Abstract
There are many ideas presented in this document but here we highlight some of the major points. There is much still to be learned for implementing a forest offset program and what works for one market is likely to be emulated or adapted in other markets. Goldstein and Nayland (2015) note that “there are a few key compliance carbon-pricing policies to watch” and “California represents the most certain source of demand for forest carbon in the next few years.” Challenges that are met can be modified and improved in other markets and in new iterations of existing markets. A key objective is to maintain fungibility among markets and between emissions and offsets (Lee et al. 2013).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Goldstein A, Neyland E. Converging at the crossroads State of forest carbon finance 2015. Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace. Washington, DC, Nov 2015. 2015.
Lee CM, Lazarus M, Smith GR, Todd K, Weitz M. A ton is not always a ton: a road test of landfill, manure, and afforestation/reforestation protocols in the U.S. carbon market. Environ Sci Pol. 2013;32:53–62.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Marland, E. et al. (2017). Conclusion and Recommendations. In: Understanding and Analysis: The California Air Resources Board Forest Offset Protocol. SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52434-4_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52434-4_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52433-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52434-4
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)