The Carbon Credit Market Serves Elites. Global Warming Problems Are Hyped to Extort Money From the Masses; no Solutions Come Because Climate Change is Natural.

The carbon credit trading system is up and running in America. The United States is considering a cap and trade market where carbon emissions are limited or "capped" for industries and companies. This is an excellent deal for those behind the scenes.

Even in a voluntary market, many companies are gearing up for buying and selling carbon credits either to make up for a short fall in carbon reduction or to make money from carbon reduction measures.

Forest landowners are paid to plant or manage trees on their land that soak up carbon and store it for decades, even centuries. Carbon credits in the U.S. are voluntary, traded through the Chicago Carbon Exchange or other fledgling markets.

In Europe, where mandatory carbon dioxide caps are in place, credits trade for nearly $20 per ton. And experts say U.S. credits could hit $40 per ton when carbon caps are mandated.

Even at the $20 rate, a Environmental Protection Agency analysis shows U.S. forests could store an extra 500 million tons of carbon, translating into a $10 billion market.

On February 24, President Barack Obama proposed the nation's first ever carbon tax as part of his 2010 budget to Congress. In one scenario, carbon polluters would receive a cap on emissions that would be lowered yearly until carbon pollution is cut to the pre-1990 levels.

If they beat that cap, polluters may sell credits on an open market, much the way utilities now buy and sell credits for acid-rain-causing sulfur dioxide. If they exceed the cap, polluters must buy credits.

TWO METRIC TONS OF CARBON PER ACRE

The Blandin Foundation, University of Minnesota and Society of American Foresters gathered experts from across the U.S. in for a two-day conference in Cloquet, Minnesota to explain the science and economics behind carbon storage in forests.

The discussion revealed that their local Minnesota forests could store about two metric tons of carbon per acre, and when higher credit values hit, the proposition becomes very lucrative. There is little debate that trees are very effective at storing carbon. Living trees pull carbon out of the air and even dead ones, even as lumber, can store carbon.

When they are cut and burned or begin to rot, however, the carbon goes back into the atmosphere. Some experts say the wood from trees also should be considered for carbon credits, noting a wood house will continue to store carbon inside for decades.

Moreover, producing homes and products from wood, as opposed to concrete, steel or plastic, uses far less fossil fuel and generally creates less pollution, said Jim Bowyer, a former University of Minnesota wood products expert who is now a principal in Dovetail Partners, a Minnesota-based non-profit aimed at promoting sustainable wood products markets.

A serious carbon credit program probably won't be as simple as getting paid to leave trees standing. Instead, experts say, forest owners will be required to show how they are managing their forest differently to capture more carbon than would have otherwise occurred. They will be paid for the difference between doing nothing and making changes.

VERIFIABLE CARBON PRODUCTION

Conference attendees learned that any kind of carbon credit for forest storage will require verifiable action by landowners to make sure the carbon really is there and that it stays there.

So far, the cost of verifying how much carbon each plot of land can store has been more than the value of the credits. When higher prices do come, abuses are expected, as unscrupulous landowners seek to cash-in.

"If we don't deal with it in a straightforward way, it's going to jeopardize having forests included in the global CO2 solution,'' said John Gunn of the Maryland-based Manomet center for Conservation Science.

Several efforts are under way to develop ways to verify how much carbon Minnesota forests can store and how to increase that storage.

John Rajala, whose family owns and manages 28,000 acres of forest in northern Minnesota, attended the Cloquet conference. He said he hopes carbon credit can help private landowners keep their land in forestry instead of bowing to high-prices paid by developers.

KEEP LAND UNDEVELOPED

Like the conservation easements, Rajala has sold some land, agreeing to keep the land undeveloped and open to the public; carbon credits might offer a revenue source to help pay taxes and keep the land producing trees for the family's sawmill in Deer River.

"This is going to be real. It's coming sooner than we think, and our family is trying to get ready for it,'' he said.

"We think we are a good fit because we already are managing for bigger trees for lumber production," Rajala said. "But we also don't want this to be a tool to just promote more old growth ... We think the best (carbon storage) will probably come for the best forest management where we have the right mix of old and new that tries to mimic a natural forest.''

Farmers already are moving to enroll their idled rangeland or grasslands in carbon credit programs. National Farmers Union officials at the Cloquet conference said since 2006, their members have received more than $8.1 million for carbon credits--payments that could balloon into serious cash under a mandatory system.

EXTRA INCOME FOR FARMERS

"It's extra income for farmers, a bonus ... It helps pay the property taxes,'' said Bruce Miller of the Minnesota Farmers Union. "Who would have thought 30 years ago that our members would be farming the wind or farming carbon?''