OT: Timber Owners

[Jeffreauxdawg]

Just realized I must have never actually posted this. I must of typed it and never hit submit new thread... I just thought it got ignored.

I know in some of the lumber/osb threads there are a few timber owners on the board that are tired of getting mugged on pulpwood or chip and saw pricing. I saw this a few weeks ago in the WSJ and thought it might be helpful.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-carbon-market-pays-southern-pine-growers-not-to-cut-11618911180

It might be behind a paywall. But the gist of it is you can sell carbon tax credits for not cutting your timber. Should be enough offset taxes and put a little coin in your pocket in most cases. Here is the website to the company that connects timber owners with corporations. It's free to sign up and the current enrollment period ends in June, so spread the word.

https://www.silviaterra.com/


ETA. As an FYI, it looks like the co-founder and CEO is a fellow Bulldog... With something this good for private timber owners, I would expect no less.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/zack-parisa-77633752

 

[coach66]

Interesting, I thought this would eventually

Happen much like Crp for farmland but this looks much less lucrative than crp. I sold all my timberland last year, I just figured I could make more elsewhere and I have. It’s really a shame what’s happened to timber growers, if you don’t inherit it it will never be a good investment.

 

[PineGroveBully]

Wonder if a feller could request to be paid for those credits in OSB?

 

[M R DAWGS]

Definitely looking into this. Thanks

 

[fishwater99]

thanks, I got the family on this.

 

[Leeshouldveflanked]

The pollen from the pine trees is a lot worse than any carbon scrubbing they may actually do.... maybe the Chinese will plant some Pine Trees

 

[dorndawg]

The pollen from the pine trees is a lot worse than any carbon scrubbing they may actually do.... maybe the Chinese will plant some Pine Trees

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

Just realized I must have never actually posted this. I must of typed it and never hit submit new thread... I just thought it got ignored.

I know in some of the lumber/osb threads there are a few timber owners on the board that are tired of getting mugged on pulpwood or chip and saw pricing. I saw this a few weeks ago in the WSJ and thought it might be helpful.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-carbon-market-pays-southern-pine-growers-not-to-cut-11618911180

It might be behind a paywall. But the gist of it is you can sell carbon tax credits for not cutting your timber. Should be enough offset taxes and put a little coin in your pocket in most cases. Here is the website to the company that connects timber owners with corporations. It's free to sign up and the current enrollment period ends in June, so spread the word.

https://www.silviaterra.com/

I have two separate raw (hunting) land properties that are 60 and 20 acres each, I assuming that is too little land to miss with. I've done a little research and the carbon offset situation is complicated.

 

[johnson86-1]

Happen much like Crp for farmland but this looks much less lucrative than crp. I sold all my timberland last year, I just figured I could make more elsewhere and I have. It’s really a shame what’s happened to timber growers, if you don’t inherit it it will never be a good investment.

Timber is going to suck until somebody steps up and invests in more mills. But the people in the best position to do that are already basically reaping monopoly profits and don't have a lot of incentive to keep investing.

 

[Jeffreauxdawg]

You should check it out. I would think that's the value of the exchange. In the article, which may be behind a paywall, a Mississippi landowner sold 43 offsets for $17 a piece on 133 acres of 17 year old loblolly. $731 he would not have had. Not sure how much the age/species of the stand effects the amount of offsets you can sell per acre. Sounds like you might be able to scrape up $400-500 dollars on your 80 acres possibly. Not going to get you that new vacation home or anything, but I'll take it if you don't want it....

From what I read it requires very little effort. You enroll your property and enter a bid on what price you would like to sell your carbon credits (timber harvest deferrals.) Silviaterra does all of the hard work for you. They have the buyers. They suggest the bid/ask prices and verify the deferrals match what was purchased through what I would guess is mostly a satellite base survey after the 1 year period. You are still allowed to harvest if needed, just account for it in the credits you sell.

It's like EBay... Before Ebay we sold junk at flea markets and through classifieds. Sure you can go through the hassle of traveling the country at flea markets to sell your **** to buyers outside of your town, but mainly it was a limited market. Now thanks to Ebay, we sell those old Star Wars figurines for $50 to a 40 year old man in Tokyo instead of for $.50 to some old lady at a yard sale. This looks like it could have a similar effect on making it easy on timber owners to sell carbon credits. Well worth the vig that Silviaterra charges for most timber owners unless you have 10,000's of thousands of acres and justify direct selling of credits.

View attachment 20340

 

[Dawgbite]

Timber is going to suck until somebody steps up and invests in more mills. But the people in the best position to do that are already basically reaping monopoly profits and don't have a lot of incentive to keep investing.

The lumber industry has been depressed for 10+ years. Yes they are making record profits now but is it sustainable? It has to be for companies to invest in equipment that’s going to require a decade of sales like the past year in order to justify the expense. Turning a log into a consumable piece of lumber requires a HUGE outlay of cash. They aren’t going to invest that much capital until the economy proves its sustainable and I do not blame them.

 

[johnson86-1]

You should check it out. I would think that's the value of the exchange. In the article, which may be behind a paywall, a Mississippi landowner sold 43 offsets for $17 a piece on 133 acres of 17 year old loblolly. $731 he would not have had. Not sure how much the age/species of the stand effects the amount of offsets you can sell per acre. Sounds like you might be able to scrape up $400-500 dollars on your 80 acres possibly. Not going to get you that new vacation home or anything, but I'll take it if you don't want it....

From what I read it requires very little effort. You enroll your property and enter a bid on what price you would like to sell your carbon credits (timber harvest deferrals.) Silviaterra does all of the hard work for you. They have the buyers. They suggest the bid/ask prices and verify the deferrals match what was purchased through what I would guess is mostly a satellite base survey after the 1 year period. You are still allowed to harvest if needed, just account for it in the credits you sell.

It's like EBay... Before Ebay we sold junk at flea markets and through classifieds. Sure you can go through the hassle of traveling the country at flea markets to sell your **** to buyers outside of your town, but mainly it was a limited market. Now thanks to Ebay, we sell those old Star Wars figurines for $50 to a 40 year old man in Tokyo instead of for $.50 to some old lady at a yard sale. This looks like it could have a similar effect on making it easy on timber owners to sell carbon credits. Well worth the vig that Silviaterra charges for most timber owners unless you have 10,000's of thousands of acres and justify direct selling of credits.

View attachment 20340

How long are you agreeing to not harvest the timber? Depending on how seriously they are trying to sell offsets as opposed to sell good feelings about "doing something", this might be a nice way to provide money to pay for taxes on land without ultimately giving up much economically.

 

[SheltonChoked]

How long are you agreeing to not harvest the timber? Depending on how seriously they are trying to sell offsets as opposed to sell good feelings about "doing something", this might be a nice way to provide money to pay for taxes on land without ultimately giving up much economically.

Per the website, it's a one year term.

For bids that are accepted, you will then enter into a 1-year contract committing to defer that much harvest. At the end of the contract, the harvest activity on your land will be verified, and payments will be delivered to you.

And that's not a "feel good" time period. Use of Trees fix carbon through production of durable goods is a long term sequestration solution.

It is literally how the earth sequestered 8x the current amount of Carbon from the atmosphere during the Carboniferous period. And where Coal came from.

 

[Jeffreauxdawg]

1 year. The reality is most years, most timber just sits there anyway. If you have 1,000 acres and need to thin 200. You sell the 800 other for offsets and the un thinned portion of the 200. You are correct, its pretty much free money for the landowner. Last I saw pine saw timber was $22/ton in MS. That's half of what it was in 2006-2007. It looks like carbon offsets are here to stay. Might as well take advantage and let that tonnage increase 6% for the year so the **** price is on more volume.

As for the reality, I think I remember the average American would have to plant about 30 trees per year to offset their carbon footprint... Probably not going to go carbon neutral with offsets or anything, but I will argue with any environmental hippie and win when it comes to trees, lumber, forest products, and forest management and their role in protecting the environment. There's not a whole lot bigger commitment to being green than using locally grown mature timber for our furniture, housing, and industrial applications wherever possible.. But they never want to hear that. So I am glad that whether its by hook or by crook, some love and green $ is accessible to good old Mississippi timber owners.

 

[turkish]

Per the website, it's a one year term.



And that's not a "feel good" time period. Use of Trees fix carbon through production of durable goods is a long term sequestration solution.

It is literally how the earth sequestered 8x the current amount of Carbon from the atmosphere during the Carboniferous period. And where Coal came from.

So a stagnant old forest of trees sequesters more carbon than thriving early successional growth? Serious question.

 

[johnson86-1]

Per the website, it's a one year term.



And that's not a "feel good" time period. Use of Trees fix carbon through production of durable goods is a long term sequestration solution.

It is literally how the earth sequestered 8x the current amount of Carbon from the atmosphere during the Carboniferous period. And where Coal came from.

I am a little skeptical of the value of holding off harvesting for one year (yes, you are deferring the emissions of harvesting and transporting, but I believe new growth pine sucks up more carbon per year than mature pine?, so I'm curious as to how that nets out.), but I was referring more to the deferring planned harvesting. If they are just selling good feelings and will pay people to "defer" cutting 5 year old trees and you can get 20years of payments, that's obviously a lot better than if they check enough to not pay for any timber less than 25 years old. I'm assuming satellite imagery will allow them to identify five year old timber if they check it? But not sure at what point it has to get to to look like harvestable timber from satellite imagery.

ETA: Apparently I was wrong about new growth sucking up more CO2. New forrests tend to suck up more carbon because smaller trees can be closer together, but older individual trees apparently suck up more carbon each year than newer individual trees. So making sure pine gets to older ages more suitable to durable goods might suck up equivalent or more amounts of carbon in a year than new growth and also make it more likely carbon gets sequestered in durable goods rather than just recycled in things like paper products. Not sure what happens at scale if there is more old growth pine but no more mill capacity.

 

[MSU601Dawg]

You should check it out. I would think that's the value of the exchange. In the article, which may be behind a paywall, a Mississippi landowner sold 43 offsets for $17 a piece on 133 acres of 17 year old loblolly. $731 he would not have had. Not sure how much the age/species of the stand effects the amount of offsets you can sell per acre. Sounds like you might be able to scrape up $400-500 dollars on your 80 acres possibly. Not going to get you that new vacation home or anything, but I'll take it if you don't want it....

From what I read it requires very little effort. You enroll your property and enter a bid on what price you would like to sell your carbon credits (timber harvest deferrals.) Silviaterra does all of the hard work for you. They have the buyers. They suggest the bid/ask prices and verify the deferrals match what was purchased through what I would guess is mostly a satellite base survey after the 1 year period. You are still allowed to harvest if needed, just account for it in the credits you sell.

It's like EBay... Before Ebay we sold junk at flea markets and through classifieds. Sure you can go through the hassle of traveling the country at flea markets to sell your **** to buyers outside of your town, but mainly it was a limited market. Now thanks to Ebay, we sell those old Star Wars figurines for $50 to a 40 year old man in Tokyo instead of for $.50 to some old lady at a yard sale. This looks like it could have a similar effect on making it easy on timber owners to sell carbon credits. Well worth the vig that Silviaterra charges for most timber owners unless you have 10,000's of thousands of acres and justify direct selling of credits.

View attachment 20340

So he got about $5.50 per acre of 17 year old pine? Just wondering about how much money we're talking about per acre?

 

[Jeffreauxdawg]

Here is a good article to read... FYI I remember the dude that sent the picture in to Richard Branson. He should have won the $25 million, because he was dead right.

https://news.mongabay.com/2019/05/t...ich-kind-of-forest-is-better-for-the-climate/

Ultimately its a muddled answer. Technically a young plantation is going to absorb more carbon per acre than an old one, but it stalemates at a certain point when growth is hindered by competition from all the trees. That's why we thin. So the remaining trees can grow faster and healthier. You can't have young forests without old and vice versa. Proper management works on a long timeline.

I'm hopeful that this project and others like it will help landowners change management practices.... Especially in the south. It's my belief that the big boys (WY, IP, Potlach, etc) in a race to maximize yield have developed so many tricks in breeding and timber management that we are growing SYP way to fast. It seems like every couple of years the SPIB is putting out new span tables on SYP that reduce capacity. Faster growing, means less strength and stability. Working with builders in TX over they years between the warping and lack of strength, nobody wants to use SYP anymore. So SYP timber is losing its value as sawlogs. I would love to see that trend reverse, because going up in the attics of older houses, its hard to beat that old slow growth longleaf.


I disagree with the article in that I do not believe 75% of the carbon is released during the harvesting/manufacturing of products. Many modern sawmills are powered by the wood waste and lots of hardwood mills now use their sawdust not only to fire boilers for the kilns, but also to manufacture heating/cooking pellets.

Timber/wood competes with 3 major products in final applications. Concrete, steel, and plastic. Wood blows the other 3 away in carbon footprint.

https://www.thinkwood.com/blog/made... manufacturing,than either steel or concrete.

From a true environmental impact platform, I think finding ways to encourage timber owners to grow timber will help the US keep wood products prices lower over time. This means wood products will have a better cost basis to compete with steel, concrete, and plastic. Right now, its almost getting to the point that we have taken away most of the incentive for landowners in the south to grow and harvest timber. Long term, this is a good thing for the environment, landowners, consumers, and the state of Mississippi. Cause lord knows they are going to incentivize solar panels, windmills, and electric vehicles... I'm glad the good guys are going to get a piece of it too.

 

[Jeffreauxdawg]

Your math looks correct to me at $5.50 per acre. But again, I would look at as free money from private businesses like Microsoft and Shell.

 

[Jeffreauxdawg]

Yep. Still fighting the crash of 07-08' on that front. There was a decent article in the WSJ a few days ago about all of this. I won't bother posting it again, since it's behind a paywall. But the reality is it takes years to build a modern, cost effective sawmill or OSB plant. By then it will be too late. It will take even longer these days as a modern mill requires tons of semiconductors and machinery from around the world... By the time its built, the housing boom will have stabilized.

This chart will explain why log prices suck so bad. You can see I added in the timber supply. Because when housing crashed, the timber just kept growing. So after a decade, now we are finally putting a dent into it... But it will still take years for demand to catch up with growth.

View attachment 20341


This link, lays it out pretty well. It's from pre covid, so maybe that pulls it back in some, but basically pine grade sawtimber has been growing faster than useage since at least 2000 and was scheduled to peak nationally in 2025 at a level 70% higher than in 2007. The peak will be after 2028 in Mississippi. That date is when inventory will finally quite growing faster than demand... It might be 20 years before good log prices actually come back. That's why I am a fan of slowing down the growth cycle in the south. Let's plant better quality, slower growth timber and sell the **** out of carbon offsets to pay for it. SYP is on the low end of the spectrum in lumber quality and doesn't get the national/global demand other species do.

https://forisk.com/blog/2019/10/25/south-sawtimber-supply/

As for the monopoly on the lumber/timber, nobody wants timber prices higher than Weyerhaeuser... Especially southern yellow pine. While they may or may not still be the biggest lumber/osb producer in the US, they are by far the biggest owner of timberlands in the US. Especially the south.

View attachment 20342

WY stock has not been able to breakout above its highs from 2014 or 2018 even though its absolutely printing money in OSB and lumber... Why not? Because timber prices suck and at its roots, WY is a timber company. Their competitor Louisiana Pacific that only makes lumber, osb, and engineered wood products has nearly 3x'd their previous highs.

I'm of the belief that if WY isn't building new mills, it's because it won't help the price of timber.

 

[GloryDawg]

It's my understanding that the American Farm Bureau Federation is getting involved on the timber prices vs lumber price and a few State AG's are involved. Now back to selling the timber not to cut, once you do this they are not your trees anymore. I think that is worse than not owning minerals rights to your land. The land us useless going forwards. Who wants to buy land that the trees belong to someone else and they can't clear the land? If the market does turn around you could be screwed in the long run on the timber. We have about 200 acres of pine, no way I would tie up our land for a few bucks in the short term.

 

[Jeffreauxdawg]

It's my understanding that the American Farm Bureau Federation is getting involved on the timber prices vs lumber price and a few State AD's are involved. Now back to selling the timber not to cut once you do this, they are not your trees anymore. I think that is worse than not owning minerals rights to your land. The land us useless going forwards. Who wants to buy land that the trees belong to someone else and they can't clear the land? If the market does turn around you could be screwed in the long run on the timber. We have about 200 acres of pine, no way I would tie up our land for a few bucks in the short term.

Did you read anything? It's for 1 year and you would only sign up the portion of timber you don't want to cut... Less restrictive than a lot of hunting leases. Nothing close to "selling" mineral rights. So, you won't take an extra $1,000 a year on the portion of your pines you don't want to cut this year? That's a bold investment strategy there Cotton.

Also, those Athletic Directors are WAY out of their lane.****

 

[M R DAWGS]

I haven’t looked into this very much, but will. Does this apply to hardwood trees as well? I’ve got a stand of mostly hardwoods that I bought this year and will take any financial assistance the green goons are willing to hand out.

 

[GloryDawg]

Did you read anything? It's for 1 year and you would only sign up the portion of timber you don't want to cut... Less restrictive than a lot of hunting leases. Nothing close to "selling" mineral rights. So, you won't take an extra $1,000 a year on the portion of your pines you don't want to cut this year? That's a bold investment strategy there Cotton.

Also, those Athletic Directors are WAY out of their lane.****

I found a different article and it does not say one year. It was by Bloomberg. I was not going to sign up to read that article. My grand parents lost mineral right due to a scheme by Lee Hawkins grand dad. My parents lost money on a Cell tower lease. I would take any chance on a contract written by a big cooperation.

 

[SheltonChoked]

I am a little skeptical of the value of holding off harvesting for one year (yes, you are deferring the emissions of harvesting and transporting, but I believe new growth pine sucks up more carbon per year than mature pine?, so I'm curious as to how that nets out.), but I was referring more to the deferring planned harvesting. If they are just selling good feelings and will pay people to "defer" cutting 5 year old trees and you can get 20years of payments, that's obviously a lot better than if they check enough to not pay for any timber less than 25 years old. I'm assuming satellite imagery will allow them to identify five year old timber if they check it? But not sure at what point it has to get to to look like harvestable timber from satellite imagery.

ETA: Apparently I was wrong about new growth sucking up more CO2. New forrests tend to suck up more carbon because smaller trees can be closer together, but older individual trees apparently suck up more carbon each year than newer individual trees. So making sure pine gets to older ages more suitable to durable goods might suck up equivalent or more amounts of carbon in a year than new growth and also make it more likely carbon gets sequestered in durable goods rather than just recycled in things like paper products. Not sure what happens at scale if there is more old growth pine but no more mill capacity.

You are "skeptical" that timber grows in one year? Because that's all it is. See when plants make food they use Photosynthesis, to convert Co2 and water into complex carbon molecules used for growth.

There are whole industries and academic fields that study tree growth. It's not that difficult to determine how much CO2 is sequestered in a year per tree species in a location.

The CO made from harvesting, etc. is a sunk cost. It has 17 all to do with the added carbon sequestered in the additional year of growth. All that the new company is doing is using the carbon market to get tree farmers paid for what they are doing already. (I think that's called capitalism)

And it also doesn't matter, year to year, how much each tree " sucks up" that year. (other than the payment based on... the amount of CO2 sequestered, which is why it's a year contract, as the tree grows the amount sequestered changes, leading to different payouts for each year). What matters is if the tree were there, growing, all year.

 

[SheltonChoked]

So a stagnant old forest of trees sequesters more carbon than thriving early successional growth? Serious question.

I don't know, but it doesn't matter.

They calculate how much CO2 is sequestered based on the the trees, where they are, and how old they are, and pay you for the carbon credits. Maybe you get more per acre for a young tree, maybe it's more for the old trees. Either way, it's free money. The only year you wouldn't get paid is the year you harvest. win/win/win.

 

[dorndawg]

I found a different article and it does not say one year. It was by Bloomberg. I was not going to sign up to read that article.

 

[SheltonChoked]

It's my understanding that the American Farm Bureau Federation is getting involved on the timber prices vs lumber price and a few State AG's are involved. Now back to selling the timber not to cut, once you do this they are not your trees anymore. I think that is worse than not owning minerals rights to your land. The land us useless going forwards. Who wants to buy land that the trees belong to someone else and they can't clear the land? If the market does turn around you could be screwed in the long run on the timber. We have about 200 acres of pine, no way I would tie up our land for a few bucks in the short term.

You get paid at the end of the term. If it's worth more than what they will pay you to harvest, you just don't get paid for not harvesting. If you choose to not harvest, for whatever reason, you get the carbon offset money.

I don't see the downside... Worse case is you don't get paid for the carbon offset, which is what is happening now anyway....

 

[Jeffreauxdawg]

Oh I am sure. If they are doing it right it could more beneficial of the hardwood stand vs softwoods. Hardwoods tend to be denser an store more carbon. The softwood usually grows faster and will pull more carbon out of the air in a calendar year, but there is going to be a lot more "stored" carbon in a hardwood tree.

With that said, if you have a bunch of Sycamore or Cottonwood... Just burn it all down. Damn the carbon, nobody should have to deal with milling that garbage.***

 

[Jeffreauxdawg]

Looking back at Turkish's question, the answer is yes. Old growth stores or sequesters more carbon. It does not pull as much out of the air in a year as younger, faster growing trees though. But this games is about paying me the landowner not to release carbon by cutting my trees this year. If it was about paying me to pull carbon out of the air, young trees would be better.

 

[SheltonChoked]

Looking back at Turkish's question, the answer is yes. Old growth stores or sequesters more carbon. It does not pull as much out of the air in a year as younger, faster growing trees though. But this games is about paying me the landowner not to release carbon by cutting my trees this year. If it was about paying me to pull carbon out of the air, young trees would be better.

And, if i read it right, there is nothing stopping you from signing up young trees.

To me this just looks like free money for tree farmers as a result of a global carbon market.

 

[turkish]

“by submitting a bid and signing the NCAPX Seller Agreement, you are granting SilviaTerra and its affiliates the right to access the property for program purposes”

Ehh. This may be an issue.

 

[Jeffreauxdawg]

Just an easement... I don't think the guys from Exxon are going to go throw parties at the moontower.**

From what I have read, it is probably only going to come to fruition if there is some kind of dispute on whether you cut timber you weren't supposed to or for a random sampling of on the ground verification. There is no way to make this program feasible if you had to send foresters or other people out to land holdings for anything other than the rarest of circumstances.

If you look into the company Silviaterra, you will see that their main tech is AI powered remote sensing of forest inventory. Really cool stuff. I imagine that is how they verify land owners didn't actually cut the timber they said they wouldn't... You just have to have a safeguard in the contract in case of dispute I would imagine. And in case you didn't click the ETA link on my original post, the co-founder of the company Zack Parisa is a Mississippi State Forestry grad. I doubt there is anything other than good intent behind this program. But if you have leased the land to someone else and it limits access I guess it's a no go.

 

[johnson86-1]

You are "skeptical" that timber grows in one year? Because that's all it is. See when plants make food they use Photosynthesis, to convert Co2 and water into complex carbon molecules used for growth.

Yes, I am skeptical that allowing the tree to grow another year meaningfully changes the amount of carbon released. That carbon isn't kept indefinitely. What the tree is used for after it is cut will dictate how long the carbon is sequestered. Older trees are more likely to used for durable goods, but I'm not sure how much elasticity there is for those durable goods and how much slightly increasing the supply of older trees, and thereby decreasing their growth, is going to increase the production of durable goods from those trees.

There are whole industries and academic fields that study tree growth. It's not that difficult to determine how much CO2 is sequestered in a year per tree species in a location.

Yes, that's an easy enough calculation, but it doesn't tell you how much CO2 you have reduced on net because you don't know what supply did in response. If there is an oversupply of timber compared to mill capacity, it's entirely possible that you haven't reduced CO2 at all, but only changed who decided to harvest at that point to sell to the nearest mill.

The CO made from harvesting, etc. is a sunk cost. It has 17 all to do with the added carbon sequestered in the additional year of growth. All that the new company is doing is using the carbon market to get tree farmers paid for what they are doing already. (I think that's called capitalism)

Yes, and if people want to pay for what is happening anyway, it's there money and they can do what they want to with it. But if they are trying to actually impact the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere, they are going to have to manage to pay people to do something different, and also hope (or figure out a way to ensure) that they aren't just changing which trees are cut..

And it also doesn't matter, year to year, how much each tree " sucks up" that year. (other than the payment based on... the amount of CO2 sequestered, which is why it's a year contract, as the tree grows the amount sequestered changes, leading to different payouts for each year). What matters is if the tree were there, growing, all year.

That's interesting that it changes the amount of payment based on the age of the tree. Do they take into account the fact that certain age trees are almost certainly going to not be cut regardless? That was sort of my question. IF they will just pay for any timber that's growing, then it's all gain for the owner that isn't planning on harvesting in a year anyway. IF they can effectively tell the age of the tracts and won't pay for timber that isn't likely going to be harvested anyway, it's still a good deal for the landowner, I'm just not sure it moves the needle much.

 

[SheltonChoked]

Yes, I am skeptical that allowing the tree to grow another year meaningfully changes the amount of carbon released. That carbon isn't kept indefinitely. What the tree is used for after it is cut will dictate how long the carbon is sequestered. Older trees are more likely to used for durable goods, but I'm not sure how much elasticity there is for those durable goods and how much slightly increasing the supply of older trees, and thereby decreasing their growth, is going to increase the production of durable goods from those trees.

You are way missing the point.

It's not about the amount of carbon "released" it's the amount of carbon turned into wood, that can be turned into a durable good i.e., lumber, OSB, plywood, etc.
Also volume increases exponentially with a radius. That means a very small increase in trunk diameter is a shitload more volume.

That's why we use the word Sequestered and not "removed". Making carbon into durable goods is not making limestone, or Coal, but it's better than letting it rot.

Yes, that's an easy enough calculation, but it doesn't tell you how much CO2 you have reduced on net because you don't know what supply did in response. If there is an oversupply of timber compared to mill capacity, it's entirely possible that you haven't reduced CO2 at all, but only changed who decided to harvest at that point to sell to the nearest mill.

A tree growing for an additional year adsorbed more carbon than a tree cut down that year. Period. It doesn't matter what the mill capacity was or the timber market. At all. Because the timber farmer is selling carbon and timber. To 2 different markets.

And you absolutely know how much co2 was turned to wood because foresters know how much a tree grows. That's why they want to know what type of tree, ho old, and the location(climate). So they can calculate how much the trees grow and how much carbon is captured. Otherwise, it's all make up snake oil.

Yes, and if people want to pay for what is happening anyway, it's there money and they can do what they want to with it. But if they are trying to actually impact the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere, they are going to have to manage to pay people to do something different, and also hope (or figure out a way to ensure) that they aren't just changing which trees are cut..

Again, there is a market for carbon offset tax credits. Companies have to pay to reduce their carbon. They can either reduce, or buy credits from a carbon negative business ( like tree famers).

This is the "market based solution" that the GOP has been clamoring for, and now "you are skeptical". Big surprise.

Right now, we have not figured out a better way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere than mother nature has. Even as painfully inefficient as photosynthesis is (it's only about 0.1% efficient in turning sunlight to biomass) it's still way better than anything else we have.

That's interesting that it changes the amount of payment based on the age of the tree. Do they take into account the fact that certain age trees are almost certainly going to not be cut regardless? That was sort of my question. IF they will just pay for any timber that's growing, then it's all gain for the owner that isn't planning on harvesting in a year anyway. IF they can effectively tell the age of the tracts and won't pay for timber that isn't likely going to be harvested anyway, it's still a good deal for the landowner, I'm just not sure it moves the needle much.

This just shows how little you get this. Of course it changes based on the tree age, tree type, climate, etc. because that affects the tree growth, and how much carbon is stored in the tree.

But again, this is taking credit for something that is happening already, and it provides a market force (by giving money to people).

You keep trying to make this some huge conspiracy. It's not. There is a market for carbon credits. Trees are a carbon sink. Therefore, Tree farmers should be able to sell their negative carbon credits to those that need them. In the past, this was too complicated because Inbev needed 2 gigatonnes of credits, not my 20 tonnes.

Again, per the example, the guy in the article got $5.50 per acre. For our poster with 80 acres, that's, $440 per year extra cash. No it's not a "let's retire to Maui" amount, but it's Football season tickets or property taxes. All for just signing up.

Like I said, I don't see the downside....

 

[johnson86-1]

You are way missing the point.

It's not about the amount of carbon "released" it's the amount of carbon turned into wood, that can be turned into a durable good i.e., lumber, OSB, plywood, etc.
Also volume increases exponentially with a radius. That means a very small increase in trunk diameter is a shitload more volume.

That's why we use the word Sequestered and not "removed". Making carbon into durable goods is not making limestone, or Coal, but it's better than letting it rot.

Sequestered and released are two sides of the same coins. Any carbon stored in wood is going to be released. If a tree gets made into framing lumber, it's probably going to hold that carbon a long time before it is released. If a tree is made into paper cups, it's not going to sequester it nearly as long. Until people are storing cut trees in dry places to prevent rot just for the benefits of carbon sequestration, you are not changing the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere unless you are making more durable goods out of wood. Hence the statement about the elasticity of durable goods. Additional sources of revenue that makes growing timber more profitable will in theory decrease the cost of using wood for durable goods. But I'm not sure how much of an impact that has on the demand for durable goods. And it's complicated by the fact that mill capacity has so much influence. It's possible that all the additional money would just be captured by mills, with no decrease in the price of lumber or other finished wood products used to make durable goods.

A tree growing for an additional year adsorbed more carbon than a tree cut down that year. Period. It doesn't matter what the mill capacity was or the timber market. At all. Because the timber farmer is selling carbon and timber. To 2 different markets.

And you absolutely know how much co2 was turned to wood because foresters know how much a tree grows. That's why they want to know what type of tree, ho old, and the location(climate). So they can calculate how much the trees grow and how much carbon is captured. Otherwise, it's all make up snake oil.

Right, they are selling to two different markets but they are not exclusive of each other, and as of now, ultimately, as ****** as timber prices are, the carbon payments are not enough to justify not ever cutting timber unless there are other reasons they don't want to cut (such as liking mature growth for recreational land). So the people paying for carbon are just paying for a delay before the timber is harvested and are only really doing something to the extent they shift more wood into durable goods and away from less durable goods and/or shift land from less carbon negative uses to timber land. SO yes, it does matter what mill capacity is. If they don't have the capacity to process more timber, then more timber is not being turned into durable goods, which means they aren't meaningfully changing the amount of carbon released.

Again, there is a market for carbon offset tax credits. Companies have to pay to reduce their carbon. They can either reduce, or buy credits from a carbon negative business ( like tree famers).

This is the "market based solution" that the GOP has been clamoring for, and now "you are skeptical". Big surprise.

Right now, we have not figured out a better way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere than mother nature has. Even as painfully inefficient as photosynthesis is (it's only about 0.1% efficient in turning sunlight to biomass) it's still way better than anything else we have.

There are actually two different markets for carbon offsets. THere is a market where people are looking to buy suuport for their claim that they are offsetting their carbon usage, and there is a market where people actually want to pay for CO2 emissions to be reduced compared to what they would have been if they were not paying. I don't necessarily have a problem with either one (except the first makes it easier for rich hypocrites to advocate for burdens on poor people that they aren't willing to bear themselves), but if you are buying offsets, presumably you want to know the difference. If you want to buy in the first market, it's pretty easy. If you want to buy in the second market, it's pretty hard because even when people are actually trying, second order effects can negate much or even all of the initial "reduction".

This just shows how little you get this. Of course it changes based on the tree age, tree type, climate, etc. because that affects the tree growth, and how much carbon is stored in the tree.

But again, this is taking credit for something that is happening already, and it provides a market force (by giving money to people).

I'm thinking you're maybe the one that's not getting this, first because you aren't recognizing that there have already been plenty of scams where people claim to sell and buy "offsets" and aren't really interested in actual CO2 reductions because they are just worried about being able to claim they are offsetting their carbon emissions. And second because if this is taking credit for something that is happening already, then pretty much by definition it's not moving the needle much as far as actually reducing emissions, although you might justify it instead on rewarding people that are engaged in carbon negative activities (although again, there's no guarantee the market wont'n result in that reward being captured by somebody else).

You keep trying to make this some huge conspiracy. It's not. There is a market for carbon credits. Trees are a carbon sink. Therefore, Tree farmers should be able to sell their negative carbon credits to those that need them. In the past, this was too complicated because Inbev needed 2 gigatonnes of credits, not my 20 tonnes.

I'm not trying to make it some huge conspiracy. I'm legitiamtely asking whether they are trying to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere or if they are just selling the ability for buyers to claim they reduced CO2 in the atmosphere. Both businesses exist, and you can't know which one is which without knowing how seriously they try to accurately count CO2 reductions.

Again, per the example, the guy in the article got $5.50 per acre. For our poster with 80 acres, that's, $440 per year extra cash. No it's not a "let's retire to Maui" amount, but it's Football season tickets or property taxes. All for just signing up.

Like I said, I don't see the downside....

Agreed there's no downside as long as people know what they are buying.

 

[SheltonChoked]

Sequestered and released are two sides of the same coins. Any carbon stored in wood is going to be released. If a tree gets made into framing lumber, it's probably going to hold that carbon a long time before it is released. If a tree is made into paper cups, it's not going to sequester it nearly as long. Until people are storing cut trees in dry places to prevent rot just for the benefits of carbon sequestration, you are not changing the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere unless you are making more durable goods out of wood. Hence the statement about the elasticity of durable goods. Additional sources of revenue that makes growing timber more profitable will in theory decrease the cost of using wood for durable goods. But I'm not sure how much of an impact that has on the demand for durable goods. And it's complicated by the fact that mill capacity has so much influence. It's possible that all the additional money would just be captured by mills, with no decrease in the price of lumber or other finished wood products used to make durable goods.

You should read more about this. You keep bringing up points that have nothing to do with what the purpose of this business is or how it would help timber farmers

Coal is Sequestered Wood carbon. It was sequestered for over 300 MILLION years. I'm not saying a house locks it up that long, but even things thrown away like paper don't rot in landfills. You seem to have the thought we can or even want to remove the carbon forever. That's not the case. It's getting it out of the atmosphere.

Yeah if all the mills closed and we couldn't make anything from wood, and we ran out of land to plant trees on, then we would have an issue...

Right, they are selling to two different markets but they are not exclusive of each other, and as of now, ultimately, as ****** as timber prices are, the carbon payments are not enough to justify not ever cutting timber unless there are other reasons they don't want to cut (such as liking mature growth for recreational land). So the people paying for carbon are just paying for a delay before the timber is harvested and are only really doing something to the extent they shift more wood into durable goods and away from less durable goods and/or shift land from less carbon negative uses to timber land. SO yes, it does matter what mill capacity is. If they don't have the capacity to process more timber, then more timber is not being turned into durable goods, which means they aren't meaningfully changing the amount of carbon released.

The carbon tax is far too low right now. and they are exclusive of each other. You can sell to one or the other. Not both in the same year. you sell carbon for 35-50 years, then trees to the mills. Mills don't buy carbon, The carbon market doesn't buy logs.

Kinda like selling hunting rights. The sawmill doesn't buy the hunting rights and the hunters don't buy the logs.

The people paying for the carbon are paying for the carbon locked into the trees. They don't care if it is a 1 year old tree or a 50 year old tree.

Adding an additional revenue source for Tree farmers is a good thing for the tree farmers. Because it gives them more money for something they were already doing. It's not that hard a concept.

There are actually two different markets for carbon offsets. THere is a market where people are looking to buy suuport for their claim that they are offsetting their carbon usage, and there is a market where people actually want to pay for CO2 emissions to be reduced compared to what they would have been if they were not paying. I don't necessarily have a problem with either one (except the first makes it easier for rich hypocrites to advocate for burdens on poor people that they aren't willing to bear themselves), but if you are buying offsets, presumably you want to know the difference. If you want to buy in the first market, it's pretty easy. If you want to buy in the second market, it's pretty hard because even when people are actually trying, second order effects can negate much or even all of the initial "reduction".

There are more than 2 markets. And to the people here, it doesn't matter how "hypocritical" the people giving them money are or not. The money spends the same.

I'm thinking you're maybe the one that's not getting this, first because you aren't recognizing that there have already been plenty of scams where people claim to sell and buy "offsets" and aren't really interested in actual CO2 reductions because they are just worried about being able to claim they are offsetting their carbon emissions. And second because if this is taking credit for something that is happening already, then pretty much by definition it's not moving the needle much as far as actually reducing emissions, although you might justify it instead on rewarding people that are engaged in carbon negative activities (although again, there's no guarantee the market wont'n result in that reward being captured by somebody else).

Yeah. You are missing this and trying to make it something it is not. This is not some way to make a retirement off planting tree just for the carbon tax. It's a way to get the carbon tax money to the people.

The market exists for trading carbon. This company allows a small tree farmer to get in on that market. Which helps the small tree farmer. Maybe helps him plant more trees. Which helps reduce atmospheric CO2.

Does it "move the needle"? maybe, maybe not. DOes the guy getting an extra $5-10 an acre a year really care?

I'm not trying to make it some huge conspiracy. I'm legitimately asking whether they are trying to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere or if they are just selling the ability for buyers to claim they reduced CO2 in the atmosphere. Both businesses exist, and you can't know which one is which without knowing how seriously they try to accurately count CO2 reductions.

You keep missing the point. This is to get the carbon tax money to individuals. Not to some corporation or government. but to people. I don't understand how you keep missing this...

Again, you keep trying to make this some magic beans that allow you to drive a 8 barrel 427 V-8 all the time or keep you coal power plants. This is not that. But it might be enough to allow airlines to keep flying...

Agreed there's no downside as long as people know what they are buying.

Missed it again.
The tree farmer is not buying anything......

 

[johnson86-1]

You should read more about this. You keep bringing up points that have nothing to do with what the purpose of this business is or how it would help timber farmers

I never disputed that it would help timber farmers. If it's a feel good program, it's going to be really nice for farmers as they will get paid and not really have to make any sacrifice. THe more serious the program is about trying to actually produce carbon offsets as opposed to just claims of carbon offsets, the less good the deal will be for timber owners. It will still be a net positive, as no program is going to economic if they are stopping any gaming of it, but there will be a huge difference if at one extreme, they can get paid to not harvest one year old timber, versus the other extreme, where they don't get paid until they are growing trees past 25 years. That was my first (and really only) question I posted here. Is it a feel good program (a good little bonus to timber owners) or a real offset program (a plus, but pretty minimal impact to timber owners).

Coal is Sequestered Wood carbon. It was sequestered for over 300 MILLION years. I'm not saying a house locks it up that long, but even things thrown away like paper don't rot in landfills. You seem to have the thought we can or even want to remove the carbon forever. That's not the case. It's getting it out of the atmosphere.

Yeah if all the mills closed and we couldn't make anything from wood, and we ran out of land to plant trees on, then we would have an issue...

If you think the carbon needs to be sequestered, it at least needs to be sequestered long enough for technology to make the question irrelevant. Paper products can decompose in a month in a landfill and produce methane or can last twenty years depending on what they are and what kind of protecting coating they might have. I'm not sure if two decades accomplishes anything. I think framing lumber that is going into a typical stickbuilt house that is going to last hopefully a hundred years will make a difference (of course there's a lot of carbon emissions assoicated with everything else in a house, so that might not actually reduce carbon emissions on net).

The carbon tax is far too low right now. and they are exclusive of each other. You can sell to one or the other. Not both in the same year. you sell carbon for 35-50 years, then trees to the mills. Mills don't buy carbon, The carbon market doesn't buy logs.

For a one year difference in release, you are selling them essentially simultaneously as far as the relevant time scale goes.

Kinda like selling hunting rights. The sawmill doesn't buy the hunting rights and the hunters don't buy the logs.

And just like here, selling hunting rights doesn't stop the trees from being harvested.

The people paying for the carbon are paying for the carbon locked into the trees. They don't care if it is a 1 year old tree or a 50 year old tree.

But if they are actually trying to pay for reducing carbon in the atmosphere, then they should care whether they are keeping it out of the atmosphere for an additional one year or an additional 99 years.

Adding an additional revenue source for Tree farmers is a good thing for the tree farmers. Because it gives them more money for something they were already doing. It's not that hard a concept.

No doubt it's a good thing for the timber owners and that's not a hard concept. But if the timber owners are getting paid for what they were going to do anyway, then teh people paying for the carbon also aren't actually accomplishing anything, and that's not a hard concept either.

There are more than 2 markets. And to the people here, it doesn't matter how "hypocritical" the people giving them money are or not. The money spends the same.

Correct. But it does matter to them whether the people buying want to claim an offset or actually produce an offest, because the former (where you get paid for doing nothing) is much more profitable to the timber owner than the latter (where you only get paid for changing your behavior, or at least they try to only pay you for changing your behavior).

Yeah. You are missing this and trying to make it something it is not. This is not some way to make a retirement off planting tree just for the carbon tax. It's a way to get the carbon tax money to the people.

The market exists for trading carbon. This company allows a small tree farmer to get in on that market. Which helps the small tree farmer. Maybe helps him plant more trees. Which helps reduce atmospheric CO2.

Does it "move the needle"? maybe, maybe not. DOes the guy getting an extra $5-10 an acre a year really care?

The timber owner doesn't care. But depending on who the buyer of the credit is, they might care.

You keep missing the point. This is to get the carbon tax money to individuals. Not to some corporation or government. but to people. I don't understand how you keep missing this...

Again, you keep trying to make this some magic beans that allow you to drive a 8 barrel 427 V-8 all the time or keep you coal power plants. This is not that. But it might be enough to allow airlines to keep flying...



Missed it again.
The tree farmer is not buying anything......

The money to pay the timber owner is coming from somebody buying something. The buyer of the credit is the one that needs to know whether it is just a "credit" or if there was some incremental decrease in the carbon in the atmosphere compared to what it would be if they had not bought the credit.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

I found a different article and it does not say one year. It was by Bloomberg. I was not going to sign up to read that article. My grand parents lost mineral right due to a scheme by Lee Hawkins grand dad. My parents lost money on a Cell tower lease. I would take any chance on a contract written by a big cooperation.

Mineral rights in Mississippi are complicated.

 

[SheltonChoked]

I never disputed that it would help timber farmers. If it's a feel good program, it's going to be really nice for farmers as they will get paid and not really have to make any sacrifice. THe more serious the program is about trying to actually produce carbon offsets as opposed to just claims of carbon offsets, the less good the deal will be for timber owners. It will still be a net positive, as no program is going to economic if they are stopping any gaming of it, but there will be a huge difference if at one extreme, they can get paid to not harvest one year old timber, versus the other extreme, where they don't get paid until they are growing trees past 25 years. That was my first (and really only) question I posted here. Is it a feel good program (a good little bonus to timber owners) or a real offset program (a plus, but pretty minimal impact to timber owners).

If you think the carbon needs to be sequestered, it at least needs to be sequestered long enough for technology to make the question irrelevant. Paper products can decompose in a month in a landfill and produce methane or can last twenty years depending on what they are and what kind of protecting coating they might have. I'm not sure if two decades accomplishes anything. I think framing lumber that is going into a typical stickbuilt house that is going to last hopefully a hundred years will make a difference (of course there's a lot of carbon emissions assoicated with everything else in a house, so that might not actually reduce carbon emissions on net).







For a one year difference in release, you are selling them essentially simultaneously as far as the relevant time scale goes.

And just like here, selling hunting rights doesn't stop the trees from being harvested.

But if they are actually trying to pay for reducing carbon in the atmosphere, then they should care whether they are keeping it out of the atmosphere for an additional one year or an additional 99 years.

No doubt it's a good thing for the timber owners and that's not a hard concept. But if the timber owners are getting paid for what they were going to do anyway, then teh people paying for the carbon also aren't actually accomplishing anything, and that's not a hard concept either.




Correct. But it does matter to them whether the people buying want to claim an offset or actually produce an offest, because the former (where you get paid for doing nothing) is much more profitable to the timber owner than the latter (where you only get paid for changing your behavior, or at least they try to only pay you for changing your behavior).





The timber owner doesn't care. But depending on who the buyer of the credit is, they might care.


The money to pay the timber owner is coming from somebody buying something. The buyer of the credit is the one that needs to know whether it is just a "credit" or if there was some incremental decrease in the carbon in the atmosphere compared to what it would be if they had not bought the credit.

The money for carbon offsets is being paid. Would you rather it go to Mississippi Tree Farmers or to Goldman Saks?

And paper products can take decades to decompose in landfills as the compaction makes ita anaerobic environment. Cite:https://www.ecoproducts.com/images/pdfs/talking_points/Biodegradation.pdf

Stop moving the goalposts. People have to live in some structure. Making houses out of wood locks in much more carbon than any alternative (concrete, masonry, steel, etc.). So that's a net loss of carbon.

The buyer of the credit is buying carbon sequestered in wood. That they ask where, what type of tree, and how old the tree, infers taht they are calculating the amount of co2 captured over that time period.

Again, countries are taxing companies on carbon. that money has to go somewhere. Getting it to some timber farmer that lets him pay his taxes, or buy a few nice dinners out is a win. And he'll be a lot more interested in keeping that money coming when carbon taxs start being talked about.