Ter-Mikaelian et al. Respond

the output of a recent European Environment Agency expert’s workshop on bioenergy, which concluded that a consequential assessment framework is needed to understand and develop policy, but … [a]ttributional LCA may be useful for some purposes (such as … implementing a policy decision, as it reflects those aspects under control of the project manager or economic operator). (EEA 2014) Literature Cited ABT, K.L., R.C. ABT, AND C. GALIK. 2012. Effect of bioenergy demands and supply response on markets, carbon, and land use. For. Sci. 58(5): 523–539. BUCHHOLZ, T., S. PRISLEY, G. MARLAND, C. CANHAM, AND N. SAMPSON. 2014. Uncertainty in projecting GHG emissions from bioenergy. Nature Climate Change 4:1045–1047. DAIGNEAULT, A., B. SOHNGEN, AND R. SEDJO. 2012. Economic approach to assess the forest carbon implications of biomass energy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46(11):5664 –5671. EEA. 2014. Workshop Statement: “Forests, bioenergy and climate change mitigation”, May 19 –20, 2014, Copenhagen. The workshop was organized by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC), the European Environment Agency (EEA), the International Energy Agency (IEA) Bioenergy Tasks 38, 40, and 43 and the International Institute for Sustainability Analysis and Strategy (IINAS), and hosted at the EEA. HARDIE, I., P. PARKS, P. GOTTLEIB, AND D. WEAR. 2000. Responsiveness of rural and urban land uses to land rent determinants in the US South. Land Econ. 76(4):659 – 673. LUBOWSKI, R.N., A.J. PLANTINGA, AND R.N. STAVINS. 2008. What drives land-use change in the United States? A national analysis of landowner decisions. Land Econ. 84(4): 529 –550. NCASI. 2013. A review of biomass carbon accounting methods and implications. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., Tech. Bull. No. 1015, Research Triangle Park, NC. Reid Miner Caroline Gaudreault NCASI, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC Ter-Mikaelian et al. Respond We appreciate the interest in our review paper “The Burning Question: Does Forest Bioenergy Reduce Carbon Emissions? A Review of Common Misconceptions about Forest Carbon Accounting” and welcome the opportunity to comment on the letter from Drs. Miner and Gaudreault. The letter raises two concerns about the content of our paper: insufficient coverage of an anticipated response from landowners to increased demand for forest bioenergy and the lack of recognition that different applications may require different carbon accounting approaches. In suggesting that we underestimate the importance of market demand on forest landowners, Miner and Gaudreault miss our two key messages. While increased market demand may trigger changes in both forest management (e.g., application of more intensive silviculture) and land use (e.g., conversion of nonforested areas into forest), what is key is that the underlying principles of carbon accounting methodology remain the same: as stated in our paper, estimation of GHG emissions attributed to forest bioenergy still requires quantification of forest carbon stocks in an appropriate forest baseline, as well as LCA emissions for the bioenergy and reference fossil fuel scenarios. Only such analysis can reveal whether the reaction by landowners is sufficient to offset carbon effects of increased harvesting for bioenergy. Secondly, it is important that landowners and those involved with wood products chains explicitly account for such effects on CO2 throughout the forest and/or wood product system’s lifetime. The goal of our paper was “to present the theory and principles for correctly assessing the GHG effects of forest bioenergy” and to support the use of scientifically sound knowledge for informed decisionmaking about using forest bioenergy for climate change mitigation. In this context, our concern with recommendations by National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) (2013) was not with the spatial scale of evaluations of forest carbon policies, but rather with the fact that policy studies were the only applications for which they deemed the consequential LCA approach appropriate. Our point is that all studies using a reference fossil scenario to demonstrate a greenhouse gas (GHG) benefit of forest bioenergy should use a consequential LCA approach (and therefore should consider the anticipated future baseline) regardless of the study scale and whether it was intended for a policy evaluation or for production of forest biomass for bioenergy from a given parcel of land. While other applications concerned with reporting and/or monitoring emissions (e.g., national GHG inventories) may indeed use different approaches (and constant reference baseline, respectively), the goal of such applications is quite different from assessing whether forest bioenergy reduces carbon emissions. Finally, concern is expressed about using an anticipated future forest carbon baseline in the event of high uncertainty about future forest carbon projections. This concern is discussed in detail by NCASI (2013) and reiterated in the response to our paper by Miner and Gaudreault. However, the convenience of calculation that comes from using another baseline approach, such as the constant reference baseline, should not be confused with measurement of the GHG benefits of forest bioenergy for climate change mitigation. In the absence of sufficient certainty to model future forest carbon, the appropriate response should, in our view, be to reduce uncertainty by reducing the time span of projections or increasing the understanding of system behavior based on empirical observations. Michael Ter-Mikaelian Steve Colombo Jiaxin Chen Ontario Forest Research Institute Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada Journal of Forestry • March 2015 203 While we understand that the intended scope of the Ter-Mikaelian et al. paper was “to present the theory and principles for correctly assessing the GHG effects of forest bioenergy,” it is also important to realize that the methods used to “assess the GHG effects of forest bioenergy” may, for good reason, sometimes be different than those used for other purposes, such as implementing forest bioenergy policies. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments on what is otherwise a very helpful summary article. TER-MIKAELIAN, M., S. COLOMBO, AND J. CHEN. 2015. The burning question: Does forest bioenergy reduce carbon emissions? A review of common misconceptions about forest carbon accounting. J. For. 113(1): 57– 68. USDA FOREST SERVICE. 2012. Future of America’s forest and rangelands: Forest Service 2010 Resources Planning Act assessment. USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-87, Washington, DC. 198 p. WEAR, D.N., AND J.G. GREIS. 2012. The Southern Forest Futures Project: Summary report. USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR168, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. 54 p.  (...truncated)