Cary Institute talks about carbon credits

Cary Institute talks about carbon credits
The Cary Institute spoke about trees and the impact of climate change in a recent talk. 
Photo by Janet Manko

MILLBROOK — Charles Canham, Ph.D. and recently retired from the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, is well versed in the dynamics of forests, their ecosystems and the impact humans have on them. His research in the field, and the use of computer-generated models and statistics, allows him to address how forests respond to human impact, as well as to fire, insects and overall climate change.

He shared his 35-plus years of experience with the Cary Institute audience as he spoke about trees and forests and carbon credits on Thursday, Nov. 11.

Canham has become an expert at studying and explaining Forest Carbon Offsets, which offer a tradable certificate or permit that allows a company, country or other entity to emit or spend a given amount of carbon dioxide or an equivalent greenhouse gas. A single carbon credit equals 1 ton of either carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emission.

While this practice began in as attempt to lower global emissions and to promote clean energy, many are uncertain if it will work. Some see serious problems with the plan.

It basically began with the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GGE). It  applies to six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydro fluorocarbons, per fluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. It is an extension to the 1992 UNFCCC treaty.

When companies buy and sell carbon credits, the money goes to fund carbon offset projects, meant to eliminate the amount of carbon dioxide equal to the amount emitted.   

The premise sounds good, said Canham. The country or company receives a set of quota of credits, depending on the size of the company or properties or what their function is.

The amount of credits can vary each year and can be used throughout the year. If the entity goes over the allotted credits, there are severe penalties.

Each country or company gets a set of number of credits. The amount depends on their size and what they do.

Every year they get a new set of credits, which can be used throughout that year.

It is worth noting there has been very little change in carbon reduction practices since the Kyoto Protocol began.

Canham used an example of the Nature Conservancy, which is currently conducting a self-examination of its carbon offset  portfolio. A nonprofit, it is developing over 20 carbon offsets of forest areas, mainly in the United States, with companies such as  JP Morgan Chase & Co., BlackRock Inc., and Walt Disney Co. The companies use the credits to claim reductions in their own projects and expended emissions.

The Nature Conservancy is concerned that it could be helping to sell useless carbon credits to its corporate clients. Last year it was discovered that the largest environmental group, active worldwide, was claiming credits for forested areas that were not in danger of being destroyed. In other words, getting credit for doing absolutely nothing.

Canham and Cary Institute President Joshua Ginsberg discussed at the Nov. 11 presentation the fact that there are pros and cons to obtaining carbon offsets. As with any credit system, it can be abused. It also may promise more than it can deliver.

So how much carbon do U.S. forests store each year? How does that number change when one includes urban trees, furniture and harvested wood products? Well, in 2018, the 691 million acres of U.S. forestland sequestered 564.5 millions tons of C02.

This means the net sequestration across all five categories offsets 11% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions annually.

Canham showed an image that showed that all not all of this country’s forestland is a carbon sink. The Eastern U.S. is a sink equaling 85% of total forestation sequestration; the Rocky Mountains is a source due to the effects of fire and insects; the Pacific Coast is a sink, with a high biomass and sequestration rates but is also threatened by fire.

Natural climate solutions can put unrealistic demands on the forests yet there is a possibility of climate mitigation potential by 2025 by raising the price of carbon credits from $10 to $50 per ton, suggested Canham, by halting all harvests on private non-plantation forestland across the U.S., and by making up the lost harvest through reforestation and thinning fire-prone forests in the West.

What can we do to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Corporations and businesses “can purchase legitimate carbon credits,” said Canham. “Forest owners can evaluate whether joining the forest carbon market is of benefit to attaining global carbon reduction. And for everyone else, use your voices: Demand transparency in net zero goals and in the methods used for valuing carbon credit projects.”

Latest News

Millerton’s 175th committee advances plans for celebration, seeks vendors and sponsors

The Millerton 175th anniversary committee's tent during the village's trunk-or-treat event on Oct. 31, 2025.

Photo provided

MILLERTON — As Millerton officially enters its 175th year, the volunteer committee tasked with planning its milestone celebration is advancing plans and firming up its week-long schedule of events, which will include a large community fair at Eddie Collins Memorial Park and a drone light show. The events will take place this July 11 through 19.

Millerton’s 175th committee chair Lisa Hermann said she is excited for this next phase of planning.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why the focus on Greenland?

As I noted here in an article last spring entitled “Hands off Greenland”, the world’s largest island was at the center of a developing controversy. President Trump was telling all who would listen that, for national security reasons, the United States needed to take over Greenland, amicably if possible or by force if necessary. While many were shocked by Trump’s imperialistic statements, most people, at least in this country, took his words as ill-considered bluster. But he kept telling questioners that he had to have Greenland (oftenechoing the former King of France, Louis XIV who famously said, “L’État c’est moi!”.

Since 1951, the U.S. has had a security agreement with Denmark giving it near total freedom to install and operate whatever military facilities it wanted on Greenland. At one point there were sixteen small bases across the island, now there’s only one. Denmark’s Prime Minister has told President Trump that the U.S. should feel free to expand its installations if needed. As climate change is starting to allow a future passage from thePacific Ocean to the Arctic, many countries are showing interest in Greenland including Russia and China but this hardly indicates an international crisis as Trump and his subordinates insist.

Keep ReadingShow less
Military hardware as a signpost

It is hard not to equate military spending and purchasing with diplomatic or strategic plans being made, for reasons otherwise unknown. Keeping an eye out for the physical stuff can often begin to shine a light on what’s coming – good and possibly very bad.

Without Congressional specific approval, the Pentagon has awarded a contract to Boeing for $8,600,000,000 (US taxpayer dollars) for another 25 F-15A attack fighters to be given to Israel. Oh, and there’s another 25 more of the F-15EX variant on option, free to Israel as well.

Keep ReadingShow less
Truth and evidence depend on the right to observe

A small group of protesters voice opposition to President Trump's administration and Immigration and Customs Enforcement at Amenia's Fountain Square at the intersection of Route 44 and Route 22 on Saturday, Nov. 8, 2025

Photo by Nathan Miller

The fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, and before him Renée Good, by federal agents in Minnesota is not just a tragedy; it is a warning. In the aftermath, Trump administration officials released an account of events that directly contradicted citizen video recorded at the scene. Those recordings, made by ordinary people exercising their rights, showed circumstances sharply at odds with the official narrative. Once again, the public is asked to choose between the administration’s version of events and the evidence of its own eyes.

This moment underscores an essential truth: the right to record law enforcement is not a nuisance or a provocation; it is a safeguard. As New York Times columnist David French put it, “Citizen video has decisively rebutted the administration’s lies. The evidence of our eyes contradicts the dishonesty of the administration’s words.”

Keep ReadingShow less