Carbon rotation ages and the offset measurement conundrum: An extended review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Faustmann-Hartman rotation age literature focuses on the commercial and amenity values of timber. Amenity values are a direct function of the volume on the stand at any time (Hartman) and/or the change in volume (carbon values). The rotation-age is extended to include concern that warming levels are a function of cumulative emissions, and, depending on timeframes, whether temporary storage in post-harvest wood product (PHWP) sinks influence the climate once re-emissions are considered. When carbon fluxes occur and how they are valued is important! If carbon values are discounted at the social rate of time preference, cumulative emissions are considered less important than they ought to be. The tension between the social rate of time preference and a rate used to discount the value of future carbon fluxes affects the optimal rotation age calculation. It creates a divergence between the socially and privately optimal rotation ages that is not accounted for by monetary discount rates or a carbon price, even though carbon pricing is regarded as the best means of correcting the climate externality. Results also indicate that forests should not be left unharvested for carbon benefits. • Tension exists between the social rate of time preference and the rate used to discount carbon values. • A low discount rate incentivizing early adoption of mitigation strategies leads to delayed afforestation • Decay of wood product sinks and carbon discounting affect optimal rotation age and claimed carbon offset credits. • Despite an externality-correcting carbon tax, social and private forest rotation age continue to diverge. • It may be unwise to lean heavily on forest carbon offsets for mitigating climate change.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".