A financial analysis of establishing poplar plantations for carbon offsets using Alberta and British Columbia’s afforestation protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both Alberta and British Columbia allow the use of carbon offsets for meeting government greenhouse gas emission targets, but the provinces have different offset protocols. In British Columbia, afforested lands may be harvested yet still receive carbon offsets, whereas in Alberta, according to a yet-to-be-approved draft protocol, offsets could be contingent upon afforested lands being set aside as conservation easements. Our work considers the regulatory differences between the provincial carbon protocols as they impact the financial viability of afforestation projects in Alberta and British Columbia. Our results suggest that carbon prices would have to rise to approximately $150 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO 2 e) before conservation afforestation projects using balsam poplar would be financially viable in Alberta. However, afforesting and harvesting short-rotation hybrid poplar in British Columbia yields financially viable results under current carbon prices if stumpage prices for standing timber were to rise above $50·m –3 . There may be other incentives such as the benefits from public relations associated with planting trees that may lead to the implementation of some afforestation carbon offset projects. However, it appears that financial considerations present a significant barrier, making it unlikely that afforestation of private land will play a significant role in generating carbon offsets for Alberta or British Columbia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".