Wood and Paper Products and Carbon Storage: CDM as An Effective Tool

Authors

  • Renuka Deshmukh   MIT Pune

Keywords:

IRR, Mitigation, Carbon Dioxide, Greenhouse Gases, Adaptation.

Abstract

This study provides historical estimates and projections of U.S. carbon sequestered in wood and paper products and compares them to amounts sequestered in U.S. forests. There are large pools of carbon in forests, in wood and paper products in use, and in dumps and landfills. The size of these carbon pools is increasing. Since 1910, an estimated 2.7 Pg (petagrams; × 109 metric tons) of carbon have accumulated and currently reside in wood and paper products in use and in dumps and landfills, including net imports. This is notable compared with the current inventory of carbon in forest trees (13.8 Pg) and forest soils (24.7 Pg). On a yearly basis, net sequestration of carbon in U.S. wood and paper products (additions including net imports, minus emissions from decay and burning each year) is projected to increase from 61 Tg/year in 1990 to 74 Tg/year by 2040, while net additions (sequestration) in forests is projected to decrease from 274 to 161 Tg/year. Net sequestration is increasing in products and landfills because of an increase in wood consumption and a decrease in decay in landfills compared with phased-out dumps. If the total projected amount of products required is regarded as fixed, the net carbon sequestration in products and landfills can be increased by 1) shifting product mix to a greater proportion of lignincontaining products, which decay less in landfills; 2) increasing product recycling; 3) increasing product use-life; and 4) increasing landfill CH4 burning in place of fossil fuels.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2018-06-20

How to Cite

Deshmukh, R. (2018). Wood and Paper Products and Carbon Storage: CDM as An Effective Tool. Journal of Applied Management- Jidnyasa, 10(1), 75–91. Retrieved from http://www.simsjam.net/index.php/Jidnyasa/article/view/128516

References

Leach, G. and Gowen, M. 1987. Household Energy Handbook. World Bank Technical Pap. 67, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Levine, J. S., 1996. Biomass Burning and Global Change. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. pp. 902 + 28.

McDonald, R. C.; Isbell, R. F.; Speight, J. G.; Walker, J. and Hopkins, M. S. 1990. Australian Soil and Land Survey Handbook – Field Handbook, 2nd ed. Inkata Press, Melbourne. 198 pp.

Negi, J. D. S. 1984. Biological productivity and cycling of nutrients in managed and man made ecosystem. Ph.D. thesis, Garhwal University, Garhwal.

Rai, S. N. 1981. Productivity of tropical rain forests of Karnatka. PhD. thesis, University of Bombay. Bombay.

Ravindranath, N. H.; Rajiv Kumar Chaturvedi and Murthy, I. K. 2008. Forest conservation, afforestation and reforestation in India: Implications for forest carbon stocks. Current Science: 216; 95 (2): 216–222.

Saxena, A.; Jha, M. N. and Rawat, J. K. 2003. Forests as Carbon Sink–The Indian Scenario. Indian Forester: 129(7):807–814.

Sharma, S.; Bhattacharya, S. and Garg, A. 2006. Greenhouse gas emissions from India: a perspective. Current Science: 90(3): 326–333.

Shukla, P.R. 2006. India‟s GHG emission scenarios: Aligning development and stabilization paths. Current Science: 90 (3): 384–395.