Hey John,

You may find this article helpful that was published on the AASHE blog last year, "A Recommendation on How to Account for Carbon Sinks in Campus Forests or Lands" written by Jennifer Andrews from Clean Air - Cool Planet.

I was one of the presenters of that webinar.  Here's the thinking about tree sequestration:

Yes, your existing trees sequester readily quantifiable amounts of carbon each year.  

The reason it should not count against your annual emissions is because the trees do not reduce your emissions from energy sources.   

But, if those trees were removed for some purpose - a parking lot, for example - then they would cease to sequester any carbon at all.  Your footprint should increase by the amount that had previously been locked up in the trees.

My purpose for pushing the idea of inventorying tree carbon is not to get an easy win on an existing footprint, but as a deterrent to cutting down trees.  

There has been so much concentrated effort on quantifying every pound of emissions, and rating the performance of many green practices. 

Yet I strongly believe that there is a pervasive failure to recognize the ecosystem services trees are already performing, which, of course, is part of the entire problem of environmental externalities in the first place. 

Hi Mary-

Thank you for presenting at that webinar and for your insights above.  I am interested in the question of carbon sequestion for existing forests for the exact purpose of tree (and forest) preservation and sound management practices.  If we focus on an individual tree then the question is clear: cut it and add carbon to the atmosphere or let it stand and continue to sequester carbon.  However, I believe the question of forest management is slightly different.  New trees grow and old ones die all the time but the forest lives on and how we manage that forest has consequences for carbon sequestration and climate change. 

At Colgate, we selectively log our forest (from time to time) and remove carbon, yet the forest remains.  We believe we can improve our forest management practices to increase the carbon sequestration potential of the forest.  Our Sustainability Council recently wrote a forest stewardship plan and we are currently exploring FSC certification for our 800+ acres.  Seeking FSC certification and changing the way we manage our forest may come at a cost to the university.  I can help justify this cost if we can count our efforts against our carbon footprint to help us meet our obligation under the ACUPCC.  On the other hand, it will be a much more difficult sell to change our management practices if it doesn't impact our carbon footprint. 

So, if we can count carbon sequestration from our forest against our carbon footprint, then we are likely to improve our management of that forest.  If we cannot, then we may continue business-as-usual.  Business-as-usual isn't horrible but it can be improved offering academic inquiry along the way.  For these reasons, I would argue that there is real benefit for counting carbon sequestration if the institution makes an honest effort to change/improve the way it manages its forest for the purpose of reducing its overall carbon footprint. 

I know these are older posts but I wanted to just let be known for those who look over this feed our program that helps campuses plant trees by recycling textbooks.  You can e-mail me directly at jfink@bookdrivesinc.com for information about it as I don't feel its appropriate to use the forum as a commercial but it can help a lot on the Carbon sequestration piece of things and fits in perfectly with whats being discussed here.

James