Economic and biophysical limits to seaweed farming for climate change mitigation.

Net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targets are driving interest in opportunities for biomass-based negative emissions and bioenergy, including from marine sources such as seaweed. Yet the biophysical and economic limits to farming seaweed at scales relevant to the global carbon budget have not been assessed in detail. We use coupled seaweed growth and technoeconomic models to estimate the costs of global seaweed production and related climate benefits, systematically testing the relative importance of model parameters. Under our most optimistic assumptions, sinking farmed seaweed to the deep sea to sequester a gigaton of CO2 per year costs as little as US$480 per tCO2 on average, while using farmed seaweed for products that avoid a gigaton of CO2-equivalent GHG emissions annually could return a profit of $50 per tCO2-eq. However, these costs depend on low farming costs, high seaweed yields, and assumptions that almost all carbon in seaweed is removed from the atmosphere (that is, competition between phytoplankton and seaweed is negligible) and that seaweed products can displace products with substantial embodied non-CO2 GHG emissions. Moreover, the gigaton-scale climate benefits we model would require farming very large areas (>90,000 km2)-a >30-fold increase in the area currently farmed. Our results therefore suggest that seaweed-based climate benefits may be feasible, but targeted research and demonstrations are needed to further reduce economic and biophysical uncertainties.

Future climate risks from stress, insects and fire across US forests.

Forests are currently a substantial carbon sink globally. Many climate change mitigation strategies leverage forest preservation and expansion, but rely on forests storing carbon for decades to centuries. Yet climate-driven disturbances pose critical risks to the long-term stability of forest carbon. We quantify the climate drivers that influence wildfire and climate stress-driven tree mortality, including a separate insect-driven tree mortality, for the contiguous United States for current (1984-2018) and project these future disturbance risks over the 21st century. We find that current risks are widespread and projected to increase across different emissions scenarios by a factor of >4 for fire and >1.3 for climate-stress mortality. These forest disturbance risks highlight pervasive climate-sensitive disturbance impacts on US forests and raise questions about the risk management approach taken by forest carbon offset policies. Our results provide US-wide risk maps of key climate-sensitive disturbances for improving carbon cycle modeling, conservation and climate policy.

Systematic over-crediting in California's forest carbon offsets program.

Carbon offsets are widely used by individuals, corporations, and governments to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions on the assumption that offsets reflect equivalent climate benefits achieved elsewhere. These climate-equivalence claims depend on offsets providing real and additional climate benefits beyond what would have happened, counterfactually, without the offsets project. Here, we evaluate the design of California's prominent forest carbon offsets program and demonstrate that its climate-equivalence claims fall far short on the basis of directly observable evidence. By design, California's program awards large volumes of offset credits to forest projects with carbon stocks that exceed regional averages. This paradigm allows for adverse selection, which could occur if project developers preferentially select forests that are ecologically distinct from unrepresentative regional averages. By digitizing and analyzing comprehensive offset project records alongside detailed forest inventory data, we provide direct evidence that comparing projects against coarse regional carbon averages has led to systematic over-crediting of 30.0 million tCO2 e (90% CI: 20.5-38.6 million tCO2 e) or 29.4% of the credits we analyzed (90% CI: 20.1%-37.8%). These excess credits are worth an estimated $410 million (90% CI: $280-$528 million) at recent market prices. Rather than improve forest management to store additional carbon, California's forest offsets program creates incentives to generate offset credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.