasing, not burning, methane, which is much worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Although we tout the virtues of biochar there are some considerations. It is light and floats up and out of the surface layer of soil, which puts it into the waterways. I have not seen studies on what the long term effects of that are as it works its way down through the rivers and into the oceans.

Burying ash is not the same as burying the carbon, they burned the carbon for fuel and are burying the mineral ash, carbon is high quality fuel. It is hard to let go of that energy.

The problem is real and serious, what I'm saying is that our responses need to be well thought out. So far I haven't seen a great deal of non self interested thinking going on. The wood products folks tell me that when I build a house of wood that it is a good thing, I'm sequestering tons of carbon. Meanwhile I put them on hold while I call the concrete truck and order the foundation materials  ::).

Faster rotation plants seem to do a better job of grabbing carbon and sticking it in the ground. Rotationally grazed pasture pasture for instance. But, like biochar it is putting that carbon in the surface soil, that is not really sequestration.

Make no bones about it, when we dig up long term really sequestered carbon and release it into the atmosphere it is going to take the planet a long time to put the genie back in the bottle. I have no worries for the planet, it can and will do that. My concern is more whether the accompanying conditions will tolerate us. During the triassic period dinosaurs could survive because they had a more efficient respiratory system than we do as far as extracting oxygen from a much higher CO2 atmosphere, we would not have survived in that environment. Being smart is not the same thing as being wise.

Quote from: Ed_K on January 21, 2021, 07:53:01 AM
There's a farm down the road from me that contracted with a bio-generator / elect Co to bury the ash leftover. They've been hauling in there for over 2 yrs. They pay the farmer to take the stuff, and  have a dozer,loader and a 6wheel drive end dump to do the dirt work. The corn field their working on now looks like it's 8' 10' higher than it use to be. Rumor is that they make more $$$ than they do milking 140 head.

If that's clean wood ash they are burying that's really a shame.  When top dressed the potash will increase forage growth tremendously and increase soil health, which creates more efficiency when it comes to producing food.  Isn't better use of the resource the actual merit here?  
As far as long term sequestration of carbon, I wonder what the comparison is to say when the volcano in Hawaii goes off for a year straight and output is measured in cubic miles of material displacement.     

Here in Kansas, we farmers spend a lot of time and money keeping our grass lands from growing up to the intrusive trees brought in by the feds during the dust bowl days to control wind erosion.  Cedar trees and chinese elm come up everywhere, and we must spray these trees or cut them yearly to keep up, or we will have scrub brush instead of grass. Last year was finally given a formula to add to the common spray that seems to actually kill the elm. I got ahead of the hedge trees a few years ago, but those elm and cedar are tough.  Only way to kill a cedar is to cut it below any green.

I believe a native tribe in alaska just signed a long term agreement. Took like 100k+ acres out of logging. They are getting far less $ but decided it was better for their land. Some company in cali paid for it. I wonder if you could sign a new 100 year agreement to just basically manage on a 100 year rotation. Still thin and cut out diseased trees. 

Makes sense, sequester the carbon in the forest...... until it burns.  The last several years, so much of that sequestered Co2 has been ruining our Summer in the Northwest, lol.   It makes me angry that they let it burn every year so bad it feels like a re run of 'The Road'.  So the forests burn, but during the winter, to burn a wood stove is often taboo in any given jurisdiction.  

I bet those natives will regret it soon as the money is spent. 

Establishing a new forest does lock up a useful amount of carbon in the trees and soil. But an established forest is pretty much neutral for CO2. The bugs / worms / fungus that are breaking down the old wood are using as much O2 as the trees are producing, so the actual amount of carbon doesn't change any more. 

It's arguably better to harvest the logs, and then tie the carbon up in buildings (rather than plastic / steel etc) Or even burn the wood (firewood or power station) instead of using coal or natural gas. Burning the wood only releases the CO2 that was going to escape as the tree rotted (or burnt in a forest fire) 

So I don't see "Carbon Farming" as any long term solution, especially if you are claiming to do it with an established forest

Forests regenerate pretty well up here, in fact lots of money spend reforesting on sites already coming back with regen. Does it make sense to plant a black spruce beside a natural red spruce, then come along with a clearing saw and cut all them surplus spruce? Spend more money on the thinning and less on the planting maybe? :D I mean, the trees before were a mix, and all that wood made money (unless rotten). Hardwood is worth as much or more than softwood. ;D

Volcanos emit massive ammounts of CO2. There are vents deep in the bottom of the ocean that emit CO2 and have been doing so since day one. There are communities  of life forms that live in those vents. It takes a long time for them to evolve. I suspect that all these "solutions" to increasing CO2 cannot stop the rising levels of CO2. IMHO

The only solution I've seen that makes any sense to me is for foresters in northern virginia to be paid simply ludicrous amounts to preserve a few thousand acres of nice forest and plant several thousand trees.  Really, just simply ludicrous amounts of money for some foresters in northern va.  That money will be made from carbon (paper), the forester will sequester this money in his mattress thus locking it up until there is a sale on a Tesla cybertruck.  Need to lock up more Co2 ?  Just send more $ to the forester and he'll buy a bigger mattress.  

See i told you it was a crisis.  Hes not the only scientist who really, really needs a tesla.  Im sure more than a few will get theirs from pulling the carbon out of distant wallets. 

;D

One shall not utter the words "I don't know" or "I was wrong", IF you hold a PHD. :D

James Randi Lecture @ Caltech -a word on PHDs - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0uF-G88BGc)

Not a PhD. and I often "don't know", but I do enjoy getting paid for telling a landowner - especially a guv'mnt agency - how much carbon that they have, where it is, and how it's arranged. I do try diligently to be not wrong, admit when I am, and am willing to change my mind in light of new information. 

I also enjoy discussing, for a fee, how they can manage their land to rearrange that carbon to their benefit. If they choose to view that carbon as metric tonnes, board feet, cubic meters, or fuel load, we can discuss options. I'm unit agnostic, and price conscious. If these data stand as a base line to compare to future changes, I consider that good information. 

I stand on the backs of PhDs and their research to fuel these discussions with the most accurate science. I am grateful for their interest and understanding of topics that I have neither the time, interest, nor intellect to pursue.

For example, wrote a plan for a small landowner who was interested in creating stand structure to encourage specific birds. Their interest was photography. Following a standard inventory including bird counts,  I referenced the best available research on bird habitat requirements to draft a suitable plan. They are arranging their carbon into bird habitat / photographic opportunities, timber, firewood, mushroom logs, black cohosh, and maple syrup. 

I have only had contact with one consumer / small landowner facing carbon marketer. They have never responded to my inquiries. Apparently they don't believe they can make money in the carbon market either. In contrast, timber buyers and real estate agent always respond.

I just got my copy of National Woodlands, a Magazine of the National Woodland Owners Association.  There was an article regarding BP acquiring a majority stake in the largest U.S. forest carbon offset developer, Finite Carbon.  The article went on to say that smaller landowners could now enroll in a one year "carbon rental" program where smaller landowner's parcels are "bundled" into large contracts at reduced financial returns.  This is an annual program with no fees and no long term (100 year) commitment. 

Personally I am pessimistic and do not believe that anything will come of it but I submitted my property for consideration for enrollment.  The website for enrollment is:  ncapx.com

If you never heard of James Randi, you might take that video the wrong way. He has these examples with some humor mixed in to show how easily anyone can be fooled. And he personally was involved in two lengthy experiments, the most famous one involved Penn and Teller when they were much younger. I believe it was with scientists who believed strongly in ESP, they took it hook line and sinker. These are the kinds of things he revealed to the public all his life. But people still have a strong urge to believe, even when shown that it most likely isn't true. He found the media was just as bad as the hoaxsters, they say/video anything to please the sponsors. Even when they know it is nonesense. Randi passed away last October, old age. Thank goodness for the Randi s in the world. ;D Randi had real respect for science and scientists some of them a lot more than others. ;)  Dowsing was a big experiment he did a few years ago to, they all failed the test. And folks, when dowsing for water, it's all around us. I can throw a stick in any direction, dig a well and high probability to have water. The US military paid $1000's for a box with a 70's TV remote circuitry with no connections and a TV antenna to locate IED's, used like a dowsing rod. I bet the media never reported that. ;) Lots of men killed using them. Oh they found the bomb, when it blew them up. ::)  'Shaking my head'. Look up ideomotor response. ;) There's lots of ways to make money, if you can convince the client he's getting a benefit. :D

Im failing wrap my head around the BP carbon rental thing.  It seems to me a hoax designed to transfer wealth. 

I totally agree that it is smoke and mirrors to get grants, etc. same as several of our "free" energy sources.  I submitted my application to see what happens next, but it won't be $$$ for me.

My trees will use/produce the same nutrients whether they are sequestered or not.

Grass lands or productive farm land removes more carbon then the 'Longs of the world' amazon does. A jungle is carbon natural at best.

It's a racket so the rich can get richer and they can have a bunch of smuchs pay for it by thinking they are getting a good deal. You know what that land will be worth in 50 years or 75 years...... or even in 25 years. or even better yet how government will change the rules on the contract or who (large entity with endless lawyers) ever it was signed with. Just like the credit card company will change the 'user' agreement whether you like it or not.

Don't walk away. Don't run away. Sprint away as fast as you can.......

You really think you'll be able to harvest any wood from 'your' forests if you sign up? Even for small harvests?

My 346 acres equals 115 acres of "Deferral Credits" so I made a bid to defer any timber harvest for one year.  I should know by March 8th whether my bid was accepted.  ::)

This post has me very tempted to put 40 acres of forested bog with an average peat layer of 8' in thickness up for public auction of carbon sequestration.  I think I'll hold it hostage, with the plan to harvest all timber, air dry and sell the peat for landscape mulch, and mine the underlying sand and gravel unless paid an appropriate amount to manage the property for sustainable, carbon neutral or negative, long term forest production.  I bet some wealthy bleeding hearts would climb over each other to adopt my parcel.

Holding it hostage😂 Bonus points if you have some tar sand😂

I bumped onto something interesting here in Sweden; A company who offers to convert unused open land to forest in order to create more carbon storage. A forest owner who has unused open land (old fields etc.) can apply and get $500 per hectare to do it (it's 5000 SEK, Swedish Krona, that is approximately 500 US dollars, let's keep it simple ;D). As the cost for forest planting here varies between $800 and $1500 this is more like a discount to get it done. The forest owner also have to sign an agreement to manage the new forest with aim to store as much carbon as possible for 50 years. 

The interesting part of this is that the company is run by four city boys 19-20 years old, who haven't got a clue about forestry. But they do know business as they "sell" plants to the public (city folks) for $1 per plant, incl. a GPS coordinate to show where the plant is planted. They make a deal with the forest owner to buy plants and plant them, for which he gets $500 per hectare - and pays 800 - 1500 to get it done. As the normal number of plants per hectare here is 2000 - 2500 the four lads make $2000 to $2500 per hectare minus the 500 to the forest owner!!

Well, why doesn't forestry people get such ideas?  :) :P

Quote from: Magicman on February 21, 2021, 03:14:12 PM
My 346 acres equals 115 acres of "Deferral Credits" so I made a bid to defer any timber harvest for one year.  I should know by March 8th whether my bid was accepted.  ::)

Yep, mine comes in the mail today in the form of land taxes. Hey, I defer 364 days a year. :D

Quote from: barbender on February 21, 2021, 08:50:37 PM
Holding it hostage Bonus points if you have some tar sand

I think Biden did us a favour. I never seen much benefit of exporting unrefined oil. Refining is where the money is. ;D

Quote from: Nils Jonsson on March 01, 2021, 02:32:08 AM
I bumped onto something interesting here in Sweden; A company who offers to convert unused open land to forest in order to create more carbon storage. A forest owner who has unused open land (old fields etc.) can apply and get $500 per hectare to do it (it's 5000 SEK, Swedish Krona, that is approximately 500 US dollars, let's keep it simple ;D). As the cost for forest planting here varies between $800 and $1500 this is more like a discount to get it done. The forest owner also have to sign an agreement to manage the new forest with aim to store as much carbon as possible for 50 years.

The interesting part of this is that the company is run by four city boys 19-20 years old, who haven't got a clue about forestry. But they do know business as they "sell" plants to the public (city folks) for $1 per plant, incl. a GPS coordinate to show where the plant is planted. They make a deal with the forest owner to buy plants and plant them, for which he gets $500 per hectare - and pays 800 - 1500 to get it done. As the normal number of plants per hectare here is 2000 - 2500 the four lads make $2000 to $2500 per hectare minus the 500 to the forest owner!!

Well, why doesn't forestry people get such ideas?  :) :P

Been doing that here for almost 40 years. On public and private land. But the 'contractor' gets a lot less $$/ha than you show. Since the government provides the incentives, they control what it costs. It's around CDN $1200/ha + $100 from the land owner, that includes the seedlings, planting, scarification and herbicide. There is no top up to the contractor. ;)

50 years is interesting, that's the age at which site index is compared using tree height growth. There is nothing new there, looks like someone wants to make more money at it. I, as a landowner, won't pay more for something I'm already doing. Back to the books boys. ;D

Quote from: SwampDonkey on January 20, 2021, 04:51:29 AM
I have only seen 'organizations', such as Community Forest International, make a claim that they have sold $300,000 in carbon credits to the rest of Canada. That was off a 700 acre woodlot. That was a 'one of' as far as I have seen. There seems to be a very limited small market for it.

UPM, was a company here that continued to harvest and export wood off public land while closing down their mill they acquired from REPAP in Miramachi. They claimed over production on the market spurred the move, yet continued to harvest wood for export. ::) If they look good in one corner of the globe, they don't shine too brightly in others. :D

SwampDonkey with  a great example of Marxist's masquerading as an environmentalist will give you  carbon credits but the money that's just for their friends"

yup.  $300k of hot air.  the game is rigged and will stay that way until the public says 'no more.' 

I still believe that it is smoke & mirrors and I have not seen any $$ but my offer/bid was accepted.  Instead of $11 per acre of Harvest Deferral Credits the accepted bid was $17 per acre for 115 acres of Harvest Deferral Credits that I offered.  This is an annual program to defer any timber harvest from April 1, 2021 until March 31, 2022.

Well if that takes off it won't exactly help the lumber price issue.  

I don't think that it would/will have much affect.  120 accepted bids in 11 states, (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) is a very small amount of acreage taken out of the harvest for one year.  I have no idea what the total bid acreage was.  The bidding closed on March 8th so it's done for this year.

it does a fine job of exacerbating the cost of housing crisis while overlaid with the making a mortgage payment during covid crisis.  All coincidental i am certain. If we could only manufacture land and homes as cheap as we manufacture crises ..


So thats 2 grand spent to keep how many board feet out of the market for a year?  I am not begrudging you in any way on that at all lynn.. Just to be completely clear.  You didnt create the mess. 

My property is a very minimum of 5 years and more like 10 years away from any timber harvest/sale.  The only trees that are removed are storm felled trees for firewood.  

Gotcha.  About the only good news i see out of it is that the landowner is getting an incentive to grow trees.  Seems the retailers are the ones really winning in this lumber boom, and growers and loggers have been left behind.

Finance minister stumped when higher timber royalties suggested as revenue source | CBC News (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/opposition-province-raise-rates-1.5954987)

Oh, I never thought of that. Wanna bet?  :D

Now things are starting to happen on this subject over here in Sweden. A friend of mine, a forest owner, just made a deal with a company who wanted to rent carbon storage from him. The discussions over here are much about how the forest industry is afraid that they won't get the wood if the forest owners decide to let the forest stand, maybe getting more paid for that. The thing in my friend's case is that he already made a thinning on the site, and the next action is planned to take place in 50 years. That action will be clear-cut. 
Now he made a 30-year deal that will give him approx 800 USD per year and a hectare for the three hectare-site. That's a lot more than he can get for forestry actions. Here is an article about him (https://www.forestry.com/editorial/getting-paid-to-let-the-forest-stand-its-true-its-here/). 

Another discussion that is going on here is about the wood prices. Our industry is digging gold right now, but the forest owners don't get much of that. Lumber prices raised by over 100 percent last year, and timber prices by about 10 percent. So, many forest owners think about doing something else with their timber, like my friend here above. 

Quote from: Magicman on February 12, 2021, 09:54:57 PM
I just got my copy of National Woodlands, a Magazine of the National Woodland Owners Association.  There was an article regarding BP acquiring a majority stake in the largest U.S. forest carbon offset developer, Finite Carbon.  The article went on to say that smaller landowners could now enroll in a one year "carbon rental" program where smaller landowner's parcels are "bundled" into large contracts at reduced financial returns.  This is an annual program with no fees and no long term (100 year) commitment.  

Personally I am pessimistic and do not believe that anything will come of it but I submitted my property for consideration for enrollment.  The website for enrollment is:  ncapx.com

Magicman    I see you posted a second time that you had something like 115 acres accepted for around $17 per acre.      Did that money ever show up?   Was it convenient enough to get signed up that you did it again?

This is the report that I got on May 31st.  I filled out my payment information, EIN#, etc. and their statement was that I should receive the $1818.15  within 30 days.  

Payment amount confirmed!
NCX will disburse funds within 30 days of your Results Report delivery date via your selected payment method. We will update you when payment has been sent.
Payment amount
$1,818.15
Original contract value
$1,955

My contract for 2023 is:

Congratulations! One of your bids was matched with a buyer
Thank you for committing to reduce the harvest activity on your property for one year.
Harvest Deferral Period
April 1, 2022 - March 31, 2023
Amount you're eligible to receive when period and verification is complete:
738 harvest deferral credits × $8 per harvest deferral credit = $5,904.

To directly answer your question; no, as of yet I have not received any $$.  I am registered to attend a Mississippi State University Field Day Seminar on June 16th regarding Carbon Credits.

I will certainly report back here as this progresses.

I just got an email stating that a check for $1818.15 was mailed to me this morning, so the check is in the mail.

I'll report back with further results.

FWIW I have a friend who leases 1,600 acres to a solar company that sells the energy to Amazon - all green / carbon credit stuff.  In a nutshell he gets $1K / acre / year with a 1% increase annually, and they pay the real estate taxes.  

Some carbon pays better than other.

I could use some of that but all of my property is forest land.  At this year's rate, they will pay my property taxes while my trees grow.  This is a tremendous financial burden lifted from me.

Marty and I are registered to attend a Mississippi State University Seminar tonight regarding Carbon Credits.

Good for you MM. So far for us up in the frozen north, Trudeau collects all the carbon credits with increased taxation on fuel, which he gets a 4-1/2% increase a year. That's better than any bank rate on savings. That's fine, he's going to get a big bill next spring.  :D

Excellent, NCX says there is no acreage minimum. One year contracts. Worth looking into.  No way am I gonna log all of my land any time soon.

The way I understood it, last year only Pine forest acreage was counted.  This year the hardwood acreage is included which greatly increased my Harvest Deferral  Credits.

Quote from: Magicman on March 18, 2021, 08:23:17 PM
My property is a very minimum of 5 years and more like 10 years away from any timber harvest/sale.  The only trees that are removed are storm felled trees for firewood.  

Can you not thin your woodlot? Not being able to think would have a negative economic impact on my plans. 

Sure, that's part of a managed forest.

Yes, thinning is an important part of proper timber management.  There was no carbon credit deferral when I planted but my timber forester advised me to plant on 10-12 spacing rather than the then normal 6-8 spacing.  This would lengthen the scheduled thinning interval but it would also produce larger trees at that time.  My scheduled thinning is in 2025 so I have two more years of carbon deferral.  My decision then resulted in it being the proper decision now.

Quote from: Southside on June 16, 2022, 01:05:54 PM
FWIW I have a friend who leases 1,600 acres to a solar company that sells the energy to Amazon - all green / carbon credit stuff.  In a nutshell he gets $1K / acre / year with a 1% increase annually, and they pay the real estate taxes.  

Some carbon pays better than other.

Is he able to crop or graze anything on it? 

No, not that there is a square inch you could do so anyhow.

Quote from: IndiLina on June 16, 2022, 06:00:53 PM

Quote from: Magicman on March 18, 2021, 08:23:17 PM
My property is a very minimum of 5 years and more like 10 years away from any timber harvest/sale.  The only trees that are removed are storm felled trees for firewood.  

Can you not thin your woodlot? Not being able to think would have a negative economic impact on my plans.

I should have just looked at NCX's FAQ: 
27. How does NCX address timber maintenance, such as thinning and controlled burns?
The NCX program makes no prescriptions about specific management practices; it solely
obligates the seller to retain a certain amount of standing timber on the property. So while
a landowner is free to engage in thinning or controlled burns on the property, these
factors should be considered when submitting a bid.

Marty and I attended the presentation this evening and I was very pleased with the verification that what I was doing met their recommendations and that NCX is not a gimmick. 

NCX uses satellite imagery to determine how many Forest Harvest Deferral units is in your land parcel.  With my Pine last year my 346 acres qualified for 337 deferral credits where this year after Hardwood was added I how have 738 qualified deferral units.

This Carbon Credit Program fits very well in our property's management profile.  It will more than pay the property taxes during non-harvest periods.  After a harvest or thinning, their satellite imagery will determine the new and updated qualified harvest deferral credits.  There is no penalty for harvesting or thinning, it will just reduce the qualified deferral credits.

Quote from: Magicman on June 16, 2022, 10:07:38 PM
Marty and I attended the presentation this evening and I was very pleased with the verification that what I was doing met their recommendations and that NCX is not a gimmick.  

NCX uses satellite imagery to determine how many Forest Harvest Deferral units is in your land parcel.  With my Pine last year my 346 acres qualified for 337 deferral credits where this year after Hardwood was added I how have 738 qualified deferral units.

This Carbon Credit Program fits very well in our property's management profile.  It will more than pay the property taxes during non-harvest periods.  After a harvest or thinning, their satellite imagery will determine the new and updated qualified harvest deferral credits.  There is no penalty for harvesting or thinning, it will just reduce the qualified deferral credits.

I had avoided clicking on this thread because I had seen some reporting on fraud in the forestry carbon credit sector, but I am now glad I read this thread and thank you for sharing your experience. 

Looks to be about $5 acre per year for well forested land.
I sent in a request for a property assessment and should hear something
by Sept 1. The application took about 5 mins.
Hey, anything helps to reduce property taxes .

What have others seen that's good, bad or ugly towards the list of carbon companies which participate? A choice is implied for the land owner?
Is it a who sounds the best sort of choice or what?
I wonder how NCX does this, yet so many landowners don't know about this? I'm certain it's not well known! 
Our land is in the Tree Farm system and I'd like to think of myself as mostly up on news and such-this is the first I've seen toward an actual carbon credit opportunity I could participate in. I have read various general comments in newspapers over a long period, none were specific chance to get paid. 

The governor here created a task force on the carbon sequestration subject last year but
haven't heard any more on it but the wheels are in motion, or were. ? Or maybe Maine will wait ? 

"Created by Executive Order, the task force was recommended by "Maine Won't Wait," the state's new four-year climate action plan. The task force aims to develop a voluntary program for small-to-medium size woodland owners in Maine who want to utilize their land for long-term carbon storage, a process known as carbon sequestration."

$5 credit per acre for hardwood?  Is that the standard rate of return?  Taxes then will need to be paid on it?

Minus taxes so it will come out to $4 per acre?  It takes a lot of land to make that worthwhile, it would seem.  100 acres would return $400 dollars per year which is about the same as one medium size white oak log sold at a market low $2 per bdft.
 
Or a couple decent sized sweet gum logs.

Or am I missing something?

Based on the Homestead act law we pay half taxes to begin with since age 65. Given the reality that I am not required to file KY state income tax and we have zero income from work, my fed taxes (I do myself always) haven't been long form with adjustments to matter much for a long time. 
Do the NCX folks furnish a 1099 form for income? Do they require periodic inspections of property? 
How do timber sales affect the NCX calculations after payments been made?
Anything is better than nothing... :D 

I just hesitate doing anything with "The Man" for worries about strings attached I don't know about.  

I did some quick research on this and saw that possibly the credits could increase as the years progress, so would make more money than now, which means possibly a good investment and time to get it.  I also saw that there are brokers online who have already mapped the US and buy and sell carbon credits like real estate.  Our farm is listed on some of their maps.  They said the average credit was from $1 to $4 per acre, but may increase.

I will look more into it, I had not heard about this program for the individual before this topics, so I've got some digging to do.
   

I would be curious to know what happens when the economy stalls or the company files for bankruptcy.

Is the landowner still bound by the agreement even though payment stops? 

Guess it's good if you can get it and it fits your plan but how many times have we seen such programs in the past? 

Growing up sugar beets and 15 years later flax were going to make all the local farms rich. Two years ago around here hemp was going to make everyone a millionaire, unbelievable amounts of investment money went into that. I can show you a warehouse with 1 million lbs of the stuff an hour from here. All perfectly accounted for, all labeled, climate controlled, $17K a month storage cost, all two year old crop, the only millionaires in the deal are the ones who started off as multi millionaires two years ago. 

One year contracts through NCX. To renew or not annually is the land owners option.
Getting paid to grow trees instead of
cut them is a fairly new concept.
Sure there is more money in cutting them 
than growing them. 
There isn't much $ in it for me or other small woodlot owners but 
I'm curious what they would pay to grow instead of cut preferring to
have a park like woodlot to walk around in .
Some more fairly recent background info on this particular Co. FWIW

Marc Benioff backs NCX, start-up using satellites to count trees (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/02/marc-benioff-backs-ncx-start-up-using-satellites-to-count-trees-.html)

Carbon credits have been around for several years (20+ maybe?). Usually ends up the landowner is the one who doesn't get paid. 

Being as MM is receiving a check to cash is the first inkling I've heard of that it might work on behalf of the landowner. 

Quote from: YellowHammer on June 19, 2022, 08:12:58 AM$5 credit per acre for hardwood?

No, it is not acres but "Harvest Deferral Credits".  I have 346 total acres and this year mine figured @ 738 HDC's X $8 = $5904.  

Last year it was Pine acres only and I only have about 30 Pine acres which figured @ 115 HDC's X $17 = $1955, net $1818.15.  Pine produces more HDC's than Hardwood.

As previously mentioned this is a yearly contract to not harvest and to get out, you simply do not enroll.  I am content to sell the HDC's during non or deferred harvest years.  

Quote from: beenthere on June 19, 2022, 04:25:12 PM
Carbon credits have been around for several years (20+ maybe?). Usually ends up the landowner is the one who doesn't get paid.

Being as MM is receiving a check to cash is the first inkling I've heard of that it might work on behalf of the landowner.

That was my point. I've read about carbon credits for years but never has any actual choice presented itself to follow up on.
 Our mature hardwood timber would logically be harvested now, not later. One reality of my area is that it's becoming a forested destination unlike the more populated ones in the Big Smokies that were invaded long ways back and my heirs will see far more value to keep or sell this land if it still has large timber. The practice by large mill owners here is to buy & log a plot, let it rest a couple years then sell it to someone as a home location or hunting acreage. 
Only in the past several years have there been serious, well designed forest rental properties built here. Before they were poorly done and ruined their locales with too densely built, crappy cabins.
 
In the coal fields of KY nearly all land of any real size is owned by steel, timber or coal, or other energy companies. Books have been written about the "broad form deeds" that made that happen. Years ago I interviewed for a job at a KY coal field community college and the president asked me what our personal plans were there. I told him we hoped to buy acreage and build a home on forested land. He went on to tell me that Southeast CC was located on the largest parcel of land (90 acres) in the entire county, not owned by an outside corporation, so our hope of a homestead spot were unlikely to bear fruit there.   

I am glad to see MM getting some money out of the deal.  I went and read their website, basically you get paid after they verify you didn't log your parcel for the period it was in the program.  In the big picture - the whole carbon storage / credit thing - if you think about it that really does not make any difference.  

Take a timber company that owns 1 million acres, 30 year rotation, so they harvest 30K acres a year - using round numbers here excluding thinnings just to make it easy numbers wise.  They were not going to harvest the other 970K acres that year anyway - so how much extra carbon is actually stored / offset anyway?  Zero, since those trees grew the same way they would have and will be harvested on the same schedule as they would have anyway.  

Like I said I am glad it worked out for those who signed up but in the end can't help but think it's really a scam or Ponzi scheme and will come unglued at some point.  

I have this feeling that if you scratch deep enough you will find a tax payer subsidizing this scheme
I am glad for MM he got some $$
Cheers
Al 

Very correct, it is not necessarily a scam but sorta like a shell game.  Our industries produce an amount of pollution.  Our forest intake an amount of carbon dioxide and produce an amount of oxygen.  Nothing changes.  In order for the industries to operate and satisfy the "greenies" they are being required to prove that they are taking care of the environment by off setting their pollution.  Industries' payment for Harvest Deferral Credits satisfies the "greenies" that they are being properly punished for their sins against the environment and everyone is satisfied.  

Land owners are simply providing the catalyst to make it work and getting paid for their participation.  SilviaTerra (which became NCX) came along and provided a way to gather these parcels of timberland without long term leases, verify and prove the timbered acreage by satellite imagery, and handle the bidding of these acres of timberland. 

I saw SilviaTerra's advertisement on the back cover of the Winter, 2021 National Woodlands magazine and responded.  It just so happens that that (Tom) signup was their first cycle of operation so I am sorta a charter member.

Looks like they figure it by the tonnage of green standing timber. 
Been trying to wrap my head around how they calculate Harvest Defferal Credits.
Some highlights cherry picked from this article:

https://agfax.com/2021/10/18/mississippi-emerging-carbon-offset-market-may-benefit-state/

"The most recent annual payments ranged from $15 to $70 per acre for marketable timber where harvest was deferred for one year."
"Interested landowners are able to submit their acreage for consideration at no cost or commitment. NCX determines how many harvest deferral credits the landowner possesses on their property, with typically 25 green tons being equal to one harvest deferral credit, Tanger said."
"If they then choose to participate, landowners specify the amount per harvest deferral credit they are willing to accept in return for not harvesting the marketable timber for one year in a bid process," Tanger said. "If their prices are at or below the 'market-clearing' price for the auction, then all of their deferral units will be purchased and the landowner will be paid at the end of the contracted period."

Quote from: kantuckid on June 20, 2022, 07:32:20 AM

Quote from: beenthere on June 19, 2022, 04:25:12 PM
Carbon credits have been around for several years (20+ maybe?). Usually ends up the landowner is the one who doesn't get paid.

Being as MM is receiving a check to cash is the first inkling I've heard of that it might work on behalf of the landowner.

That was my point. I've read about carbon credits for years but never has any actual choice presented itself to follow up on.
Our mature hardwood timber would logically be harvested now, not later. One reality of my area is that it's becoming a forested destination unlike the more populated ones in the Big Smokies that were invaded long ways back and my heirs will see far more value to keep or sell this land if it still has large timber. The practice by large mill owners here is to buy & log a plot, let it rest a couple years then sell it to someone as a home location or hunting acreage.
Only in the past several years have there been serious, well designed forest rental properties built here. Before they were poorly done and ruined their locales with too densely built, crappy cabins.

In the coal fields of KY nearly all land of any real size is owned by steel, timber or coal, or other energy companies. Books have been written about the "broad form deeds" that made that happen. Years ago I interviewed for a job at a KY coal field community college and the president asked me what our personal plans were there. I told him we hoped to buy acreage and build a home on forested land. He went on to tell me that Southeast CC was located on the largest parcel of land (90 acres) in the entire county, not owned by an outside corporation, so our hope of a homestead spot were unlikely to bear fruit there.  

Yes the need to keep larger trees is a huge challenge for our work here.  Asset value is why we can't do large clearcuts, a clearcut in our area is in effect an asset sale- not something that creates income.  The land can cost up to 10k or even 20k an acre so a a 2-3k/acre check when the asset falls $4-6k an acre is a net loss.  So, we have been teaching ourselves how  to perform selective harvest: how to ensure regeneration (down to using photometers), what species stump sprout and when  to what size, how to cut mini clearcuts, data logging everything, etc etc. 
The key point for us has been to move from one off harvest contracts to a 30 year contract that aligns our interest with the interest of the landowners- lets us do selective harvest and know we get to do the next harvest.   Not sure if someone there would do the same or not.  
The harvest we are currently performing should be releasing thousands of YP seedlings right about now, so far few of those and thousands of ailanthus.  We'll see what happens but if we don't see YP showing up in the next two weeks we'll need to book some herbicide work and be ready to reseed.  

How is the process initiated?

Robert, go to the NCX website.

Yippee !!

(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/20011/IMG_2521~0.JPG?easyrotate_cache=1655929738)
 
Here is a copy of my first check for 115 (Pine) Harvest Deferral Units X $17 per unit = $1,955 net $1,818.15.

This year Hardwood was included and mine figured @ 738 HDC's X $8 = $5904.  

My aunt just got her ailing boyfriend's land into this, a little over $1000 a year to not cut his 80+ acres, through TNC, paid annually over the 20 year contract. I looked into it and saw this article that puts it out for a scam https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-nature-conservancy-carbon-offsets-trees/ (https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-nature-conservancy-carbon-offsets-trees/)
I guess I'd have to think pretty hard about the kind of person it d make me accepting their dirty money. I guess in the end I don't owe being honest to sleazy JP Morgan or Disney either, but probably don't need their free money bad enough to hop through the loops. Like e currency, it's clear it's out there and gonna be a way to make money, but I prefer to work for it.

Carbon credits are in the news of recent. Much of it is over way my head but I do get the basic concept, just not the economics beyond that. 
Google "Carbon credits in the media" and you'll see many dealers and much discussion in agribusiness forums.
  
 It's a big time business now days as major corporations jockey for credits. I signed up with NCX and was told to wait until fall for more info by. 
I'm now curious if there is some benefit to shopping my carbon credits to other buyers?
 We have only a small land parcel but if I owned many acres, I'd be looking around for sure!
These carbon dealers are doing just that with these credits they acquire from we forest owners. 
Makes me realize the major corporations might shop for credits themselves vs. a middleman like NCX?  

How is this a scam? 

Like Magicman said, more of a shell game.  Were you going to clear cut your timber this year?  If no then there really was zero carbon sequestered as a result of selling the credits.  I highly doubt $10 / acre is going to prevent a single tree from being harvested when the owner decides to timber the ground, so scam or shell game, or whatever you want to call it.  Someone is paying $ to someone else can feel good about themselves at the end of the day.  

I think it's about more than feeling good (or wokeness) for corporations or investors who use tax law to make business decisions. But I get your points as to a shell game as well.
Google: Wall Street Journal Carbon credit articles-there are two major articles in the past week. Talks about investors in that market and much, much more than I can explain.

It reminds me of the whole Crypto market. Read an article last week and one of the leaders came right out and say that's a Ponzi scheme where "value" is invented out of thin air.

I think I will stick to growing and making items folks can actually eat and use. 

All of VT, parts of NY, and certain counties in MA just opened up this type of cost paying for carbon in two different ways. One is a certain harvesting plan and the other by not harvesting for 20 years (both are 20 year plans). In each case harvesting firewood for personal use is still allowed. $150 - $300 per acre

Family Forest Carbon Program (https://familyforestcarbon.org/enroll-your-land/regions/northeast/)

I am looking into it also, I give enough money to the Fed and State to not try to get some back due to over regulation.  It's like wetlands, CRP and all those other games.  "They" put the rules in place, and I have no problem playing by their rules.  As others have said, if it covers my taxes for doing nothing, as they take my tax money for doing nothing, then that makes me smile.  Not looking into it is like me telling my tax guy I don't want him to take a deduction because I think it's stupid.  If it's legal, then I'm going to pursue it.  I'm seeing various lengths of contacts, from one year to much longer.   

I also like the irony of being a "green" and environmentally friendly sawmill who helps save the whole world by not cutting trees on my property.

I won't jump until I do some more investigating, but I have found that our farm has already been satellite surveyed and marked.  When did they do that?  I don't know, but the wetlands exchange program has been in effect for many decades and it's basically the exact same thing, except for ducks.    

As far as crypto currency, I've seen several articles where the belly fell out from under it recently, it's on the decline.

What's funny is a couple (the wife wrote for Forbes magazine about cyber security and how to prevent crypto-fraud), together they heisted 4.5B in bitcoin. The wife was a real whacko, she has lots of videos that were suppose to be rap music, NOT!! :D :D

Then there is the One Coin queen who scammed 15B and disappeared from the face of the earth. :D

Then the guy that scammed 45B with 'stable coin'.

If whoever wants to send me $1818 for last year and $5904 next year for not harvesting trees that I may not have harvested anyway, then send the check.  I have nothing invested and this is a year by year contract.

Without reading into all of the stuff I understand NCX is paying the landowner but who is paying NCX?? Are they getting paid from the government?

Quote from: Magicman on June 22, 2022, 04:41:12 PM
Robert, go to the NCX website.

Yippee !!

(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/20011/IMG_2521~0.JPG?easyrotate_cache=1655929738)
 
Here is a copy of my first check for 115 (Pine) Harvest Deferral Units X $17 per unit = $1,955 net $1,818.15.

This year Hardwood was included and mine figured @ 738 HDC's X $8 = $5904.  

Hope you read everything in the fine print and they didn't lay any form of claim against your land in anyway since they paid you and you cashed the check 

NCX sells the credits on the open market to large corporations who have onerous government regulations to contend with.  As long as they can procure the credits at a price less than what it costs for them to change operations or less than the fines levied, they buy them.  NCX can calculate their value, secures them from you and brokers them at a hefty profit.  The logic behind how they are created is in regards to sustainability, not increasing carbon sinks.

What sometimes gets missed is that even though the trees wont be cut down anyway, each year they soak up the carbon dioxide.  This absorption is what you are selling.  Corporations claim this absorption to offset their emissions.  

I think it's (somewhat) important to see where and how the government and corporations are and are not linked in this. If you sell your carbon credits because "the man" taxes  you, it's not your tax money you're getting paid back with, rather, as rustic retreater notes, it likely comes from a corporation who is getting their arm wrung (by the gov.) as a way to get them to go green or pay up.

I don't like it mostly because it's useless. Most woods receiving these funds weren't gonna harvest anyways, so they're not actually creating any "new" carbon sinks, which is what they purport to be selling, not the carbon or ups are already going up regardless.

 Whether or not you want to accept the money they're squeezing out of the big guys is then a personal choice, I don't care for them, but it's not worth enough for me to go out of my way for it at this point.

I've got no love for the big corporations paying the money, most likely they are the ones who lobbied to have the carbon credit exchange scheme in place to begin with.  I guarantee they are not losing money on these deals, they are prospering.  

I liken it very similarly to wetlands management.  Years ago we were about to buy a decent sized hunk of land for future sale as a subdivision.  However, about 10 acres were a swampy mess, and supposedly we couldn't touch it, because it had been classed as a wetlands by the government.  We couldn't do anything with it, and calling it a wetlands was a joke, as it was a low swamp hole between several existing subdivisions.  A duck had not landed on it in a decade or two, and it dried up in the summer anyhow, so even the frogs died during the summer, I assume.  Well, that 10 acre untouchable piece killed the whole deal for us, we didn't buy it, and moved on.

Years later, we drove though the area and there were houses and fences, sidewalks, and streets popping up.  I knew the developer and asked him how in the world they got around the wetlands issues.  He laughed and said they did a wetlands exchange, or drain one swamp because they bought equivalent value acres of swamp somewhere else.  Buy a swamp, drain it, put up quarter million dollar houses, and offset that by purchasing equal acres of inexpensive swamp somewhere else.  Then drain that one, put up more houses, make a ton of money, and do a wetlands exchange for another worthless swamp.  Basically, a way to get land real cheap, and later sell with houses on it, all the while purchasing a future swamp cheap to turn into a subdivision.

I bet a similar thing is going on here, the government put some laws in place with little thought, the big corps lobbied for this strategy, and now they can do this.  They are not losing money on it, I bet they are paying fair value to them, as I guarantee they are getting windfalls and "green dollars" from the exchange, and to them its good business, because they would rather pay these credits on parcels of land they don't operating on vs land land they perceive as more beneficial to their corporation.  I would say that it's a safe bet that they are not losing money at all, but conversely, they are using this as an acquisition strategy, just like the wetlands example.

My only surprise is that some of the contracts are only 1 year long, as that is really too short of a time for a big corporation to do a real acquisition strategy, so it tells me they are buying and selling these shorter contracts as surplus or in excess of what they really need to offset their true government requirements.  Basically, they are marketing these shorter contracts as "bonus" parcels to be stockpiled for futures offsets.  

This is just speculation on my part, but I've been in government long enough to see how these things work, and this smells the same as other things I've seen.

Anyway, I'm sure Magicman (https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?action=profile;u=10011) has done his homework on this, and looked at the fine print on the contract.  Also, I haven't seen anything to suggest there are hidden liens on the contracts I've looked at so far.  There is a lot to unpack here, however, and I would also assume that as "green Earth" becomes more the mantra, the contracts will only increase in value in the future.  Government regulations do not away, so this is most likely a long haul program.

I think there is also a landowner perception issue, as just because someone doesn't plan to harvest trees or disturb the carbon production on their land doesn't mean that land is valueless to others, it just means that particular value was unrecognized until now.            

Quote from: Prizl tha Chizl on July 26, 2022, 04:13:07 AM
I think it's (somewhat) important to see where and how the government and corporations are and are not linked in this. If you sell your carbon credits because "the man" taxes  you, it's not your tax money you're getting paid back with, rather, as rustic retreater notes, it likely comes from a corporation who is getting their arm wrung (by the gov.) as a way to get them to go green or pay up.

I don't like it mostly because it's useless. Most woods receiving these funds weren't gonna harvest anyways, so they're not actually creating any "new" carbon sinks, which is what they purport to be selling, not the carbon or ups are already going up regardless.

Whether or not you want to accept the money they're squeezing out of the big guys is then a personal choice, I don't care for them, but it's not worth enough for me to go out of my way for it at this point.

I mostly agree with you, but like Magicman I'll gladly take the money even though the "scheme" is a woke joke and more than I can say here.
I didn't go "out of my way" as long as what I've had to say in this thread took to type :D few minutes on the NCX website plotting our land parcel from Google earth. I'm sure it's taxable income when you cash the check. making the business into something larger than it is, that's silly. It's silly enough on it's own lack of overall merit?
The VT plan above sounds like it's more (sort of) forestry based but also the result of who moves to VT from NYC, etc..
IMO: The plan came about through negotiations as a means to negate what the government dictates to corporations r.e., emissions. Those same laws or executive orders are an effect on much that American business lives with. Guess why certain power plants can only operate for certain lengths of time while brownouts are predicted as we speak. The alternative to having large corporations is seen in China under Communism, is that a great alternative? 

I am curious what happens in the VT program when land trades hands through sale, inheritance, etc. Do the restrictions remain? Will this increase housing pressure on urban areas? Will it increase harvest pressure on non enrolled stands? Law of unintended consequences, 20 years is a long time. 

Great question as it infers the potential influence of the many "outsiders" who have and are still moving into New England states. In Ky, the ominous mineral rights ownership issues of the past still remain, long after books like, "Night Comes to the Cumberlands" told the evils of the Broad Form Deed which tied up mineral rights and sometimes timber rights on much of the Appalachian lands. 
Protecting our forests is great if it doesn't mean loss of individual property rights. My county land area is 58% national forest so much is already locked up here by the government. 
I wonder if the loss of coal severance taxes in Appalachia will lead to something involving carbon credits? In a manner of speaking it already does since much of our timber is owned by the same folks (steel & coal & timber companies) who still own the minerals rights and much of the land here, along with the government. Can politicians (who are always seeking more money) find a way to sell carbon credits from taxpayer owned forests is yet another question. 
As we who've paid the taxes on our land for nearly a half century-we'll gladly take the carbon credits money! I see it as sort of a tax refund. 

I wonder if at some time the government can "appropriate" the carbon credits of privately owned land? 

I'd answer yes, in a manner of speaking, based on they are who created the laws/regs that made them become an "item" to begin with. Back when our government was not broke, they "acquired" lots of private lands. I guess some would argue that we all own lots of carbon credits via public lands. 
 
Google: "Can the government appropriate private land?" and the answer will be eminent domain. Reminds me of back in KS when the Corps of Eng. began to build lakes all over and some people refused to leave their homes & farms. Same for the Interstate hwy system. Also happened when the dam building took place during the depression.  

Just got my carbon credit evaluation from NCX.
22 Acres dense forest worth 37 credits @ going rate of $9- 9.50 per credit. 
Is a decent pay back for not cutting for one year seeings I'm stocked up on firewood for almost 3 years.
All that 30 yrs. of forest management may pay off after all. My better half is reading the fine print now although I'm ready for the property tax break of $300-350 yr throwing that money at it..

I got my evaluation yesterday as well; 180 credits for 66 acres of young lob-ly pine and mixed hardwoods in the NC foothills. At the going rate, this will more than pay the property tax. I too am reading the fine print...this seems almost too easy.

Mine says 313 credits for 89.5 acres. I have not sent them anything yet as not time to fill it out for few days. I'm left to wonder what happens if you overprice your bid based on their averages using an aerial photo, not an actual timber cruise?

I got my credits as 313 based on 89.5 acres of forested land. I do wonder what I should bid based on their data averages from a summertime aerial view and no having done a timber cruise of my mature timber stand. I've sent them nothing so far.

The buyers use the same data that you have.  If you bid too high, then you might not get a buyer.  My bid was low and the buyer paid me more than my bid.  NCX will get the highest $$ possible for your credits because the more you get, the more they make.  It's all about the $$.

I am looking into up north. I do not see why you would not sell carbon credits for the standing timber. I realise that it might be worth more to sell the timber, but if you receive money each year for not logging, and you didn't plan on logging it seems like a great idea to pursue. Corporations take money all the time, ie: grants, and have no regrets. Look at the pandemic, government money was flowing in rivers into big corporations bank accounts, some had the best profits ever. I didn't see them saying ohhhhhhh we shouldn't do this. Nope, thy said, how do we get more!
I am a managed forest, of which all I have to do is not clear cut. I can have trails, make maple syrup, and practise good forest management.  For that I receive a tax break on my land of %70. A no brainer, the less money I give the government the better I feel. 

As to tax on forest, I'm paying next to nothing on 70 acres of fully forested land. 70% off of $27 tax isn't much kickback.  :D It was funny this spring was announced 20% tax reduction on forest land. The ill informed said those Irvings are getting $millions in kickbacks. Not even close since forest land is assessed way low to start with. :D

I signed up with NCX to give it a go.  I only have 11 acres but they said I qualified at 18 carbon credits.  They say sales are made on Thursdays and you have to have everything ready(docs) by Wednesday COB.  All online, autofilled .pdf files and Docusign signatures.

While information on the site relating to sales is sparse, they did have a summary listing of last sale price and average sale price.  It was at $9 when I submitted my offer for sale so that is what I priced at.  No sale that Thursday.

So I went back to the site and saw the average price was still $9 but the last sale was listed as $7.  So I submitted an offer at $7.  I got a sale notification on Thursday at $9!  So I am due $162.  It ain't much, but its pretty much free cash.

Also it is August but the contract is dated for October 2022 to September 2023.

That seems in order to me.  You should get paid toward the end of Dec, '23 or the first of Jan, '24.

A whole year and then some? Shucks, darn and rats!  Good timing though. Right in the christmas & tax season. Here today, gone today.

My contract is April 1st through March 31st, and my check was dated June 16th.  This was detailed beforehand and I was kept well informed. 

I got a carbon credit estimate from NCX for our acres which was broken down into 86 acres qualifying with 213 total credits available to market.
Their figures give far large carbon credits for the softwood portion which is in fact only about 6-7 acres I planted in alternating rows of pine around 1996, with the rest in mature hardwood timber. The pine is far from marketable size and the timber is quite large and valuable White, red, black and chestnut oaks with very large poplar and some ridge hickory and oak too. 
So I sent them a question as to how my very small pine plantation could yield so much more carbon capture than most of the forest acres and got a meager response saying that it is what they say it is, no real response as such. 
I got another recent message suggesting they now have far more land owners who've responded than the market to buy the credits, thus I'm wondering if I'll get anywhere near what our land might have gotten a few weeks ago when they kept sending emails to sign up. 
Sounds almost like a bait and switch as they first say $9 then only a few weeks later it's a don't expect so much email? Maybe it's the faltering economy?

I would not describe it as a "bait and switch" but more of a limited market where the supply has exceeded the demand. 

I have a good friend that dilly-dallied around sending emails trying to get the highest bid and to my knowledge his still has not sold.  This year I did the same as last year, I offered mine at the lowest bid amount ($6) and got more ($8) than my offer.

Since more and more landowners are offering their acreage, it will become a buyers market (apparently already has) and I will be satisfied if I get $2 next year.  

My submitted proposal was the current selling price at the time of $9 per credit
6 weeks ago at least. No takers yet.
For $3- 350 a year its really no big deal for me either way
but I did get a green tonnage and saw log assessment out of it so far.
They did send me a e-mail thanking me for my patience while they drum
up more buyers.

On NCX, there is currently a surplus of almost 600,000 credits listed for sale at the $7 price point. Bottom falling out of the market. 

Perhaps I poorly described my results when I sent them an email.  I was hoping for some explanation as to how my 6-7 acres of 25 yr old pines they gave me more credits than did over 12 times as much mature hardwood? What I received was more like a canned response that said nothing substantive. I realize that not all trees give the same potential but far from knowledgeable as to how they calculate the credits. 

In the interest of learning more about carbon credits I just googled: "Who buys carbon credits from forest owners?" and see that there are many facets to the topic. I've read very little but plan to give it a try next rainout day that comes along.
 One clear result was that we can offer our forests to several potential marketers besides NCX. wwwlightfootresources.com is the first hit on google. Lots to read there.  
 

Last year only Pine was accepted and this year hardwood was included.  Contrary to what you did, I had no need to understand "why?" because I was not going to change it anyway.  I quickly offered at the lowest rate and was accepted. 

As I described above, my friend spent precious time with emails and thus missed out on his offering.  I talked to him this morning and his has not sold.   

NCX, etc. is going to try for the highest bid because the higher the accepted bid the more their commission is.  Last year my net ($1818 check) was less 7% of the accepted bid ($1955).

I think my ADK hunting club (3875 acres) is using this program.
We are in a timber management program know as section 480-A of the real estate tax code.

Just curious.  Are you allowed to harvest any firewood under this program?  In light of the heating issues that we are seeing develop that might be a significant factor for some.  

It dropped from selling at $9 to $7 per credit pretty quick. 
Just cancelled my offer. 
Not worth having my hands tied and chainsaws sitting idle for a little 
over a couple hundred dollars a year. 
Its still a viable option for people with substantial acreage though.

Jim, I would say it would depend upon the significance (amount) whether it qualified as a "timber harvest".  Personally I have enough weather blow-downs to greatly exceed my firewood needs plus much more that rots in the woods.

But I did not answer your question.  ::)

Quote from: Magicman on September 18, 2022, 02:07:19 PM
Last year only Pine was accepted and this year hardwood was included.  Contrary to what you did, I had no need to understand "why?" because I was not going to change it anyway.  I quickly offered at the lowest rate and was accepted.  

As I described above, my friend spent precious time with emails and thus missed out on his offering.  I talked to him this morning and his has not sold.    

NCX, etc. is going to try for the highest bid because the higher the accepted bid the more their commission is.  Last year my net ($1818 check) was less 7% of the accepted bid ($1955).

I am saying I was curious is all that mattered in my asking, nothing toward being stiffed by them, or me changing anything, it just didn't make any sense  to me based on the forest areas trees, so I asked. And their response didn't address my question at all-again I'll say it seemed like a canned email response-not that I'm the least bit angry. I am not a bitch & moan person, just curious and the kid who always had his hand up.
"Missing out" was also nothing I had given any thought towards as I have had no sense of a precious hurry up, even though that sounds like the reality of the bidding.
With respect to timing, as I filled out the application for yet another carbon credits organization (Forest Carbon Works), they asked me what my timeline was and I answered, "I have no timeline". It makes obvious sense they'll go for the money but knowing how they calculate it was my question. Money, I like it OK too.  :D
The most recent application I did to the other guys was a more thorough questionnaire/application. I may look some more to see what I can learn.

Quote from: Magicman on June 10, 2022, 04:26:09 PMMy contract for 2023 is: Congratulations! One of your bids was matched with a buyer Thank you for committing to reduce the harvest activity on your property for one year. Harvest Deferral Period; April 1, 2022 - March 31, 2023.  The amount you're eligible to receive when period and verification is complete: 738 harvest deferral credits × $8 per harvest deferral credit = $5,904.

My 2023 "Carbon" check came in the mail today:

(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/20011/IMG_4229.JPG?easyrotate_cache=1687282508)
 Their "adjustment" changed the amount paid from $5904 to $6184.

NCX had already notified me that there would be no offering for me for year 2023.  It's supply and demand so those landowners that were not able to participate in 2022 are getting their opportunity this year.  I'll just wait and see what happens in 2024, but if I get an offer I will respond. 

At least I have gotten a total of $8002 for 2021 & 2022 which has almost paid the land taxes on the tree farm.  ;D

As mother would say: "Keep them cheques coming". ;D

I had a reply but bits of it were to snarky for this section, I am really glad you are benefiting from this program MM... :)

I could also write a very opinionated snarky reply describing how I really feel about this program and it's benefits, but as it is, I will continue to cash the checks as long as they send them.  Matter of fact I almost stated my opinion several times within the pages of this topic.

"Not harvesting trees" is sorta like "not growing cotton".  ::)

Glad to hear they paid you. At the same time I can hear an '80s song about moving microwave ovens and MTV playing in the background.  :D

MM what we all with sawmills should get is a tax credit for the amount of we saw,  as we sequester carbon when we saw wood. New trees will grow in their place and sequester more carbon. 

Just as information, this is income to the tree farm L.P. as is all of my sawmilling since the tree farm LP also owns the sawmill which is an LLC.

Quote from: kantuckid on September 19, 2022, 08:58:36 AM

Quote from: Magicman on September 18, 2022, 02:07:19 PM
Last year only Pine was accepted and this year hardwood was included.  Contrary to what you did, I had no need to understand "why?" because I was not going to change it anyway.  I quickly offered at the lowest rate and was accepted.  

As I described above, my friend spent precious time with emails and thus missed out on his offering.  I talked to him this morning and his has not sold.    

NCX, etc. is going to try for the highest bid because the higher the accepted bid the more their commission is.  Last year my net ($1818 check) was less 7% of the accepted bid ($1955).

I am saying I was curious is all that mattered in my asking, nothing toward being stiffed by them, or me changing anything, it just didn't make any sense  to me based on the forest areas trees, so I asked. And their response didn't address my question at all-again I'll say it seemed like a canned email response-not that I'm the least bit angry. I am not a bitch & moan person, just curious and the kid who always had his hand up.
"Missing out" was also nothing I had given any thought towards as I have had no sense of a precious hurry up, even though that sounds like the reality of the bidding.
With respect to timing, as I filled out the application for yet another carbon credits organization (Forest Carbon Works), they asked me what my timeline was and I answered, "I have no timeline". It makes obvious sense they'll go for the money but knowing how they calculate it was my question. Money, I like it OK too.  :D
The most recent application I did to the other guys was a more thorough questionnaire/application. I may look some more to see what I can learn.

The offer from Forest Carbon Works was so low I didn't even respond. With much stricter and longer commitments required.   
Rough experience with them. They sent some gal student from a college in the state to inventory 310 acres and her and her partner left in the middle of the night from camping on my land because 'the locals were making intimidating sounds'. 

Old time music can come across as different to an uneducated ear.

As I posted earlier my ADK club is getting carbon sequester credits, but in what form I dont know and  how many $ it amounts to.
Our annual meeting is in August and Ill know more then.
The tax deferment program we are enrolled in requires periodic forest product harvests, so I am suspecting a conflict between the 2 programs.

Here is some news on the subject from the EU (European Union). Carbon storage is not the only "service" forest owners should get paid for according to the EU. They have presented a list of financial values for things like biodiversity, recreation, and water quality, apart from carbon storage. 
When reading this (https://nordicwoodjournal.com/editorial/getting-paid-for-ecosystem-services-what-about-the-water/), water seems to be the next moneymaker for forest owners. But - we have to bear in mind that this is just a proposal so far. 
Here in Sweden where I live, the forest industry is very strong and they will do all they can to stop anything that can jeopardize their raw material flows or increase timber prices. So, I think it's still far away. On the other hand, I thought so too about getting paid for carbon storage. 
Exciting it is ... 

There is a big controversy in Northern NH regarding this. A large block of former paper company land in the area at one point came up for sale and the concern was that the land would be cut up for development and taken out of forestry production as it supported a lot of jobs. A grand bargain was made at one point where the state and private conservation groups bought it and conserved the most valuable lands and then remainer was protected from development via easements and then the land was sold to Lyme Timber to continue to manage as forestlands under sustainable forest managment practices. Lyme Timber just sold to land to new company that specializes in selling carbon credits and has informed all the logging firms that their contract are canceled and presumably there will no longer be cutting on the land. The local sawmills are already seeing the shortage of wood. 

At some point I'm guessing they harvest and pick up a credit for not letting the carbon rot and release to air, and the builder picks up a carbon credit for putting a roof over the carbon, the framing.

and we pretend the problem has been "solved".

On the timber shortages -- Not sure about Northern NH but Northern VT and Northern NY have been absolutely hammered this summer with rain, not only is it incredibly wet in the woods which slows/stops harvests, large numbers of gravel and even paved roads were severely damaged and need repair before transportation can happen. We have a member in NE VT that reported very low amounts of logs in the yard he sells to and the situation is the same here for me in NNY. Not saying a large amount of land being taken out of rotation isn't contributing to shortages in your area but to the west of you it's not a shortage just a slowdown.

With the inch of rain last night, that's almost 6" in a week. In the woods where I walk and swing a clearing saw, there is water where there usually isn't any except April or November.

Found an article about it From a NC Working Forest to a 146,000 Acre Carbon Credit Farm? NH Seeks Plans From New Owner  - InDepthNH.orgInDepthNH.org (https://indepthnh.org/2023/08/03/from-a-north-country-working-forest-to-a-146000-acre-carbon-credit-farm-nh-seeks-plans-from-new-owner/)


Live free or die! Wait no not like that!!!! :D :D :)

Seems like some folks are mad because the state paid for a "conservation easement" on the land a few decades ago and think it should always be industrial timber land even though timber harvesting was not stipulated as a requirement in the contract?

I don't like it when people tell me what to do with my land, either.

It's all about money and greed. ::)

Forest products companies sealed their fate when they divested their timberlands. Executives collected bonuses and stock options for fiduciary malfeasance. 

I remember when the Mead CEO announced in corporate report that there would be world wide fiber shortage in 20 or 30 years and Mead would ensire long term growth by owning all the timberlands they needed for the long term. About a year later he was out the door and they sold most of their timberlands and put them under long term timber supply contracts. Mead is lot smaller than it used to be these days. 

Most I am familiar with dumped the acreage for deep discounts to its true retail. Didn't get anything close to its true value. Frist thing the new owners do after high grading the SMZs is call the surveyor and auctioneer.

Mill ground doesn't sell for much around here, averaging $250/acre for large tracts. I know one buyer who thought it would be a chance to sell camp lots. Never worked out. He got a nature trust outfit to buy him out for 4x what he paid. Only standing timber was along riparian edge, with a lot of that blown down. It's 100% treed, but not mature enough to harvest wood. Used to be riparian roads that followed the main creek for miles. Never maintained for years, all grew up. In a lot of places the ones keeping them old roads maintained these days are trail clubs, which get mostly government money and what ever they can spare from trail pass money. I see camp lots have sprung up along rivers in recent years where you're not allow to fish or require a crown reserve license.

Had our meeting last Saturday
We received $4,800 + for our 3,800 acres.
It seems-this program has gone away.

A giant Oregon fire shows the limits of carbon offsets in fighting climate change.
 
This might be of interest. It's complicated!
 
To help counter their greenhouse gas pollution, Microsoft and other companies invested millions in a project to store more carbon in Southern Oregon trees. 

The 2021 Bootleg Fire upended that plan.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/a-giant-oregon-fire-shows-the-limits-of-carbon-offsets-in-fighting-climate-change/ (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/a-giant-oregon-fire-shows-the-limits-of-carbon-offsets-in-fighting-climate-change/)