By: Kurt Krapfl, PhD, ACR Director of Forestry

ACR is launching a blog series to explore and explain carbon markets and how ACR tackles various issues in our ongoing mission to set the bar for carbon credit quality. Our first post is on additionality and baselines for Improved Forest Management (IFM) projects.

Demand for voluntary carbon credits has doubled in recent years and is expected to grow as much as 10 times by 2030 and 30 times by 2050. Much of this demand is driven by a growing number of carbon neutral and net zero commitments from companies seeking to decarbonize their supply chains and offset unavoidable emissions with high quality carbon credits.

ACR credits for emission reduction and removals in a variety of sectors and for a number of different activities that are all critical to meeting Paris Agreement goals. In the industrial sector, ACR credits for methane reduction from landfills, coal mines and (coming soon) abandoned and orphaned oil and gas wells. In the forestry sector, ACR credits for afforestation / reforestation, avoided conversion of U.S. forests (coming soon), and for IFM.

ACR IFM Additionality and Baselines

Some of the questions we get asked most are about “additionality” and baseline setting for IFM. How do we ensure that project actions or policies exceed those that would have occurred in the absence of the project activity and without carbon market incentives? How do we ensure a credible baseline scenario from which to measure performance?

We thought these would be good topics to kick the series off with to explain ACR’s approach and how our IFM methodology addresses common questions around assessing additionality and establishing a crediting baseline.

IFM Background

In the U.S., the number of IFM projects in development is growing because standards bodies like ACR have published methodologies that are applicable to a variety of landowner types, including private industrial, private non-industrial, tribal, public non-federal, and non-governmental organizations. By attaching a monetary value to carbon sequestration, the carbon market presents an opportunity for different types of landowners to achieve a higher standard of forest management, while still supplementing their revenue goals and helping to combat climate change.

It is important to note that enrollment in an ACR IFM project initiates an immediately effective, legally binding, and public-facing 40-year commitment to grow trees older and larger, and/or to harvest less frequently or intensely. The projects quantify and credit carbon stored on the landscape as a result of this new long-term management commitment. IFM offers a cost-effective and scalable opportunity to sequester carbon now, as we pursue a transition to a carbon neutral economy by mid-century.

Additionality

Key to ensuring the credibility of carbon offsets is the concept of additionality. This assumption is a central tenet of all carbon offset programs and projects, not just IFM. It is important because there needs to be a high level of confidence that project actions or policies exceed those that would have occurred in the absence of the project activity and without carbon market incentives.

The ACR IFM methodology contains specific requirements for project proponents to demonstrate additionality. As a first step, all ACR IFM projects must be verified to meet a 3-prong additionality test, requiring demonstration that they 1) exceed all currently effective laws and regulations, 2) exceed common practice management of similar forests in the region, and 3) face at least one of three barriers to their implementation (financial, technical, or institutional).

The regulatory surplus test involves evaluating all existing laws, regulations, statutes, legal rulings, deed restrictions, or other regulatory frameworks relevant to the project area that directly or indirectly affect GHG emissions associated with a project action or its baseline candidates, and which require technical, performance, or management actions. The project action cannot be legally required.

The common practice test requires an evaluation of the predominant forest management practices of the region and a demonstration that the management activities of the project scenario will increase carbon sequestration compared to common practice. This involves evaluating and describing the predominant forest management practices occurring on comparable sites of the region and demonstrating that the project activities will achieve greater carbon sequestration than in the absence of the project.

Finally, the implementation barrier test examines factors or considerations that would prevent the adoption of the practice or activity proposed by the project proponent. IFM projects often demonstrate a financial implementation barrier because carbon projects are generally expensive to implement and coincide with harvest deferral and forgone potential revenues. This results in a low internal rate of return in comparison to the land potential that dissuades many landowners from implementing carbon projects. Technological and institutional barriers associated with carbon projects may also be proposed.

Determining Baselines

Enhancing carbon stocks above a baseline scenario is what allows carbon credits to be generated. Ensuring a reasonable baseline is equally important for ensuring credibility. Under ACR’s IFM methodology, determining the baseline involves a comprehensive assessment of site characteristics and predominant forest management practices in the region to develop an alternate forest management scenario that could reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of the project.

ACR baselines consider all legal constraints to forest management, as well as operational constraints to forest management such as site access, mill capacities, and hauling distances. Baseline silvicultural treatments must be substantiated by peer-reviewed or state/federal publications, attestations from regional foresters, or other verifiable means to ensure their relevance to the project area. In other words, they need to be substantially vetted and validated by independent sources.

Finally, to address the various management objectives and considerations confronting ownerships of different types, ACR IFM baselines employ a Faustmann approach to net present value (NPV) maximization, which considers prices, costs, and the time value of money in determining harvest schedules. Faustmann’s original 1849 work forms the basis for modern optimal rotation/investment decisions and forest economics. NPV discount rates based on peer-reviewed literature govern the intensity and temporal distribution of baseline harvests, considering the specific characteristics and motivations of each ownership type.

The ACR approach is a consistent, replicable, and verifiable metric upon which to assess management decisions across the major U.S. forestland ownership types. It also provides a transparent and systematic metric by which landowners, project developers, verifiers, and offset purchasers can base their assessment of an ACR IFM carbon project.

As a leading carbon offset standards body, ACR takes pride in ensuring our projects generate carbon credits that are additional to business-as-usual and generate meaningful climate benefits, both in the near and long-term.

We also recognize the complexities of this space and provide responses to commonly asked questions below:

Why Not Use Historic Baselines?

We do not use historical activity because, absent legal constraints, it does not necessarily represent the future management trajectory. Setting a IFM baseline solely according to recent harvest trends ignores the fact that in the absence of an abrupt paradigm shift, silviculture and forest management occurs and evolves over longer timeframes. Forest management is long-term and cyclical, and evolves based on financial needs, market conditions, agency priorities, and other factors. The future harvest scenario of any given forest is fundamentally unknown and management objectives change over time. Land can be sold and harvested. In the absence of a long-term, legally binding commitment, plans for how lands are managed can, and invariably do, change. While ACR requires that all legal constraints be modelled in the baseline, forest management plans are not legally binding and can be modified at any time.

Shouldn’t Project Proponents Justify the Baseline?

Yes. In addition to the requirement for ACR IFM projects to verifiably demonstrate that they exceed all currently effective laws and regulations, exceed common practice management of similar forests in the region, and face at least one of three implementation barriers, project proponents must also develop a baseline through a comprehensive assessment of site characteristics and predominant forest management practices relevant to the project area. ACR baselines consider all legal constraints to forest management, as well as operational constraints to forest management, such as site access, mill capacities, and hauling distances. Project proponents must describe the baseline harvest regime and justify the harvest regime/silvicultural practices with peer-reviewed studies or other reputable reports to demonstrate that what they propose is a realistic alternate management scenario. ACR requires the details of these analyses to be included in the GHG Project Plan. All baseline assumptions are verified.

Isn’t it possible that the forests in question would be managed the same way with or without carbon crediting?

Enrollment in an ACR IFM project represents an immediate change from previous practice because it initiates an immediately effective, legally binding, and public facing commitment to increase carbon stocks in the project area for four decades. It is a tangible, firm, and immediate action to increase and directly quantify carbon sequestration according to a known and transparent framework.

It is not common for a landowner with mature timber to make a long-term commitment (40 years in this case) to light harvesting and to legally forgo the opportunity to do so. As mentioned above, forest management is long-term and cyclical based on financial needs, market conditions, agency priorities, mill conditions, and other factors. Carbon projects typically provide a minimal cost recovery in comparison to the forgone revenues and opportunity cost associated with harvest deferral and managing for carbon sequestration. Carbon projects provide legal certainty, which was absent before, that the project area will increase its carbon stocks over time and that the property will be managed to a standard that far exceeds that previously allowable.

Does the project take the most aggressive harvest scenario off the table?

Yes, although carbon projects do much more than just take the most aggressive scenario off the table. Projects enrolling with ACR must maintain or increase their forest carbon stocks over the 40-year project commitment term (i.e., they cannot harvest more than annual growth). Doing so would be a reversal and they’d have to compensate ACR for the reversed credits. It is not common practice for a landowner with mature timber to enroll in a long-term, legally binding agreement that limits their capacity to harvest over time.

What about different kinds of landowners?

In the early days, the primary participants in IFM projects were large timberland owners. Over time, the market has expanded to include many different types of landowners. Evolving financial needs, market conditions, management priorities, and other factors are applicable to all kinds of landowners. Therefore, our rigorous criteria for additionality and determining baselines apply to all project proponents, who must justify why the baseline is a realistic management trajectory. Organizations that may have longer-term, institutional climate targets should also factor these into their decisions to enroll IFM projects and their justification of baseline scenarios.

How does ACR improve its methodologies over time?

All ACR methodologies must undergo a rigorous approval process that involves internal review, public consultation, and blind scientific peer review. ACR is the only registry to require scientific peer-review for the approval of its methodologies.

We are continually updating and improving our methodologies over time. The ACR IFM methodology, for example, was first approved in 2011 and is undergoing its fourth version update. The new IFM version 2.0 provides clarifications and updates to continuously strengthen the methodology, and reflects our deep knowledgebase gained from implementing IFM projects for over a decade.

ACR’s IFM methodology version 2.0 is currently in peer review and expected to be published in the summer of 2022.

LITTLE ROCK, AR, November 17, 2021 -The American Carbon Registry (ACR), a nonprofit enterprise of Winrock International, is announcing an open public comment period for updates to two methodologies:

– Version 2.0 of the approved Methodology for the Quantification, Monitoring, Reporting and Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions from the Use of Certified Reclaimed HFC Refrigerants.

– Version 3.0 of the approved Methodology for the Quantification, Monitoring, Reporting and Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions from the Transition to Advanced Formulation Blowing Agents in Foam Manufacturing and Use.

The updates to both methodologies include quantification for emissions at end of life of the equipment containing the HFCs and also updates the end use-specific HFC emission rates consistent with the EPA GHG Inventory 1990-2019.

Please submit written comments via ACRIndustrial@winrock.org by December 17, 2021.

LITTLE ROCK, AR,  September 29, 2021 – The American Carbon Registry (ACR), a nonprofit enterprise of Winrock International, has approved a  Methodology for the Quantification, Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions and Removals from Improved Forest Management on Small Non-Industrial Private Forestlands.

The methodology quantifies greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions and removals resulting from improved forest management (IFM) activities on aggregated ownerships of non-industrial private forestlands, ranging from 40–5,000 forested acres. Emission reductions are quantified from forest carbon projects that exceed baseline forest management practices, and removals are quantified for retention of annual forest growth. The primary carbon sequestration mechanism is the commitment to forego harvesting, grow trees longer and increase forest stocking.

“A commitment to the long-term objectives of this methodology, especially those which persist as land transfers ownership, presents a new and sorely needed opportunity for small landowners to both benefit from an additional revenue stream associated with carbon sequestration and to help combat climate change. The opportunity to enroll in a carbon project under this methodology also incentivizes long-term, sustainable forest management practices that provide significant co-benefits such as habitat and water protection, improved soil health, and recreation,” said Jessica Orrego, ACR Director of Forestry.

Despite owning nearly 40% of U.S. forestlands, less than 1% of small forest ownerships have enrolled in the carbon market to date. This is due to known financial and institutional barriers associated with the scale and complexity of the existing market.

This methodology, developed in partnership with Finite Carbon and ACR, includes innovative aggregation, monitoring, and verification approaches that create efficiencies and streamlined processes to alleviate market entry barriers and incentivize climate action by small landowners.

“With this methodology, we can empower private owners of forested land to access, create, and manage their carbon offsets on a single platform. With the American Carbon Registry’s fully transparent registry system and scientifically rigorous carbon accounting standards, we’re thrilled to be able to offer small landowners new opportunities to benefit from sustainable stewardship, just as large landowners have done for years, while protecting our natural resources for future generations,” said Sean Carney, CEO of Finite Carbon.

As a pioneer in harnessing the power of markets to improve the environment, ACR has set the bar for offset quality and continues to lead in innovation. All methodologies follow a rigorous process for approval including a public stakeholder consultation and a blind scientific peer-review.

LITTLE ROCK, AR,  September 22, 2021 – The American Carbon Registry (ACR), a nonprofit enterprise of Winrock International, has approved a Methodology for the Quantification, Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions and Removals from Improved Forest Management on Canadian Forestlands.

Similar to the ACR’s published Improved Forest Management Methodology for Quantifying GHG Removals and Emission Reductions through Increased Forest Carbon Sequestration on Non-Federal U.S. Forestlands, the new methodology provides a rigorous scientific framework for offset project development, registration and verification of  greenhouse gas emission reductions resulting from forest carbon projects on eligible Canadian lands that reduce emissions by exceeding baseline forest management practices. Removals are quantified for increased sequestration through retention of annual forest growth when project activities exceed the baseline. The methodology is applicable to all Canadian forestlands that are not subject to provincial or federal forest management regulations.

“We are excited to expand ACR’s IFM methodology to a new geography. Improved Forest Management activities offer tremendous potential for sequestering carbon on Canadian forestlands. The ACR methodology provides opportunity for Canadian forest landowners to manage for and monetize carbon sequestration as a landscape asset,” said Jessica Orrego, ACR Director of Forestry.

This methodology was developed by Dr. John A. Kershaw and Yung-Han Hsu, based in Fredericton, NB, Canada, as well as Bluesource LLC., Finite Carbon and ACR, and was based largely on an existing version of ACR’s U.S.-based IFM methodology originally developed by Finite Carbon and updated by Matt Delaney and David Ford of L&C Carbon and Greg Latta of Oregon State University. The methodology was approved through ACR’s public stakeholder consultation and scientific peer review process.

The American Carbon Registry (ACR), a nonprofit enterprise of Winrock International, is soliciting public comments on an updated version 2.0 of its approved Methodology for the Quantification, Monitoring, Reporting and Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions and Removals from Improved Forest Management in Non-Federal U.S. Forestlands.

Similar to previous versions of the methodology, greenhouse gas emission reductions are quantified from forest carbon projects that reduce emissions by exceeding baseline forest management practices, and removals are quantified for increased sequestration through retention of annual forest growth.

A detailed list of methodology updates can be found in the “Summary of Proposed Modifications for IFM v2.0”.

The methodology update was developed by ACR over the last year based on learnings from projects registered under a version of the methodology authored by Matt Delaney and David Ford of L&C Carbon and Greg Latta of Oregon State University, and originally developed by Finite Carbon. The methodology is being updated through ACR’s public consultation and scientific peer review processes.

Please send comments to ACR@winrock.org by October 20, 2021 referencing “comments to IFM update.”

LITTLE ROCK, AR, September 16, 2021 – The American Carbon Registry (ACR), a non-profit enterprise of Winrock International, is celebrating the International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer by announcing the approval of a new Methodology for the Quantification, Monitoring, Reporting and Verification of GHG Emissions Reductions from the Destruction of Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) from International Sources. The Methodology builds on ACR’s existing ODS destruction methodology, which is applicable only for U.S. domestically sourced and destroyed ODS, by establishing the applicability, eligibility, and monitoring provisions for ODS sourced from and/or destroyed in locations outside of the U.S. and its territories.

The new Methodology significantly broadens the scope of eligible opportunities to remove high GWP ODS from circulation and storage through permanent destruction of these harmful greenhouse gases (GHG). The new methodology significantly expands opportunities for global climate action as large quantities of these now banned substances remain in storage and equipment around the world, their only fate being to continue leaking into the atmosphere.

“This Methodology provides new opportunities for ambitious climate action to help eliminate one of the most potent sources of global warming we face,” said Mary Grady, Executive Director of ACR. “While the world has made significant progress in phasing out ozone depleting substances, there are still far too many of these in products and devices that we use around the world every day. It’s clear that the carbon market is providing incentives to permanently destroy these harmful substances and shift to more climate-friendly alternatives.”

ODS are substances like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) that are often used within refrigeration and air conditioning systems, aerosol sprays, medical devices and foam blowing agents for insulation and noise reduction in buildings, appliances, coolers, marine applications and industrial pipe insulation. CFCs and HCFCs are internationally designated as ODS because they participate in chemical reactions in the atmosphere that deplete the stratospheric ozone layer.

ODS are also some of the most dangerous greenhouse gases in terms of climate change, with four-to-ten thousand times the heat trapping properties of carbon dioxide. Global Warming Potential (GWP) is a measurement to assess the global warming impacts for different gases compared to an equal amount of carbon dioxide; ODS have GWPs of between 4,750 to 10,900.

Although the production and consumption of CFCs has been phased out by all nations, the use of these ODS continues, and it is common in many countries to recycle these compounds for reuse in equipment that was originally designed to use them until the equipment is retired. Continued use of ODS leads to ODS refrigerants leaking into the atmosphere at rates estimated by the EPA to be up to 25 percent annually. Worse still, ODS are sometimes vented during servicing or disposal of equipment though certain countries ban this practice. As equipment using CFCs reach end of life, there is dwindling use for the remaining ODS. Because destruction is not mandated, unused supplies can be stored for long periods over which time they leak into the atmosphere unless destroyed.

Under the Montreal Protocol, the production of CFC refrigerants within signatory countries was phased out in 2010 and has already achieved significant progress. According to recent analysis, the ban on producing new ODS has prevented as much as 0.5 to 1 degree Celsius of extra global warming by the end of the century.

Despite the progress made under the Montreal Protocol, ODS still represent a significant input of GHGs into the atmosphere that can contribute to future global warming now and into the future. Destruction of ODS is a big bang for the buck, no regrets, common sense, right-now GHG mitigation strategy. The latest IPCC report for the first time dedicated a chapter to addressing the need to significantly remove or reduce pollutants like ODS that have a high GWP in the near-term. The report states that waiting to act on eliminating these GHG emissions will make it significantly harder for society to meet Paris Agreement targets.

Recent estimates show that eliminating ODS like CFCs could avoid as much as the equivalent of 9 billion metric tons of CO2 between 2020 -2100, comparable to avoiding the emissions of nearly two billion passenger vehicles for one year. Carbon markets are essential for catalyzing this type of climate action as there is no regulatory requirement in most countries to destroy ODS even if its production has been banned. In fact, roughly 25 million tons CO2-e of ODS has already been destroyed in the U.S. since around 2010 incentivized through the California Air Resources Board cap and trade offset program.

The ACR methodology provides a carbon market incentive to destroy these materials worldwide. It provides a framework for the quantification, monitoring, reporting and verification of GHG gas emission reductions associated with the sourcing and destruction of high GWP ODS sourced from equipment, refrigeration systems, or other supplies, including but not limited to cans, cylinders, and other containers of recovered, reclaimed or unused ODS. All eligible ODS must be sourced from locations outside of the U.S. and its territories. ODS can be destroyed at facilities within and outside of the U.S. that meet EPA or TEAP requirements.

“In order to effectively prevent catastrophic climate change, collecting and destroying non-CO2 gases like ODS refrigerants is essential,” said Tim Brown, CEO of Tradewater a leading developer of ODS carbon offset projects. “Extending ACR’s protocol internationally is an important step in helping to bring this work to scale around the world.”

LITTLE ROCK, AR, August 6, 2021 – The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Woodwell Climate Research Center (WCRC) recently released a report titled “Agricultural Soil Carbon Credits: Making sense of the protocols for carbon sequestration and net greenhouse gas removals”. ACR welcomes this report and supports the viewpoints expressed by EDF and WCRC. The report is consistent with ACR’s own program offerings and lessons learned from over 10 years working to develop rigorous GHG accounting methodologies for the agriculture sector and pilot them as carbon offset projects. Much of ACR’s work in the agriculture sector was conducted with support from USDA NRCS Conservation Innovation Grants (CIGs). On several of these grants, ACR worked side by side with EDF. ACR does not issue carbon offset credits and has never issued any carbon offset credits for the activity of soil carbon accrual due to changes in agricultural management.

The report is a concise synthesis of the challenges encountered by many carbon market practitioners and sector experts over the last decade in developing market infrastructure for the generation of high integrity, fully fungible carbon offsets from changes in agricultural practices designed to increase soil carbon content. For several reasons, the report rightly concludes that carbon offsets are not the right financial mechanism to achieve the GHG reductions and climate resilience in the agriculture sector that are possible. ACR strongly agrees with the authors that agricultural management practices that increase soil carbon content should be adopted at scale for the wide range of benefits these practices provide (yield improvement, yield resilience, nutritional quality, water retention, water quality etc.) even if the overall GHG mitigation potential is uncertain and as has been suggested by WRI[1], more limited than is commonly perceived. ACR would add that, at minimum, the ultimate soil carbon accrual that results from these practices is highly variable, difficult to predict at farm level and occurs on a timescale of years such that  annual payments to an individual farmer based on actual carbon accrual will be unreliable and modest.

ACR strongly agrees with the report’s statement that, “A lack of comparability and standardization will be especially problematic if the U.S. government decides to use [soil organic carbon] SOC credits to meet nationally determined contributions or if sectors required to reduce emissions purchase SOC credits to compensate for emissions elsewhere.” In terms of using agricultural offsets as compensation for known emissions, either at the national scale of for corporate reduction targets, activities should be limited to verified avoided direct emissions or verified avoided conversion. For example, approximately 8 million MTCO2e in emissions reductions have been issued as ARBOCs for use in the California cap and trade system from the installation of anaerobic digesters at livestock operations, representing real, permanent, additional, and verified offsets from the agriculture sector. Given the high GWP of methane, significant opportunities for offset generation related to livestock operations remain in the U.S.

Importantly, the report draws attention to scale and accuracy in process biogeochemical modeling outputs of SOC, demonstrating why farm level carbon offset generation from SOC change is flawed and why regional (or larger scale) quantification, especially when leveraging resources and tools of USDA, is an attractive approach for quantifying soil carbon gains. The report cites a 2010 study that showed approximately 20% error in estimates of SOC change at the national scale but 600-700% error at the farm level when using common process based biogeochemical models. And while high density sampling would seem an obvious improvement, cost and other accuracy concerns remain a hurdle to viability at current carbon prices.  Reasonable accuracy at large scale is possible and compensation programs should be designed for the commensurate level of uncertainty in the SOC change estimates. The California Healthy Soils Program[2], administered by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), provides a successful example of an incentive program that compensates farmers for practices, quantifies the benefits at the regional scale but does not use the soil C gains to allow for other known emissions in the state.

ACR strongly agrees with the points made by EDF and WCRC on permanence and additionality. These are hallmark criteria of offsets that cannot be watered down or ignored without fundamentally changing the product. It is these criteria, together with leakage, conservativeness and verification that render the offset exchangeable for allowed emissions of known quantity and fungible with other offsets. Technological advances will in time improve measurement accuracy and lower hurdles related to verification costs and individual farmer return. However, permanence of SOC crop systems and the additionality of widely adopted practices cannot be assured.

A few points not made by EDF and WCRC but which ACR feels support and complement the report are provided below.

• When considering agricultural soil carbon accrual solely as a GHG mitigation opportunity, it must not be pursued at the expense of other nature-based mitigation options such as reduced deforestation or wetland conservation and restoration. Certainly, the many other associated benefits of increasing in agricultural soil carbon content warrant their implementation.
• The ability to achieve massive scale in GHG mitigation from agricultural soil carbon must always be considered together with food security and the available land and farming practices to achieve that security [3], [4].
• The farmer not only makes the investment in, bears the risk of, and manages the implementation of the practice change that produces the benefit, but they also collect the data needed to quantify the benefit in many cases. Thus, the farmer owns the benefit and the data supporting it at its origination (in addition to owning the crop). The report suggests that these SOC benefits be accounted as a reduction in Scope 3 emissions for a downstream buyer of an agricultural product as opposed to a carbon offset. In this scenario, issues of data ownership and fair compensation for the benefit creation (as opposed to worth of the claim) must be considered.
• EDF and WCRC clearly lay out the concerns for SOC accrual as a carbon offset and offer some incentive alternatives. Given the severity of the concerns, at this time, offsets generated from this activity are not fungible with other carbon offsets and potentially undermine the high integrity of existing offset programs. Confidence in these products is key to their ability to continue delivering real GHG mitigation.

[1] https://www.wri.org/insights/regenerative-agriculture-good-soil-health-limited-potential-mitigate-climate-change

[2] https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/oefi/healthysoils/

[3] https://research.wri.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/WRR_Food_Full_Report_0.pdf

[4] https://www.wri.org/insights/6-ways-us-can-curb-climate-change-and-grow-more-food

LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas, August 2, 2021 –  The American Carbon Registry (ACR), a nonprofit enterprise of Winrock International, is pleased to announce the appointment of Maris Densmore as the Director of Engineered Solutions, a newly created ACR senior leadership role. In this role, Maris will lead the investigation, analysis, and implementation of new strategic opportunities to harness the power of markets for high impact emission reduction and removal actions in the energy and industrial sectors, including geologic storage of carbon, methane emission abatement, and long-term storage of carbon via other industrial processes.

A licensed geologist with 20 years of technical, policy and regulatory, community engagement and field experience in environmental and oil and gas operations, Maris most recently served as the Manager of Carbon Capture Solutions at Sacramento-based California Resources Corporation (CRC).

“The urgent sea change required in the oil and gas sector presents both challenges and opportunities for carbon capture and storage (CCS) and reducing emissions from methane, a potent short-lived climate pollutant,” said Mary Grady, ACR executive director. “ACR is thrilled to add Maris’ deep oil and gas sector technical knowledge, policy insights and field experience to our recognized roster of forestry and industrial experts. With this appointment, we want to send a clear message that we welcome collaboration with sector leaders to blaze the trail for others to follow to achieve net zero.”

The ACR appointment comes at a critical time for incentivizing market-based solutions to dramatically reduce emissions in all sectors and scale up removals technologies to meet the Paris Agreement’s aggressive 1.5C climate targets and avoid overshoot. A recent study by Trove Research, Future Demand, Supply and Prices for Voluntary Carbon Credits, assessed CCS to be one of three project types likely to comprise the majority of new voluntary carbon credit projects (the other two being REDD+ and renewable energy in Least Developed Countries).

Speaking on her new role, Densmore said, “The deployment of emissions reductions and removals technologies at an industrial scale is critical to addressing the global climate crisis. ACR’s proven leadership in the carbon offset market, our adaptability, and the dedication and expertise of our staff make this the ideal setting for development of innovative, scalable industrial strategies. I joined ACR to be part of the climate solution and look forward to engagement with partners and stakeholders as we transition to a greener, more equitable future.”