I’ve been keeping my eyes open for how anyone is defining the management practices or outcomes that should qualify as contributions to carbon sequestration. They usually seem to stop short of that level of detail. This does, too. However, it sounds like they are going to try to get there. This is a 1/11/22 draft of LC 240, to be addressed at the legislative session beginning now. We would have an answer “no later than April 30, 2023.”
(2) The Institute for Natural Resources, in coordination with the Oregon Global Warming Commission, shall jointly with the State Forestry Department, the State Department of Agriculture, the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, the Department of State Lands and the Department of Land Conservation and Development, and in consultation with federal land management partners, develop:
(b) Recommendations for activity-based impact metrics …
(3) Activity-based metrics must be designed to evaluate progress toward increasing carbon sequestration in natural and working lands and waters, as measured against the 2010 to 2019 carbon sequestration baseline. Activity-based metrics may include, but need not be limited to, acres of lands or waters for which certain management practices have been adopted or acres of lands or waters that represent an increase in natural and working lands and waters.
SECTION 8. (1) As used in this section: (a) “Climate-smart agriculture, forestry and conservation practices” means practices that protect and restore resilient carbon stocks in native ecosystems and increase resilient carbon stocks in vegetation and soils in natural and working lands and waters.
Interesting, Jon, thanks! I wonder how differently this will turn out than the USDA version of “climate-smart?” Interesting round-up of groups.
“(2) The advisory committee shall consist of at least 14 members,
including but not limited to representatives of:
(a) Tribal governments;
(b) Local governments;
(c) The forestry industry;
(d) The agricultural industry;
(e) Environmental justice organizations;
(f) Conservation organizations; and
(g) Technical service providers.”
wow. A large coalition of failed bureaucracies charged with telling the rest of us how to adopt “practices that protect and restore resilient carbon stocks in native ecosystems and increase resilient carbon stocks in vegetation and soils in natural and working lands and waters.”
What could go wrong? And what the hell do those words even mean? The Oregon government and its top officials have been making national news as incompetent laughingstocks for a few years now, and this type of proposed legislation fits in nicely with that history of increasingly large bureaucratic organizations making increasingly stupid and costly rules for the rest of us. Who somehow continue to pay their wages for whatever reason. You could look it up.
On a related note, Douglas fir is the principal forest crop (“carbon storage”) tree in Oregon and exists in commercial stands from Mexico to Canada and from the Pacific Ocean to the Rockies. All kinds of climate changes and variations in that expansive region for thousands of years and the tree has proven to have adapted well the entire time. Might as well form another government entity to try and give it some even better opportunities. And charge the taxpayers for the privilege of doing so.
Or we could ask the My Pillow guy.
That would likely be just about as effective, and a whole lot cheaper. Plus, if you put in his Promo Code there would even be more savings!
The mandate to “increase resilient carbon stocks” will be subject to much debate. Some might argue that dry forests must be “cut way back” — see the thread on “Operation Resilience.”
https://forestpolicypub.com/2022/02/03/operational-resilience-in-western-us-forests/
The state can’t direct the USFS or BLM to adopt these “climate smart” policies. But the draft bill mentions tribes. Can the state direct tribes in this way?
I think all they are producing is “recommendations,” so they could even provide those to the federal land managers. Recommendations for state legislation would have to be limited to state jurisdiction.