Calif Tropical Forest Standard (TFS) - for Hawaii

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is due to decide in April whether to adopt the California Tropical Forest Standard (TFS), a controversial plan focused on protecting large forested areas through the use of carbon credits.
http://news.trust.org/item/20190109145322-qxoar/

If California wants to pay communities to preserve their tropical rainforests, why not pay landowners on Big Island - - residents, DHHL, OHA, Kamehameha Schools, etc?

It seems ideal.
We don't have to disturb or change the aina.
Trees are already in our backyard, so no problems with the NIMBYs.
It's low impact, you might say no impact, with negative carbon emissions.
Even those who don't like, or are suspicious of science and scientists will have to get awfully creative to come up with a reason to block or protest this proposal.

Let's figure out a way for Hawaii Island to get involved with carbon credits, through the California (TFS) plan, or create our own carbon project, and get paid while our trees do all the work.

[Jimbo2017]

Are carbon credits for trees viable in a predictable sense for long-term offsets given things like Rapid Ohia Death, Rose Apple disease, more forest fires keep popping up?...

Mauka Hilo-side

[SoCal_to_Hawaii]

"why not pay landowners on Big Island"

Well... Let's say the Government pays me for my trees. Where does the money to pay me come from? Since the Government does not actually have money of its own other than that that it stole via taxes, I suspect that the increase in tax/decrease in service will far out weight what I get for my trees.

[glassnumbers]

"the government could give you money!"

"Well, uh, they will just TAX me so in REALITY its a scam! I have many facts to back this up, and not just suspicions!"

This is why it's so difficult to have a conversation here. So few people are willing to be reasonable, rational, logical. Socal, it is not rational, or reasonable, or logical, to assume that the goverments going to tax you so much, that any gain you get is going to be swallowed by extra taxes. That's irrational thinking based upon fear based upon very real, very ****ty actions of the government and people in general of the past. Is it a possibility? Sure. Absolutely. but to automatically assume that is just illogical and focusing way too much on the negative.

And Jimbo, don't you think that maybe, more money might actually help those things you listed? I mean, if anything, people having MORE money, here's my logic train of thought there. More money=more resources=more capacity to fight ROD, Rose Apple disease, and forest fires.

Aloha

[ElysianWort]

That is a good point and good logic glassnumbers.
However the last part...

More money=more resources=more capacity to fight ROD, Rose Apple disease, and forest fires.

I don't believe any amount of money put into fighting things like ROD, or the Rose Apple disease (which was intentionally brought here to wipe out the invasive Rose Apple species), I don't think any astronomical figure of money could make a difference in that fight. (The forest fires, well that is a different issue and money can make a difference.)

[Jimbo2017]

Isn't the point of carbon credits to offset in a 'permanent' sense the use of carbon dioxide creating industry? So, if a landowner agrees to set aside a forest (with different offsets for different trees, maybe... or different soil carbon management strategies like no-till farming), and some company in California gets to pollute more because there are more trees in Hawaii, but ultimately the trees die due to some disease... is the landowner required to re-plant? I am just curious about the specifics...

Here is a UHH grad and candidate who ran for County Council Heather Kimball's manuscript about carbon estimating in Hawaii - https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ecosystems

Mauka Hilo-side

[SoCal_to_Hawaii]

glassnumbers – I don’t think basing a predictive thought on the “very real, very ****ty actions of the government and people in general of the past” is unreasonable at all. Where the government is concerned I’d say past behavior is a pretty good indicator of future actions. What else do we have to go on? As you state, “Is it a possibility? Sure. Absolutely.” If it is a possibility how is it irrational, unreasonable, or illogical to suggest it?

For the record, I'd love to get money for my trees, I've got bunches. I also believe we have an obligation to be good stewards of our environment. I seriously question the government's ability to manage this type of thing efficiently.

[SoCal_to_Hawaii]

Bueller (aka glassnumbers)?