Certification and $$$$$$$

[jim king]

Has anyone had the experience or heard of anyone being paid more for certified  lumber ??

[Fla._Deadheader]

All I can offer, is, there are many lumber marketing sites out there, that seem to cater only to "Certified lumber" suppliers.  As you stated, Fake outfits, "Save the Forest" types, have put a big dent in "tropical" lumber sales. That's part of why I was in contact with you, about Marketing ???

[SwampDonkey]

Has anyone had the experience or heard of anyone being paid more for certified  lumber ??

Not even a dime more and that is the way they have pushed these certification schemes. Don't expect more on price, just expect a market for your wood and we don't even guarantee that.  :-\

[MemphisLogger]

It's immediate-demand driven--if a contractor has been spec'd by his client to use certified, then a premium will be paid to get the material in hand to meet deadline.

Wholesale isn't usually any higher because not a whole lot of wholesalers want to go through the requirements to inventory it.

[Ron Wenrich]

If anyone was making any extra money at it, there would be more people having their woods certified.  Either its not worth the hassle, or there isn't any appreciably larger market out there.  I know of no mills or wholesalers that have had even an inquiry about certified stock.

Tropical woods may be different.  Too many people are trying to tell you how to manage your woodlots while they can't even manage their own.

[jim king]

I certainly agree with everyones comments especially with the various recent scandals involving the big ones about corrupt certifications.

Here in Loreto State of Peru we are developing our own certification program with the Government which is in self defense to stay out of jail.  If our wood does not now have a chain of custody from stump coordinates to the shipping point it is almost as if we are in the dope business and this now also applies to our buyers in the States with the amended "lacy Act" from june 2008.

It is simply an axtra cost to the end buyer that doesnt know it is built in and thinks that he has already made his contribution to the ecologists to keep them in new shoes.  If there really is inteligent life out there in the universe I wish they would lend us a hand.

[Tom]

I think that everything sold should be either legal or illegal.  All the "not" legal stuff should carry a stamp identifying it as illegal goods.  It sure would make it easier on the honest people.

[zackman1801]

"are you sure that cocaine is illegal?"
"Yep its got the stamp right there"
"sweet!"
if only it really were that easy.

[Ironwood]

Zack,

I believe they call that sarcasm. ;D

Ironwood

[crtreedude]

The only time I am asked about certification is by people who won't end up buying, or some outfit like a big box store who wishes to buy for less than I will sell for.

My feeling is that the only people who are making money on it are those who are doing the certifications.

And I sure don't need it to sell wood.  We are known for following the law and reforesting. And, the laws in Costa Rica are much more strict than the certification. You have to have a chain of ownership or MINAE will visit you someday and shut you down fast.

[zackman1801]

Zack,

I believe they call that sarcasm. ;D

Ironwood

i understood what he meant, i was just trying to be funny.

[Gary_C]

Has anyone had the experience or heard of anyone being paid more for certified  lumber ??

Yes, there are a few sawmills that have been paying occasional premiums for FSC certified wood. The premiums paid have been up to $2 per cord on certain species. I am not sure where their markets are for this wood as I believe most of what this mill produces goes into pallets and crating. They will take down to a 6" diameter log.

The paper mills do not pay any premiums for certification, although most are now requiring that all wood from certified sources be identified and chain of custody records be kept. The buyer for one large paper mill I deal with told me it has become a requirement to at least know what percent of the wood they buy comes from certified sources. And Time, Inc as the largest buyer of paper probably in the world is the source of these demands.

[Tom]

I caught the joke Zack  :D  I think ironwood was pulling your chain.  :D :D

Certification, logging rules, comments about foresters destroying the ecosystem and sawyers perpetuating the demise of Forest, as well as the liberal use of non-definable terms like Old Growth and clear cut are used by those who own no land, live in apartments in the middle of a city and don't realize that their statements are foolish.  They haven't studied, what they determine to be, the problems of the world, but only echo the yammerings of the last charismatic bandwagon driver who passed through.

Whether they will admit it or not, they still live in, and perpetuate, the throw-away society that they condemn.  Their musings are all about control, with a capital "C".  They are more concerned that things be done their way than learn what is the right way.  They have no conscience, no tact, no real sense of community, no willingness to learn, nor exhibit any control over their own ecosystem, as small as it might be.  Their rhetoric is always directed at "them", "those", "others"; always someone else or an institution.

Certification is just another means of those who are delving in economic control of others or markets for their own gain.  They are followed by a field of sheep who see prosperity riding on the shoulders of those who actually "make things happen" and want some of it for free.  It's nothing more than the same attitude exuded by the schoolyard bully as he/she takes control of peoples lives.

Bad laws are made by people who haven't the knowledge to know what their ramifications will be on the public.  Some of the people who make bad laws are innocent enough, they just know that it is their job to make rules and don't take the time to learn.  Some are the bullies.  (Hire a consultant and he'll find something wrong.  It's his job.  You expect him to find something wrong or you think he isn't doing his job. He knows that and will, even if his comments ruin the lives of others.)

Those, who want to control others, seldom have nothing themselves.  For example, Why are there self-proclaimed ecologists, from other countries, involved in Lobbying the government of Peru?  Because they are looking at the headlines that gain them notoriety and money they can glean from others, that's why.  It doesn't matter that they are actually a counter-productive force, effecting the lives of the citizens in another country.  Still, they will complain if their privacy fence in their backyard is three inches off of the line.

If someone wants to control my wood through certification of my trees and tell me when I sell and when I can't,  they may have just cut out their opportunity to use my trees.  If they wish to control my farm, my suggestion to them is to put a Realtor on retainer.  They will have a voice in what they own. 

[Gary_C]

Their musings are all about control, with a capital "C". 

Didn't you mean a capital "M" as in money?


Most of these environmental causes exist solely to extract money from the wealthy.


And the next great money extraction scheme is going to be "carbon credits." It's already underway.

[Tom]

I agree that the goal of some is money, but, the goal of their followers is control. Most of the tag-alongs, will not benefit in money directed by the haunchos, but, they get a great satisfaction in knowing that they "made" someone do something.

[Samuel]

I am aware of only one outfit in Northern Saskatchewan that are receiving a premium for being FSC certified for their lumber.  As far as our organization goes, first we started with ISO 14001 to obtain a certified EMS which has proved business efficiencies and a decline of environmental incidents across our contracting workforce over the past 4 years.  With a certified EMS, we are now in the process of obtaining CSA Z809-02 to enable our Forest Management Area to be deemed as an SFM Forest, and to that end, we will be able to certify our pulp product.

As far as getting a premium for the product, the benefit is an ability to have a market.  We have been told by our major customers (Kimberly Clark, Georgia Pacific, etc), that without this certification, they would not continue to purchase our product after 2009.  Incentive or premium...  its hard to put a price on being able to sell your product.

But like I said, we as an organization have seen the business efficiencies and have been able to show due diligence in at least 10 accounts over the past 4 years, when there was an environmental incident, and we appeased the regulators avoiding enforcement actions. 

[SwampDonkey]

I have trouble understanding how doing the right and proper thing needs to be certified by other than the laws and regulations of the land. Help me to understand.

[Ron Wenrich]

About 10 years ago I had a phone call from someone who wanted me to give an appraisal on about a half million acres of timber in Africa.  He wanted to know if I could do it from a plane.  I told him I couldn't even identify the trees on land let alone cruise it from the air.

As the discussion went on, he said he represented an investment group.  I told him on a half million acres they could set up a nice sawmill and have a steady stream of income and a pretty good business.  He wanted to know if I thought it could be logged in 3 months.

Apparently, investment groups buy up huge portions of land (probably from governments or government officials), then log off all the timber.  I'm not sure if this is still the practice in Africa or not, but I'm betting it is.  His was not the only investment group doing this.  They were looking to get in on the action.

That showed me how others view the forests of the world.  So, even though Jim and Fred are doing really good work in the tropics, not everyone is of their mindset. 

[beenthere]

Ron
What country in Africa was that??

[Ron Wenrich]

I have no idea.  It sounded like it was one of those small western countries, as they were close to the Atlantic ocean. 

[Tom]

That showed me how others view the forests of the world.  So, even though Jim and Fred are doing really good work in the tropics, not everyone is of their mindset. 

I understand our wants to make the world right, especially according to our judgement, but I can't help but consider that it is still another country's forest.  Perhaps it is a place for diplomacy but it isn't a place for restrictions or corporate applied embargos.  It's better, in my opinion, for countries to work with countries and for the businesses to stay out of the International Politics.

[dnalley]

They haven't studied, what they determine to be, the problems of the world, but only echo the yammerings of the last charismatic bandwagon driver who passed through.

  Yom you certainly have a way with the written word.  Cut right to the chase!  Somehow I think you could "cuss a man out" and make him smile about it!  Makes for interesting reading.  Keep up the good work and thanks

[Samuel]

I have trouble understanding how doing the right and proper thing needs to be certified by other than the laws and regulations of the land. Help me to understand.

Swamp:

Its easy enough for a company to self declare anything and its easy to say just because I did not get a speeding ticket on my way to work, does not mean it did not speed.  The ENGO's are so powerful in this day in age it is simply amazing.  The complex I work at has been around for 19 years and it used to be when the customers came, they wanted to see the production line in the mill.  Over the past 2-3 years that has shifted, and we are having the Executives of these large companies from KC and GP (etc), come up from the southern regions of the States, to ensure that we are doing what we say we are doing.  The customer (being general public), dictates the market, and having the certification flag, is an easy was to demonstrate you are doing things right.  Don't get me wrong there are comanies flying the flags that are still doing crappy practices, but it is up to the 3rd party auditors to determine if what they are doing, meets the intent of the various standards.

All I know is that I am sure that we are doing what I have committed us to do, and that all of our customers can go away with that comfort.

[SwampDonkey]

Having an NGO audit your work doesn't cover the bases any differently, because the NGO auditors are no more watching every move than the regulators are. If your not operating under the law to begin with, it's either a matter of time before your strung up, or the law and enforcement are useless. Maybe the enforcement are getting kick backs to look away. Who knows? I know here in NB, it doesn't seem to worry government too much as they continue to downsize the DNR and layoff staff. Yeah, the crown land is certified but under the least restrictive and most lenient of certifications and not all licenses follow the same scheme. We have a Maritime FSC, but not a single license following it. And never will as long as industry has all the say in management. With pressure from outside provincial jurisdiction it's possible to make changes to attitudes I suppose. But, changes are real slow to come. This being NB, changes like that move along like the ice age. I don't know of anyone, including myself, that goes to Kent Home building supply and asks for certified or proof of sustainable forestry practices in the production of that piece of lumber. I'm sure there are a handful in the country who do, but they are few.  I have never yet seen a stamp on lumber other than the LGA grading stamp.

I know that GP and LP have been preaching certification, but when wood supply is low priorities shift real quick. They are still buying wood here and not even 1% of woodlots are certified by anyone out of 40% of the forested land base. I guess as long as they see our woodlot representatives looking into it, it suffices the requirements. This has been going on since 1994 and most woodlot owners won't pay a dime toward it. The number of woodlot owners here that would even give it a second thought, you could count on one hand. Heck I see how woodlot management plans where used, so certification hasn't a chance.

[BaldBob]

First I need to make it clear that I have a vested interest in certification schemes.  I have in the past (and hope to in the future) gotten work at an attractive day rate to serve on several SFI audit teams. That said, let me point out some of what certification (at least the SFI type that I am most familiar with) is and isn't:

1. There is currently no "green premium" in price - except in very rare circumstances.
2. Certification is a marketing tool to convince the public that forests are being sustainably managed, and to retain markets with the "big boxes" who want to reassure their customers that they are good guys.
3. Large companies that are well managed and efficient already will experience some additional costs in gaining and retaining certification, while companies that were inefficient actually become more efficient and often see costs decline because of the discipline and planning that gaining and keeping certification requires.
4. For most companies that already have ethical practices, gaining and keeping certification is not so much about changing what they do in the woods, but in documenting what they do and in having formal processes in place for their practices.
5. In certifying a company the auditors are checking that:  a.) The company is following both the letter and the spirit of all applicable management laws/rules. b.) The company is doing what it advertises it is doing re: sustainable management. and  c.) The company's management results meet the standards of the certifying group.
6. Auditors make no pretense that they have inspected and monitored every thing the company has done. For instance, their compliance with all laws is in large part based on the legal record and from interviews with compliance agency personnel.  Additionally a representative sample of the company's land management operations for ~ the previous 2 years is thoroughly examined on the ground for compliance with 5 a.),b.) and c.) above.
7. Participation in a certification scheme is voluntary. Although a company that buys your trees/logs/pulp/paper/lumber/etc. may require that your operation be certified in order for you to sell to them,  you are free to sell (or not sell) your product to whomever you choose.  You may not like it (especially if that company is the only reasonable market for your product), but unless you control a significant portion of the supply that company needs, the company will always demand what it deems in its best interest and, if you want to retain them as a customer, you must comply with their demands. The certification demand is no different than any other demand they may make in this regard.


 

[jim king]

BaldBob:  Interesting summary you have made.  My next question is not that easy to answer and this is the key to the tropical forestry problems.  In North America you can probably assume that the majority of certification inspectors are honest and will report what they see.

We do not have that problem in the Amazon or the tropics in general.  The people who certify areas do not have a full time job with any of the well known certifiers and you can be sure the pay is not good enough to stop them from writing a wonderful report no matter what they find if they did in fact actually investigate the site.  In this part of the world the certifiers are more corrupt than the worst logger.  A few $$$ and everything is certified.

We are thinking of starting our own statewide certification program and being able to control it as a statewide government agency.  I would appreciate any suggestions on this part of the problem and how to make it credible.  We would even consider bringing in professionals from the States to lay this out as with the new "Lacey Act" tropical logging is now classified about the same as growing cocaine and we need a credible way to protect ourselves that will stand up to any real test.

We would like to turn certification from the joke it is now to both a legal protective sheild and an honest marketing tool.

[Samuel]

4. For most companies that already have ethical practices, gaining and keeping certification is not so much about changing what they do in the woods, but in documenting what they do and in having formal processes in place for their practices.

I agree Bald Bob-- besides the documentation that had to get beat into everyones daily routine, our practices in the bush  have not changed.

For those of you that are interested in Norther Alberta's logging and env practices- check out this link and have a look at the videos I have produced for our company:

http://www.dmi.ca/about_dmi/dmi_in_alberta/prpd/media_gallery/#

Check out the EMS Overview in particular and let me know what you think.

[jim king]

I have to agree with your methods as they are very similar to where I grew up and all works out well.  BUT if we used your system here the sky would fall on us.  We are held to different standards than North America .   There is a lot of good information there that can help us set up a certification program.  Thanks for the info.

[Samuel]

I have to agree with your methods as they are very similar to where I grew up and all works out well.  BUT if we used your system here the sky would fall on us.  We are held to different standards than North America .   There is a lot of good information there that can help us set up a certification program.  Thanks for the info.

Thanks Jim:

If you have any specific questions or concerns, just drop me a line  and I will help you out if I can.

[BaldBob]

Several of the big financial auditing firms such as Pricewaterhouse and KPMG also do forest certification audits.  I do not work full time on forest certification audits, but as an independent contractor/audit team member for one of these companies when requested.  The lead auditor of the team is always a direct employee of the auditing firm. Auditing team members in individual specialties such as forest inventory and growth (sustainability of the certification candidate's harvest levels) wildlife biologists, logging practices specialists, silviculture, watershed management, etc. that may be needed for specific audits are often independent contractors who, though they are primarily responsible for verifying their particular part of the audit, are also alert to any problems in other management areas and report them to the lead auditor who is ultimately responsible for the contents of the report.  Specialists are chosen not just for their overall expertise in their subject area, but also their knowledge of local laws and conditions to the extent possible and still get auditors who have no conflict of interest.
These audit firms don't set the standards or criteria of what is to be audited, the Certifying Bodies (FSC, SFI,etc.) do.  While the overall objectives of a Certifying Body may be universal, the specific standards to be applied are generally regionally specific. The large audit firms have too much to lose (ala Arthur Anderson) if they do not follow the standards and criteria - they live and die based on their reputation

[BaldBob]

Jim,
I guess what I was trying to point out was that the solution to your problem might be to use the services of one of the firms that has too much to lose if they get a reputation of simply rubber stamping certification requests.

[Cedarman]

Attended a conference in Indiana about FSC certification.  Heard pretty much what Baldbob said.  My woods looks to be certified if the state can get the classified forest into the program.  State forests are already certified.  So from a hardwoods standpoint, I will be fine.

But we run an ERC mill.

Here is an interesting thing.  In the plains, trees are encroaching areas where trees were non existant 100 years ago.  They only grew in the ravines where fire couldn't get to them.  According to ecologists eastern red cedar invasion is the worst ecological disaster to hit the state of Oklahoma in recent times.  Wildlife is decimated .  Prairie wildlife leaves the area completely.  But, these cedars cannot be FSC certified because they are not part of sustainable tree growing. The concept that trees are growing in areas that didn't have trees for 10,000 years escaped them.  This is part of the idiocy of certification. They didn't take into account the economic and environmental consequences of this shortsidedness. I believe that ERC is one of those trees that is not included by the big box stores as needing to be certified, so we may be alright for awhle.  But Kimball got their plants certified and what if they want certified cedar for their drawer sides?  So IMHO those people that proposed FSC did not take into account the total ecology of our earth, just tunnel vision of trees.

There are 10,000,000 acres in Oklahoma alone.  Add in Texas, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, and you have 10's of millions more.

For about $400 bucks and some paper work I can get our mill certified.

[Tom]

I guess I just don't like having someone else telling me what to do.  They can say what they would like to have and I could try to produce it, but, why do we have the mind set that someone else knows better what we want to do with our lives and property than we do?

There were, at one time, what were called BMP's, Better Management Practices.  These were things that farmers had determined to be the ground rules for taking care of the earth.   They have been voluntary for many generations. Now, you will find that someone has determined that farmers don't care for the earth and must be supervised.  So what do they do?  The "smart ones", make BMP's law.  Not the Smart Farmers, mind you.  The Legislaters of the State have been lobbied to put folks under their thumb.  What it amounts to is that there are people with no agricultural experience at all, making farmers do their bidding because they think they are smarter than the farmers.

I think Certification is a wonderful thing for Doctors and lawyers.  They have to prove that they aren't going to kill you.  They are self-governing themselves with a  Bar.  Farmers were self-governing themselves with BMP's until the lawyers decided that they weren't smart enough govern themselves.

Allowing an Industry, like the big box stores, to govern the growing of timber is out-of-bounds, in my opinion.  The dabbling in International politics is no place for Lowes, Home depot, The sierra club, or the clerk at the 5 & 10.

[Cedarman]

It is amazing that a dozen people standing in front of Home Depot demonstrating can wag the entire forest industry by holding their tail!  If you are in business the customer dictates to the seller.  The seller must comply unless they really do have other markets.  Doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it though.

[SwampDonkey]

Most here wouldn't give the protesters an audience. Different mindset I guess. Most of us carry on like sheep. That in itself could be dangerous, but there are too many for the wolves to eat. ;D

[jim king]

Google  " FSC Watch"   not pleasant.

[woodtroll]

Jim
It just shows that some people are just not happy with anything

[Chico]

my opinion is  that any company can put any cert they want advertise it enough and John Q public will accept it much like the wide array of "organics" we have Jim when I was in Brazil the slash and burn ranchers and farmers and charcoalers did much more  ilegal damage to the forest than the mills I wa involved with While I understand why they do what they do . The desparity between the have and have nots is horrendous in a lot of the areas the govt  is usually easily led where you want them Local ones anyway  I dealt with more of them than Fed But some of the rhetoric down there is exactly the proof in the pudding of how gimmick certifications and such can be used The larger mills and loggers can't afford to step out of line esp if they aren't nationals . You can find researchto support or disprove anything you would like and In the end as was said before the only people who will profit will be the ones that came up with the program to begin with
I'll step off my soapbox now
Chico

[Samuel]

Not to venture away from certification to far (as this is an interest for sure to me) but how many of you have been engaged into the Carbon Credit Market?  Here is an interesting article emailed to me today to review and let me know your thoughts...

http://www.kentucky.com/181/story/742976.html

[SwampDonkey]

New Brunswick Federation of Woodlot Owners September 2008 Newsletter.


Excerpt:

There are many details still to be determined before carbon credits become widely traded on the open market. Some of the outstanding issues that are being dealt with in protocol development are: permanence, measurement, verification, risk management, baseline, leakage and process development.

Permanence refers to how long you need to ensure that you will be able to provide carbon sequestration.

Measurement is just that, how will carbon sequestration be measured, what type of sampling will be used and what type of models will be implemented.

Verification refers to the process required to round check that what is being sold actually exists.

Risk management involves the potential requirement for insurance. How do we guard against losses from fire, disease, insect and protect ourselves from breach of contract?

Baseline refers to when measurement would start. A year must be chosen to use as a baseline to determine how much incremental carbon your forest is absorbing due to your management practices.

Leakage involves the assurance that there is not more being cut from the forest than what is growing and absorbing carbon.

Process refers to what the process will be for protocol development.

The Canadian Federation of Woodlot Owners is working very closely with government and committees that are responsible for the protocol development to ensure that there will be an opportunity for woodlot owners to participate in this market.

[Gary_C]

That's a typical article written by an environmental activist that implies that signing up for this latest scam will stop that dreaded practice of "highgrading" yet it will still allow the owner to highgrade one tree per acre per year. I see from the comments that it has not been well received.

From what I have heard lately, congress has put "cap and trade" on the back burner for now because of the economic and budget problems. I just hope that it stays there.

If memory serves me correctly, when Gore went to Koyto and signed that agreement, the Dems were in control of the congress as well as the White House. Clinton could have sent that treaty to congress for ratification, but choose not to do so, probably because it had zero chance of passing and many liberals did not want to be forced to go on the record as opposing that bad agreement. So they left it to Bush to trash and get the credit or rather blame for trashing that treaty.

Another winter like this past one and global warming may be put on the far back burner to wait and see what is the real truth.

[beenthere]

It's a scam, in my opinion.

It will boil down to business's that will make all the money, selling the credits to those big companies (or Al Gore for his home) that are forced to pay, and then paying very little to the landowner/tree owners who are the few that will qualify for the program. It will be little to no benefit to the timber owner in the end. But it will create a lot of pass-through jobs. Similar to so many other things, it will be a boom business for lawyers to get into, and make for a lot of new Gov't agency growth.

Not a good way to go, but it will make a lot of people "feel good" about their new-found activity.

Hope that doesn't sound too negative.  ;D

[SwampDonkey]

Sounds about what I think to of the whole thing. They have been tossing this stuff around since at least 2001. Sounds more about handing control over to someone else. But, I always said we are only paying rent on the land we set on. Someone will take it if they want it, because they will do it little at a time, piece by piece. Your neighbor will be first, and you'll do nothing because it's them and not you this time.

[Tom]

My opinion is that Carbon credits is nothing more than a patch that doomsdayers wish to put on a tire that has no hole.

The sale of Carbon Credits is right up there with the sale of the Brooklyn Bridge and those who are trying to market them should have a bunk reserved in the State Prison.  Carbon credits is a wild idea to manipulate the natural progression of life without considering the long term or short term significance of the project.  In short, it is nothing but a money making scheme devised by Environmental Doomsdayers who vie for attention on any front.

[Samuel]

I guess I will interject with that comment...trying to sell credits...

It is a reality and companies have been selling them now for over 10 years.  From the research and projects that I have been involved with thus far, is that its way more than just trees and the forests that may qualify.  For example, if a company say has 30 company pickups (3/4 tonne chev, etc) and traded them out for a Toyota Tundra say, with a potential of 25% decrease in fuel economy, you can have that verified and it will generate a company approximately $20 000 per year for every year that you continue to run these more fuel efficient vehicles.  Another example is with whole tree portable chipping, has been verified that there is a 20% utilization recovery and this translates into a huge increase in available offsets/credits to be sold.

Scam?  I am not sure, but there are definitely large dollars potential to be made with this

[Chico]

It's the lumber/timber equivilent of organic  in the food sector in the sense of wild and sustainable  and as said before the definition is very loose and convenient At one time certified lumber meant it was graded by a national man Hence a certified grader
Chico

[beenthere]

There will definitely be people and companies jumping aboard this, as long as there is money to be made, and as long as there is money available to do "more research". Many spin-off companies will be springing up and jumping at the chance to sell their expertise, be it in the trading business, the PR business, the "verification/certification" business, or whatever.

To me, the scam is that it is all fluff. And someone (you know who?) is going to pay for it...either in higher taxes to support the Gov't involvement, or the more expensive products manufactured. In the end, it is the worker who is hard at work that will pay. In the interest of the hard worker, I wish it to go away. I don't want to be coerced by Gov't and the do-gooders who think they know what is best for me.

[Gary_C]

Everyone that has commented recently, myself included, has failed to point out a single thing that has been accomplished in the past 10 or however many years that carbon credits have been traded.

One prominent case that I have heard of is the US Capitol Power Plant. In spite of the US House deciding a few years ago to buy carbon credits to the tune of over $70,000, that ancient plant continues to be inefficient and spews out tons of carbon with no end in sight. And I recently saw where congress has essentially given up for now because they cannot come up with the money to modernize. So how can they demand that others clean up those power plants when they cannot clean up our own backyard?

[jrdwyer]

I read the article about carbon credits in eastern KY and I have to make several comments. First, cutting only one 18" diameter tree per acre (assumed at 2 16' logs, 160 bf Doyle) is not economically feasible at the commercial level. Second, a quote from the story is rather ignorant:

"Contrary to what people believe, there's not a lot of money for the landowner in logging," Frank Olson said.

In southern IN and western KY where I help clients manage forestland and selectively mark timber for harvesting, returns of $50-$90/acre/yr. are very possible with 15-20 year cutting intervals.

If carbon credits were easily sold, and the price was $20/ton, then carbon credits could approach the value gained from good timber management. ($20x3.3 tons/acre)

Personally, I don't think it is right to pay for this credit or "value" by boosting utility rates. On the other hand, coal has been and is subsidized and we pay for it with high mercury levels in the fish in our lakes, poor air quality, blasting damage to homes near active strip mines, and roads that get damaged very quickly due to high load limits. I would be in favor of slightly higher utility rates for clean energy like wind, solar, or maybe even nuclear if they can eliminate 3-mile Island or Chernobyl disasters.

The carbon credit scheme appears to be more for those employed in certification at this point in time. I have not done any forest management plans for this purpose (yet).