Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Carbon accounting and the climate politics of forestry
Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Social and Economic Geography. (Institute for World Economics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary)
Department of Soil and Environment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppasala, Sweden.
Department of Forest Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden.
2011 (English)In: Environmental Science and Policy, ISSN 1462-9011, E-ISSN 1873-6416, Vol. 14, no 8, 1062-1078 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Many proposals have been made for the more successful inclusion of LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry) in the Kyoto framework. Though the positions of individual states or the goal of avoided deforestation guide many approaches, our model sets cost-effective strategies for climate change mitigation and the efficient and balanced use of forest resources at its center. Current approaches to forest resource-based carbon accounting consider only a fraction of its potential and fail to adequately mobilize the LULUCF sector for the successful stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations. The presence of a significantly large "incentive gap" justifies the urgency of reforming the current LULUCF carbon accounting framework. In addition to significantly broadening the scope of carbon pools accounted under LULUCF, we recommend paying far greater attention to the troika of competing but potentially compatible interests surrounding the promotion of standing forests (in particular for the purposes of carbon sequestration, biodiversity protection and ecosystem promotion/preservation), harvested wood products (HWP) and bioenergy use. The successful balancing of competing interests, the enhancement of efficiency and effectiveness and the balanced use of forest resources require an accounting mechanism that weighs and rewards each component according to its real climate mitigation potential. Further, our data suggest the benefits of such a broadly based carbon accounting strategy and the inclusion of LULUCF in national and international accounting and emission trading mechanisms far outweigh potential disadvantages. Political arguments suggesting countries could take advantage of LULUCF accounting to reduce their commitments are not supported by the evidence we present. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2011. Vol. 14, no 8, 1062-1078 p.
Keyword [en]
Kyoto Protocol, Carbon accounting, LULUCF, HWP, Bioenergy, Climate change mitigation
National Category
Social and Economic Geography
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-51304DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.07.001ISI: 000298219700013OAI: diva2:478891
Available from: 2012-01-17 Created: 2012-01-17 Last updated: 2012-03-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Ellison, David
By organisation
Department of Social and Economic Geography
In the same journal
Environmental Science and Policy
Social and Economic Geography

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 38 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link