Asset Details
MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A virtual “field test” of forest management carbon offset protocols: the influence of accounting
by
deB. Richter, Daniel
, Mobley, Megan L.
, Galik, Christopher S.
in
Accounting
/ Agricultural land
/ Atmospheric Sciences
/ Carbon offsets
/ Carbon sequestration
/ Climate change
/ Climate Change Management and Policy
/ Climate policy
/ Earth and Environmental Science
/ Earth Sciences
/ Environmental accounting
/ Environmental Management
/ Environmental policy
/ Environmental protection
/ Farm buildings
/ Forest management
/ Greenhouse gases
/ Mitigation
/ Original Article
/ Protocol
/ Studies
2009
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A virtual “field test” of forest management carbon offset protocols: the influence of accounting
by
deB. Richter, Daniel
, Mobley, Megan L.
, Galik, Christopher S.
in
Accounting
/ Agricultural land
/ Atmospheric Sciences
/ Carbon offsets
/ Carbon sequestration
/ Climate change
/ Climate Change Management and Policy
/ Climate policy
/ Earth and Environmental Science
/ Earth Sciences
/ Environmental accounting
/ Environmental Management
/ Environmental policy
/ Environmental protection
/ Farm buildings
/ Forest management
/ Greenhouse gases
/ Mitigation
/ Original Article
/ Protocol
/ Studies
2009
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
A virtual “field test” of forest management carbon offset protocols: the influence of accounting
by
deB. Richter, Daniel
, Mobley, Megan L.
, Galik, Christopher S.
in
Accounting
/ Agricultural land
/ Atmospheric Sciences
/ Carbon offsets
/ Carbon sequestration
/ Climate change
/ Climate Change Management and Policy
/ Climate policy
/ Earth and Environmental Science
/ Earth Sciences
/ Environmental accounting
/ Environmental Management
/ Environmental policy
/ Environmental protection
/ Farm buildings
/ Forest management
/ Greenhouse gases
/ Mitigation
/ Original Article
/ Protocol
/ Studies
2009
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
A virtual “field test” of forest management carbon offset protocols: the influence of accounting
Journal Article
A virtual “field test” of forest management carbon offset protocols: the influence of accounting
2009
Request Book From Autostore
and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Of the greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation options available from U.S. forests and agricultural lands, forest management presents amongst the lowest cost and highest volume opportunities. A number of carbon (C) accounting schemes or protocols have recently emerged to track the mitigation achieved by individual forest management projects. Using 50-year C cycling data from the Calhoun Experimental Forest in South Carolina, USA, C storage is estimated for a hypothetical forest management C offset project operating under seven of these protocols. After 100 years of project implementation, net C sequestration among the seven protocols varies by nearly a full order of magnitude. This variation stems from differences in how individual C pools, baseline, leakage, certainty, and buffers are addressed under each protocol. This in turn translates to a wide variation in the C price required to match the net present value of the non-project, business-as-usual alternative. Collectively, these findings suggest that protocol-specific restrictions or requirements are likely to discount the amount of C that can be claimed in “real world” projects, potentially leading to higher project costs than estimated in previous aggregate national analyses.
Publisher
Springer Netherlands,Springer Nature B.V
MBRLCatalogueRelatedBooks
Related Items
Related Items
We currently cannot retrieve any items related to this title. Kindly check back at a later time.
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.