÷H(Mon Jun 15 13:45:07 2009) From REDD Calculations.vmf0416.mdle,w3ã4ÿ5ÿ5YKÿ5x%Ÿ¡7L¿  ô|K¨¾¬¬¾¬°¾¬\¾¬`¾¬d¾¬h¾¬l¾¬­4EŸä‡¬¬0¯¦ÅœôŸ´¾¬4é­ôtŸ|AŸnÅ}} %€?ý( ŠH%o €ö€ö¯<œ€ö  @%e €ö€ö7œ€ö  Y%… €öWœ€ö •Q%y €öTœ€ö$€ö€ö|Š €ö|Š"€ö€ö@Œ€ö$.«œ @‰0¬9€ö€ö%,€ö$?1 2€>5Œ ×#< DÜ€ö€ö| ‡Fì€ö€ö| ‡Hü€ö€ö| ‡K<+A€ö€öAŒ€ö$W-€c€ö€ö,€ö(d€ö|ŠhW9j€ö€ö¹>,€ö$tR vŠ\°€ö€ö,€ö(„{OŸ€ö€ö,€ö(a¡‡pB Z,€?$œŒ€ö€ö| ‡ŸlCˆ€ö€ö,€ö$°°qÛ€ö€ö),€ö$ÂgÊ€ö€ö!,€ö$ÑÞ”€ö€ö¬;,€ö$࿃ó€ö€öŒ2,€ö$ìV6Œ€ö€öðR¬€ö$ö;kl€ö€öm(\€ö$ÿlé9€ö€ö½B\€ö$ ™ û¢€ö€ö»?,€ö$z­•€ö€ö,€ö("rQ€ö€ö©:,€ö$+@‘t€ö€ö‰1,€ö$4·J€ö€ö’6,€ö$=V4}€ö€ö±,€ö D.À_pB+,€ö J9Ñe€ö€ö4,€ö$Vûú%ð AòS¬€? \?-v€ö€ö ¬€ö(e$bV€ö€ö? \€ö(mÉ="“€?ùU,€? xì€ö€ö| ‡{ÔFÒ€ö€ö3,€ö$ˆãO€ö€ö„/,€ö$›þK+€ö€öb \€ö(§òX%€ö€öY,€ö$°1Ç€ö€öÚ¬€ö(¼a7€ö€öX,€ö$Ã9& €ö€ö2 \€ö(Ή¶´€ö€ö,€ö$Ú݇€ö€öèO¬€ö$ãõ㻀ö€ö`%\€ö$ë˜ÀÜ€ö€ö-,€ö$ùá€ö|Šü§Ï%õ€ö€öÉG¬€ö,&¸ õ@@àN¬ ×#<  ÷™%¸€ö€öÔK¬€ö À×"@€?ÒJ¬€? !Ëè(€ö€ö¿C¬€ö,,¯(è€ö€öÏI¬€ö 2” 4,€ö€ö| ‡6ìòØ€ö€öM¬€ö$@þ€ö€ö|.¬€ö,J³( L‘m÷€ö€öËH¬€ö,W)"%€?—8¬ÍÌL= e4%SÈBíQ¬ @ ne@Ÿ€ö€öêP¬€ö$vtQ,€ö€öÄE¬€ö,{„¬,€ö€öF\€ö,€Yà00€ö€ö㬀ö(†HÒ( €ö€ö·=¬€ö,Ä},O€?ÇF¬ ×#<$”¾¾,G€?R \ ×£; ™ì,™€?ØL¬ ×#< Ÿ¦Ø€ö€öÁD¬€ö$¬³µ(2–C[#\€? ³T µÉÇ0¢$tIW"\PÃG ½€ö|ŠÃÖ2þ€ö€ö<\€ö,Îï<€ö€ö†0\€ö$Ù{ò"O€?ûV\€? á†ú `€?D\ ×#< ç‘ (s€ö€ö-\€ö,òì(ÇzDs*\€? øö%é€ö€öx,\€ö ²%›€ö€ö§9\€ö, P 4 @J\ ×£; Ë#"À€?v+\€? Jy€ö€ö8\€ö,&y”%áÈBh'\€? .TD€ö€ö\€ö$7j‹Â€ö€öe&\€ö$>ÔÙ¯€ö€öo)\€ö,I_‚"”€?U!\ÍÌL= W[,0D €ö€öM \€ö(\n7(M €ö€ö^$\€ö,e €ö€ö/\€ö$r\ v€ö|ЇW3€ö€ö|$4”x3€ö€ö |(0¢"€ö€ö|(0°¦7€ö€ö |$4¾Ç7€ö€ö|(0ÍÞ"€ö€ö|(0¬Ì¼ÜüìÜìì,Œü\œ,Œ¬|l<\œl¼¼¬Œ¬Œ\ l,Ìœ¼ìlü\L,|Œ<üL¼üÌœL¼ |\ÜüœÌlL|ÜLÌ<|\Ü<,¬œ  ü¬ì¼l ìÜ <<ÌÌ|œŒì¬lÜŒ,\L,|L<C¡7L¿ûûôÛTimeINITIAL TIMEFINAL TIMETIME STEP SAVEPER.REDD Calculations20090416.NPV.NPV of Policy Caused Extra CO2 FLOW valueNPV:accumulating value of carbon due to policy differencesDISCOUNT RATE-$-1 -Year.NPV of Policy Caused Extra CO2 STORED Value2Accumulated Value of Policy Caused Forest CO2.differences.mean value of CO2 stored in forest productsxidz6Accumulated Value of Policy Caused CO2 in Products.Accumulated Policy Caused CO2 in Products.value per ton of avoided emissions of carbon -tonsBaccumulating carbon value in forest and products due to policyFaccumulating value of carbon in products due to policy differences:accumulating CO2 in products due to policy differences:increasing value of policy caused CO2 in forest products.decreasing value of CO2 in forest products&policy product net CO2 storage rate"BL product net CO2 storage rate&old BL product net CO2 storage rateIF THEN ELSE*mean value of extra forest stored carbon&Accumulated Policy Caused Forest CO2"increasing extra carbon value"decreasing extra carbon value"example carbon price time seriesLK value per ton of CO2BASE CARBON PRICE.difference in CO2 stored in forest productsPOLICY START YEAR"CO2 in Policy Forest ProductsBL CO2 in Forest Products*SWITCH to use carbon price time series -Dmnl2difference in CO2 stored in all forest productsJCO2 in products under new policy including remaining CO2 in old products.BL Product CO2 Remaining after Policy Start"value of Scenario carbon stock.Policy Amount of CO2 Stored in Forest Landsvalue of BL carbon stock*BL Amount of CO2 Stored in Forest Lands.accumulating CO2 due to policy differences"policy net change in forest CO2BL net change in forest CO26change in stored forest CO2 due to policy scenario .PolicyPL implied age at harvestPOLICY DEFORESTATION RATE&PL TIME NEEDED TO REACH SATURATION*PL SWTCH to use adjusted carbon harvest*PL alt carbon content of harvested areaPL SATURATION AMOUNTEXP-ha&policy CO2 in forest plus products&CO2 being stored in policy productsMAX*PL release of carbon stored in forest6FRACTION OF RELEASES CAPTURED IN DURABLE PRODUCTS"POLICY PRODUCT LENGTH OF LIFEpolicy product decompositionPL deforestationBL deforestationPolicy Forest Area"mean amount CO2 stored per haPL forestationBL forestationPOLICY AFFORESTATION2PL amount of CO2 being sequestered by the forestBL INITIAL CARBON PER HAZIDZBL INITIAL AMOUNT OF FOREST.Baseline scenario*BL CO2 being stored prior to new policy*decomposition of remaining old productsSWTCH use constant amountBL constant amount*BL alt carbon content of harvested areaBL SATURATION AMOUNT&BL TIME NEEDED TO REACH SATURATIONimplied age at harvest"BL EXPECTED DEFORESTATION RATE*BL SWTCH to use adjusted carbon harvest"BL CO2 being stored in productsBL product length of life"BL CO2 in forest plus productsBL product decomposition*BL release of carbon stored in forest6BL fraction of releases captured in durable productsBL Forest Area"BL mean amount CO2 stored per ha2BL amount of CO2 being sequestered by the forest .ControlNPVstrdrinfNCUMTIME STEP$df2#NPV of Policy Caused Extra CO2 FLOW value>NPV#6#NPV of Policy Caused Extra CO2 FLOW value>NPV>NCUM#6#NPV of Policy Caused Extra CO2 FLOW value>NPV>df#6#NPV of Policy Caused Extra CO2 STORED Value>NPV#:#NPV of Policy Caused Extra CO2 STORED Value>NPV>NCUM#6#NPV of Policy Caused Extra CO2 STORED Value>NPV>df#xú¡7L¿ ‡¡7L¿<<ô7Üìü ÜüÜŒÜüŒŒüì"ü%Œ,(,ü,,0Üì3Üüì¡7L¿ô¡7L¿dœ¬¼¬ ÜìÜ<,<Üì,<\LlÜ̬¼œœ|L\ŒŒ,|œLlÌü ,<üœ¼lL¬¼ÜŒ\¼|lì ¼lÌ\<Ll |ÌüÌ<|¼\ Œ¬ŒL¬ŒÜ¼ì œ<œü ¼\¬Ìü|¬üL l¼LL\ÜœL̬ìl|¬¼\¬,lŒ LlÜ\¼l<|lÌÌüL<|ülü¼ìœÜ<,¬¼Ü¬<l¼ì¼œ¼lLœ¬ìl|¼lLœl¬ìl¬ÜlLÌ<,L,Ü<,¼|ÜTZ¯Ì$Ÿÿÿ€ÿÿÿÿÿ€@Comic Sans MSzÀÀÀTITLE PAGEaœ¨¬t¾¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Times New Roman:dÀÀÀBASELINEZDª¬x¾¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Arial6dÀÀÀ - BL ProductsZ쫬|¾¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ArialHdÀÀÀPOLICY SCENARIOP”­¬€¾¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Arial$dÀÀÀ - PL ProductsdtϬ„¾¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Times New Roman:oÀÀÀDIFFERENCESd<Ѭˆ¾¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Times New Roman6dÀÀÀ - Product differencesdäÒ¬Œ¾¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Times New RomandÀÀÀOutput and ControlsZtÚ®¾¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ@PapyrusdÀÀÀCommentsZÜ®”¾¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Times New RomandÀÀÀAlt CO2 outflowsZÄÝ®˜¾¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Times New Roman dÀÀÀcarbon priced<ä­œ¾¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Times New RomandÀÀÀNPVdäå­ ¾¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Times New Roman dÀÀÀtemplatedŒç­¤¾¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Comic Sans MSdÀÀÀCurrent Questions and Answers< ;L^¢á?P[Š»Æô.Yx§³ÑÝH¡7L¿''ôòZU 6.®*„ ÿÿModeling Investigation - The REDD* Concept: je 4b­"„ ÿÿ*Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest DegradationB= Úg¢„ÿThe Concept of REDD:FA í!·!„ÿComponents of the model:  Rºû=„ÿREDD, Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, is a proposed addition to international climate protection agreements that will allow payment for carbon credits to go to "avoided emissions" provided by avoided deforestation.úö Z=úC„ÿOriginally climate agreements did not provide for payment for avoided deforestation, and focused on payments for carbon sequestration. In terms of forestry this meant growing new trees where they did not currently exist.vs rÕ`„ÿHowever, worldwide, a large proportion (about 20%) of the carbon dioxide emissions are created by deforestation and related activities. Thus the interest in creating a carbon market that will encourage the avoidance of deforestation, and the avoidance of emissions from that deforestation. Other benefits of forests would then also be protected.B> ÜM–„ÿPurpose of this model*% tËTÿOctober 2009º· 5šÝ5„ÿThe purpose of this model is merely to examine in a basic sense the amount of CO2 emissions that would be avoided under various baseline and policy scenarios.¾ Yj(„ÿThis model consists of two identical submodels: a baseline secnario and a policy scenario. Each has an area of forest and the amount of carbon stored in the forest.*' ¢ÊPÿThis version: ¶² =Àþ(„ÿThere is also a "products view" for both the baseline and the policy scenario. These products views will calculate the amount of CO2 in forest products.æá U =„ÿThe generic structure of the model also permits the investigation of scenarios such as the comparison of deforestation to intensively managed sustainable forestry, or to a lower rate of deforestation.ª¦ '#ß+„ÿThe baseline products view can also account for the remaining amount of CO2 in baseline products after policy product production has started.zu vË"„ÿThe ability to track CO2 in forest products under baseline and policy scenarios is included.º¶ ?pß5„ÿThe value of difference in stored carbon (avioded emissions) is examined and the net change in this value is suggested as a basis for REDD payment schedules..) £€ÿÿÿvr c} „ÿThe differences view calculates the differences between the baseline and policy scenario..+ ™½‡ÿRichard G Dudley RP 9§ ‡ÿContact author for possible updates: rgdudley@gmail.comÌ& /5;BUhnt{Ž”š­ÀÆÌÓæùÿ %8>DJ]cv‰œ¢¨®´ÌßåøþALR]citz“š H¡7L¿ô«JH lT;ƒ,€ÀArialJH 0b4  ÿ Arial0d0 0Ò0"JH ¼ÒNU(ƒ ArialJH 0ÅÓ  ÿ Arial xÓ dÓ 0>Ó"JH ü>íO(ƒ2ÿ€ Arial@7‘@è‰JH \êV?ƒ$ÿÿ ArialJH 0¿Á  ÿ Arial‹Âd 0KÂ"JH ŒK˜c"(ƒ ArialJH 0H  ÿ Ariald¥ 0ß"JH LßÚK"(ƒ Arial@líJH |k)Wƒ Arial@6R@¹@ª]JH L]2ƒ( Arial@FJH ìáìJƒ:ÿ€ ArialJH ¼}Zƒ:€ ArialJH Ì1Zl$ƒ:€ Arial@¾j!@®B"@€†@ î^Z Á,¢,„:ÿ€@PapyrusBASELINE SCENARIOJH ,=I:ÿ€ Arial(@!.JH ŒÇ¨M Arial*@_,*@wòð ß ¿O„2À€À PapyrusOption: For harvested scenarios need to adjust upward the amount of carbon being removed due to harvesting because trees harvested are not average, but are the oldest.*( ¬‘‰S!‚€Àÿ .@®—*( ü^‰S"€Àÿ 0@RÚ @6å*( œõz1ÿ€@ 3@ÆÅJH ŒâYF:ÿ€@ Arial5@2´ ÜÆ‘Aÿ@\W*( «C€ÿÿÿ Lÿ &,29@FMSY`grx~…‹‘—¢«¶ÁÌÓÙßêñ÷ý $+28>DOU`fˆ §­³H¡7L¿ùùô¾*( \hq$ƒ€ *( ÌàºY8ƒÿÿ  0Å ÿ[Âdù 0*Â" *èX(ƒ@¥Î 0µ ÿ ε dfµ 0šµ" <šÛJ(ƒÿ*(  ~>ƒ€  @ñ @C üPmRƒ@Ç @@×%*( LéäD!ÿ€€€€€€ " @‚ÿÿÿÿ *( ̶ÿGÿ€€€€€€ *( ü°‘Xÿ€€€€€€ *( \Øçp ‚ÿ€€€€€€  ,'íl ƒ@Ò–@åA*( W0ƒÿÿ€  0œ ÿ!k!dá 0#" l#8g!(ƒÿ!@à 09 ÿ'$ý'dŽ 0Æ" |ÆCT((ƒÿ(@d'@Ç@åÄ*( ¬S:‚ ÿ€€€€€€ ,"@|H*( ,‰" ÿ€€€€€€ ."@Òh† <,„:ÿ€@PapyrusContribution of Forest Products to Avoided CO2 Emissions^Z ú}˜'„:ÿ€@PapyrusBaseline Scenario \ýU"2@u¶(2@Ô™*( Ãe€ÿÿÿ äø '-3:ATZ`gntz…˜ž¤«²ÅËÑØßòøþ%+17=T[agrxƒ‰”𥫶¼ÇÍÓÞäïøþ *5;FLRX^djH¡7L¿óóôu*( Ì'9X;ƒ €ÀJH 0…i  ÿ Arial;id·i 0õi" ¬õ‹U(ƒJH 0  ÿ Arial › d6 0a" ìa)E(ƒÿ@ZÆ@A#*( <>V?ƒÿÀ JH 0Íö  ÿ Arial®÷d÷ 0n÷" nÍc"(ƒJH 0ŽG  ÿ ArialR@dÔ@ 0@" lk(ƒJH ÜœUWƒ Arial@^“@9é@÷ *( ÌÐ:Jƒÿ€ *(  Cƒ *( ÜGkUƒ @Ö‘@ãr@‘¬@1#ZX –Ee,„:ÿ€@PapyrusPOLICY SCENARIO |iïP%@¸`%@Ùl*( ü‚ÒAÿ€€€€€€ ( @Ü*( }Rƒÿ€ * @q*( ,†)$ ÿ€€€€€€ , @äG*( Lèž9+‚ ÿ€€€€€€ .@þy*( ¼ÅCÿ€€€€€€ 0@K«*( ,²“$ ÿ€€€€€€ 2@r@Â&*( ,=sK ÿ€€€€€€ 5@=f*( ¬¨¨?ƒ€  7 @“Û7@ÎÞ*( ü”c^"‚€Àÿ *( ¼“³E€Àÿ *( ì|žK€ *( ,l®$ ÿ€€€€€€ *( ¬  Hÿ€€€€€€ ;@”l*( ܲ]"ÿ€€€€€€ @;@G”<@þˆ:@ÕÀ=@mÝ>@%@§ì*( ª•€ÿÿÿ ðò &,29@FMSY`grx~…‹‘—¢¨³¼ÇÍØãêõû#:H¡7L¿ùùôE*( |úSq!ƒ€ *( ¼òêY8ƒÿÀ  0¶ò ÿmòdûò 0<ò" L<!K'(ƒ@Tè 0 ÿ à dx 0¬" œ¬9O(ƒÿ*( ŒƒNƒ€  @ @;> ìéR@‘{ @¿–@ O*( ,x" ÿ€€€€€€ @Y§*( lÌ3^$‚ÿ€€€€€€ " @qBÿÿÿÿ *( ¬!H:‚ ÿ€€€€€€ @‘*( ›ÛQÿ€€€€€€ *( ›Û;ÿ€€€€€€  <ïe\*( <Wô'‚ÿ€€€€€€ @i1@U † WCü2„:ÿ€@PapyrusContribution of Forest Products to Avoided CO2 EmissionsZX N‹k„:ÿ€@PapyrusPolicy Scenario*( Ç´€ÿÿÿ Èø *1<GMS^it|‚‹’™Ÿ¥°»ÃÉÏÖÝåëñøÿ $*18>DJPW]cnx“Ÿ«·ÃÎÕÛáêH¡7L¿ùùôø‚ F3T%„:ÿ€€PapyrusCarbon and Carbon Value Differences Between Scenarios  œO^!ƒ*( <I¼G!ÿ€€€€€€ *( \w‚dÿ€€€€€€ @žä@0*( ŒôÝI!‚ÿ€€€€€€ *( |íbK$‚ÿ€€€€€€ *( <Ϲb;ƒÿÀ  0x¸ ÿ 5¸"  D¹¸ÿÿÿÿ  0÷¸" l÷ëT+(ƒ@lö@<*( |ªŽY!‚ÿ€€€ *( æ@^=ƒÀÿÀ  0¦= ÿK=dÙ= 0 =" L aF(ƒÿ 0> ÿá<du< 0¬<" \¬ZG(ÿ ,ÆYƒ@ä @š@>Ï@7t@Îy@A Lìÿ?&ƒ ,¥@I$@×7%@y…$@¿%@‘î ¼üj)ƒ*@vÈ*@†¬*( üs»Q!ÿ€€€€€€ &# N뜼188,,Graphjf ¨…n*„:ÿÿPapyruspayments can be based on this.) &:( ÿÿÿÿ .) %[€ÿÿÿ .) D›( ÿÿÿÿ .) F€€ÿÿÿ *( ¬¦i!ÿ€€€€€€  œõ½\.ƒ45@ú`*5@j-" @§Ìÿÿÿÿ 4) Æ€ÿÿÿ &,7=DJQW]cnt…—¦­´¿ÊÕÛáçòùÿ  &-4?EKRX^djqw}¢­H¡7L¿ùùô¶*( Ì›ÆGÿ€€€€€€ *( ¼Œ‘Gÿ€€€€€€  œ…K!@Õ*( €_!ÿ€€€€€€ @S ü‚M! @þ+ › r! @¼@µ¹ @F¯*( ¬ÕuA ÿ€€€€€€  @¶I*( ,Vr" ÿ€€€€€€ @eK*( l'õ\GƒÿÀ  0Žõ ÿõ" Dáõÿÿÿÿ  01õ" ¼1'[*(ƒÿ*( üØáMÿ€€€€€€ *( ì±7Qÿ€€€€€€ *( }{Tÿ€€€€€€ @Š)@€b@…‘*( \7~cAƒ€À  0œ} ÿ!‹}!dî} 0=}" Ì=°a+(ƒÿ 0Ï} ÿ&#{&dä{ 04{" Ü4¡`(ƒÿ*( |ûpY!ÿ€€€€€€ ("@uË!@ü <èÇP!+@åB+@®C+&@¢,&@Æß ¬:$i!"0@ë'0@×’Ž j+ž„:ÿ€€PapyrusCarbon and Carbon Value Differences Between Scenarios Due to PRODUCTS*( ÉH€ÿÿÿ " (+@Ëéÿÿÿÿ ø *@U`kvµÌ×âíø>frš¥°H¡7L¿ùùô»&# äFÅG¹¼0,For_Area&# œ $JG¼0,C_stored20 ¤ ÚÊ@¸¼0,Dspl_Stack_C_for+prodVQ òH„7ÿÿÿPapyrusBASELINERO ÿ P„7€@€@€@PapyrusPOLICY*( ü't‚ÿ€€€€€€ *( ì$È‚ÿ€€€€€€ *( ኂ ÿ€€€€€€ *( Ì ßš‚ ÿ€€€€€€ ni W9„:ÿ€@PapyrusIncluding CO2 in Forest Products^Z ÖH„7ÿÿÿPapyrusBASELINE ProductsZX þ„P„7€@€@€@PapyrusPOLICY Products*( \A e!ÿ€€€€€€ *( ® ;ÿ€€€€€€ *( |EÁi ÿ€€€€€€ *( ŒšÁO‚ ÿ€€€€€€ &$ Ì &èI·¼0,C_in_Prod2- Ä éKÀ¼0,C_in_Prod_2_Policy.+ È éýL·¼0,C_stored_for+proЇ ;a!*ÿ€ ArialNote: afforestation is expressed in terms of ha/year replantedžœ ½<„!*ÿ€ ArialNote: Deforestation is expressed in terms of fraction of remaining forest per year..* Ê ©ýc·¼0,Pol_C_Prod_Diffžš ÑY„7€€€€€€ PapyrusIf Harvesting .... set these to "1" to allow for harvest of rotation aged 'trees'*( ü'4T!ÿ€€€€€€ *( ì¡)S!ÿ€€€€€€ *( ¹¶€ÿÿÿ ðø 5KVƒ¬Ú9e™ÂÞ ,U“¿ò4FyH¡7L¿ô„VQ ÑER„:ÿ€@PapyrusProblem?VQ äEO„:ÿ€@PapyrusCommentsVQ vLJ„:ÿ€@PapyrusSolution*( Àj€ÿ€@€@²® úݹ8„*ÿ@PapyrusAge of forest as first implemented is the overall time the forested land has been under forest cover.¢Ÿ ï†ÏY„ÿWhile for older forest overall this makes sense, it does not take into account the fact that younger TREES will sequester more carbon.¶± ýïëY„ÿSeems that there is a need to incorporate some sort of harvesting as an option to create a younger forest without decreasing the land area under forest.š— èvâ9„ÿThe underlying deforestation rate in the original formulation is a constant fraction of the forest multiplied by some effects.ÞÜ †ûY„ÿWell, this is probably OK for a starting point, but in reality deforestation is not a fraction of existing forest. It is driven by specific activities. Perhaps these need to be modeled directly.®© ÷ÚN„ÿIn this case we need to have an accounting of both the age of the forested land (age of the forest) and also the age of the trees in the forest.ÎÊ ãÏp„ÿImportantly, the loss of forest is assumed to mean a loss of CO2 to the atmosphere. However, that is not the case in situations where forest products are durable and long lived.¢  ÷tÒR„ÿThus, it is reasonable to assume that the a fraction of the CO2 lost from the forest can be sequestered elsewhere under some scenarios.nl ôã2„ÿNote that this CO2 is no longer in the forest, but is not in the atmosphere either.¶± åíÛo„ÿUse of the carbon co-flow seems to solve this problem automatically. Each set of harvest/replant rates will create a differnt steady state carbon pool.~{ òkÌA„ÿThis is a reasonable assumption for now. Can easily be changed without changing other components.¢  úrÌY„ÿThis has been incorporated into the model with both BL (baseline) and policy products. Thus products as well as forest can be changed.öñ ùÿþh„ÿProblem: As modeled with the co-flow, balanced afforestation with harvesting removes an average amount of carbon. In reality harvesting would remove the most carbon rich portions of a mixed forest under management.®© åÅZ„ÿThis may not be a major problem for most scenarios. Can the outflow be an upward adjustment of the average and still have the co-flow be valid?ÊÆ Íðó\„ÿAn alternative formulation for carbon stock outflow has been added. This can be activated in cases where the scenario assumes a directed harvesting and replanting of forest. ùúc„ÿThere is a question regarding the way in which baseline products should be treated. Do we include carbon in baseline products that exist when the model starts, or should we initialize the carbon stock of baseline products at zero?FB öÛƒ&ÿThis may depend on the specific scenario.ÊÆ ¾ÔZ„ÿFor now, carbon in existing baseline products is initialized at the appropriate non-zero amount which depends on the carbon flow into the products and the product lifetime.*( ´Ü€ÿÿÿT %06AGR]cnt…H¡7L¿ùùô¹*( ¬ðC\-ƒ€Àÿ *( ¼0¸_ ‚ÿ€€€€€€ {Î*( ÌÁƒZ!ÿ€€€€€€ ½Ó*( Ü™\Aÿ€€€€€€ 3ª*( ü9c`#ƒ€Àÿ *( ¼³ Eÿ€€€€€€  Ræ*( ’¨\$‚ÿ€€€€€€  ÈÚ*( Ü7O[!ÿ€€€€€€  ÆÎË %Á¶M„*ÿ€ArialNote: For harvest scenarios the carbon outflow from havest is NOT based on the mean CO2 content per ha. The values here are used.øø &17=DJP[H¡7L¿ùùôa |É‚h'ƒÿ*( |“¼Fÿ *( Œè¬,ƒ *( ÜoYAAƒ    @i@ l¢ØIƒÿ@ «@úØ*( ,¢+" ÿ€€€€€€  @ Xø $*5;Xcit~H¡7L¿ùùôˆ œƒodƒ ̰èWƒ ¤6^!ƒÏ®*( %[!ÿ€€€€€€ âäro k`2ÿ€@ PapyrusNote: Final value is net present value*( ¼d`!ÿ€€€€€€  @Ü´*( ¬Œ€ÿÿÿ &# H UèR8çœ156,,Graph&# \-7K«h¼268,,Graph¼ø !7Neƒ¢ºÐæúH¡7L¿ùùô^Z e?N„.ÿÿÿ€€@ ArialBaseline ScenarioVT eN„.ÿÿÿ€€@ ArialBL ProductsZX e”P„.ÿÿÿ€€@ ArialPolicy ScenarioZX ´Q „.ÿÿÿ€€@ ArialPolicy Productsvs qø^„.ÿÿÿ€€@ ArialDifferences and Value of Avoided Emissionszx 8^„.ÿÿÿ€€@ ArialProduct Differences and Value of Product Carbon^Z h¶Y„.ÿÿÿ€€@ ArialOUTPUT & ControlsVQ hÞY„.ÿ ÿÿ€€@ ArialCommentsVS dN„.ÿÿÿ€€@ ArialTITLE PAGENL hV„.ÿ ÿÿ€€@ ArialNPVjf bG*„>ÿÿÿÿ ArialCurrent Questions and Answersˆø "0@r¨Óä7Eu~¢H¡7L¿ùùôº*( ˜€ÿÿÿ61 1m„ÿÿQuestion61 dm „ÿÿComments>: žo„ÿÿAnswer / SolutionÆÄ 4þÚ8ÿIs there a difference in the outcome if the baseline deforestation rate is composed of a net value of clearing and regeneration rather than the same rate of just clearing?ÖÒ mêFÿTesting this we reformulate the basline forestation to be 2/5 of the baseline deforestation with the baseline deforestation is 5% per year. Thus the net deforestion is identical to 3%.ª¦ Ëô:„ÿThe cabon stock outcome is different because the remaining mature forest is partly replaced by regrowth and which has a lower carbon content.B> Å]Ñ„ÿThe regenerating forest has less CO2.ÎÌ ÐÌæD„ÿThe benefits of protecting such a forest are greater in terms of CO2 protection. In the CO2 is being removed in the baseline at a rate higher than the apparent 3% clearing rate.zx ª¦*ÿShould change the CO2 saturation values to more reasonable values (will have to redo all tests)62 J£VÿSaturation should be 200.¾» Ò·]„ÿWait a minute! What about gradual conversion.... to say managed forest. Conversion does not have to occur at the same rate as management under the new scenario." ¦¬ÿdoneŽŒ u°Ê7„ÿwould have to add to the model so that policy rates gradually are phased in rather than start at policy start time.^[ v>Å)„ÿi.e. polcy forestation and deforestation are phased in but synchedôøH¡7L¿þþôõ:•,G¦€?•<j•œ›¬›¬000•¼•̦¦€?* •̦ÍÌL=j• ›Ü›¬000••̦¦€?R/•<L00•\•l•|:='•œ#•¼•¬:G.•lG•¼¦JR5•\G$•̕ܦJ_>•¼#$•ì•ü• :kD•¬$•Ì•ÜzuK•Ü0 0,•¼¦%•¼•<¦r‡S•Ì00/•¼¦%•¼•|¦R˜Y•,L00••<•|:¦b•¼$•L•\:°h•lH•|•,*»o•Œ¦ ArÄu•œ00,•,•¬¦$•¼•ÌÊÔ}•|0¦ Á¦¦>C¦ÈB¦ Á¦ A¦\8VÀ¦ A¦¦ A¦ A¦ A¦;p½A¦x ¤A¦EGB¦'BAB¦ÔšB¦ò0B¦1Ù@B¦HB¦p]B¦¼6B¦XhtB¦æ‚B¦f€B¦1Y]B¦Ãó¢B¦'BAB¦rj´B¦uSoB¦ubÃB¦äÔjB¦/]ÍB¦`%7B¦®GõB¦‡g0B¦usC¦ûºWB¦¢E C¦"ýPB¦LWC¦Ϧ2B¦¤ÐC¦VB¦ù"C¦ªñB¦Å`(C¦ˆôëA¦š6C¦Þ¿A¦>C¦ A*8ˆ•ܦ:@‘•ü$• •Ì:I™• #•¼•:R •,%•<•|:[¦•L%•\•|rd­•L00/•l¦%•l•|¦Jvµ•G$•L•\¦‚ƒ¼•\0 0,•l¦%•l•,¦b•Õ|00&•ܦ•Œ•l:¥Ê•<G•l¦:°Ò•l$•|•Œ:ºÚ•œ$•<•\bÃæ•¼L00¦€?•Ì%¦€@•Ü*Òð•즂Úú•ü%• $¦€?%'¦€¿•Ü•¼:ì•<#•<•¼*õ •¬¦Šý•L00-•,•¬¦\0¦%•l•|*•|¦€>*#•Œ¦ðAZ"*•¼G$•L•œ%•L•Œ:02•ì$•L•œ::8•œ'•¼•ŒrD?•¬00,•,•¬•¼%•Ì•ÌÊUI•l00&•ì¦%•¬•Ü00,•,•¬%•¬•Ü%•¬•übqW•ì00,•,•¬•ü• :_•|$••l*‹f• ¦*”m•ܦpAbœt•'$%• •Ì•<•Ü*ª{• ¦HC*³•̦Z¼‡•<G$••l%•,•ÌBÊ•Ü<0•<•ÌJÖ–•ÌG$•앬•L:㢕 $•l•|*í©•Œ¦*õ¯•œ¦Âõ<‚þµ•¬%•¼$¦€?%'¦€¿•Ì•Üb¾•ÜL00¦€?•ì%¦€@•Ì*Å•ü¦b&Εl00-•,•¬• ¦:6Õ•|'••Z@Ü•G$•l•|%•l•:Nä•,#•\•ÌZWê•ÌG$• •<%• •:eò•ü$• •<Roø• \0¦%•L•\*}•\¦š™>:…•<'•Ì•*•¦@@º—•¼00&•Œ¦%•l•ì00.•l¦%•œ•L¦*° •,¦HC*¹'•ü¦*Â1•L¦€?‚Ê7•L00&•ü¦%•¼•|%•¼•¬:Ý>•Œ$•Œ•L*çD•¼¦HC*ñK•̦pAzùR•Œ\0 '$%•¼•l•\•̦Z [•\G$•Œ•L%•,•l*c•ì¦Âõ<J"i•lG$•ü•¼•LB/p•|<0•\•l*;|•L¦HC*C•<¦*K†•l•\*TŒ•\¦€=:\‰¬••••rf•% #•%%••••'œœJu•G%•••'œœR•G%••¦€? •ì ¬uº×q€ö€öw€ö€öy€ö€ö{€ö€ö}€ö€öÞñ}€ö€ö€ö€ö…ø ‰€ö€ö‚•¬% #•¼%%•¼•\•̦€?Z•¼G%•¼•̦Z•ÌG%•Ì•̦€?‚•Ü% #•ì%%••\•ü¦€?Z•ìG%••ü¦Z•üG%•ü•̦€?ýH¡7L¿ëëôŒ.•œ&®º•¬•¼±¸•̱¸¦±¸¦€? ‡Ü•Ì&®º¦ÍÌL=‡ì'‡ü.• &®º•¬•±¸•̱¸¦±¸¦€?‡Ü%‡ü&•<&®º•L•\±¸•l±¸•|‡Ü'‡Œ•œ&®º•¼#•¬‡Ü'‡ü•l&¸G¸®º•¼±®ºº¦ ‡Œ&•\&¸G¸®º•Ì$•ܱ®ºº¦ ‡Ü•¼&®º•ì$•ü#• ‡Œ'‡ü•¬&®º•Ì$•܇Ü'‡ü6•Ü&®º••¼,¦±¸$•¼%•<¸±¸¦‡Ü'‡ü2•Ì&®º••¼/¦±¸•¼%•|±¦‡Ü'‡ü&•,&®º•L•±•<±¸•|‡Ü'‡Œ•¼&®º•L$•\‡Ü'‡ü•l&®º•|•,‡Ü'‡Œ•Œ&®º¦ A‡Ü'‡Œ2•œ&®º••,,•¬±¸¦±¸•¼$•Ì ‡Œ~•|®º²$¦ A±¦$¦>C±¦ÈB°±$¦ A±¦ A±$¦\8V@±¦ A±¦±¦ A±¦ A±¦ A±¦;p½A±¦x ¤A±¦EGB±¦'BAB±¦ÔšB±¦ò0B±¦1Ù@B±¦HB±¦p]B±¦¼6B±¦XhtB±¦æ‚B±¦f€B±¦1Y]B±¦Ãó¢B±¦'BAB±¦rj´B±¦uSoB±¦ubÃB±¦äÔjB±¦/]ÍB±¦`%7B±¦®GõB±¦‡g0B±¦usC±¦ûºWB±¦¢E C±¦"ýPB±¦LWC±¦Ï¦2B±¦¤ÐC±¦VB±¦ù"C±¦ªñB±¦Å`(C±¦ˆôëA±¦š6C±¦Þ¿A±¦>C±¦ A‡Ü'‡Œ•Ü&®º¦ ‡ì•ü&®º• $•Ì ‡Œ• &®º•¼#• ‡Œ•,&®º•<%•| ‡Ü•L&®º•\%•| ‡Ü6•L&®º••l¸/¦±¸•l%•|®º±¸¦‡Ü'‡ü&•&¸G¸®º•L$•\±®ºº¦ ‡Ü6•\&®º••l,¦±¸$•l%•,±¸¦‡Ü'‡ü.•|&®º••Ü&¦±¸•Œ±¸•l‡Ü'‡Œ•<&¸G¸®º•l±®ºº¦ ‡Œ•l&®º•|$•Œ‡Œ'‡ü•œ&®º•<$•\ ‡Œ.•¼&®º•L¦€?±¸•̱¹¦€@%•Ü ‡ü•ì&®º¦ ‡ì6•ü&®º• %¦€?$•$¦€?'•Ü%•¼‡Œ'‡,•<&®º•<#•¼ ‡Œ•¬&®º¦ ‡üB•L&®º••,-•¬±¸¦±¸•\¦±•l%•|®º‡Œ'‡ü•|&®º¦€> ‡ì•Œ&®º¦ðA ‡ü*•¼&¸G¸®º•L$•œ±®ºº•L%•Œ ‡Œ•ì&®º•L$•œ‡Œ'‡ü•œ&®º•¼'•Œ‡Œ'‡ü2•¬&®º••,,•¬±¸•¼±¸•Ì%•̇,'‡ü^•l&®º•¸•ì&¦¸±¸•¬%•ܱ¸®º•¸•,,•¬±•¬%•ܸ±¸•¬%•ü‡Œ'‡ü.•ì&®º••,,•¬±¸•ü±¸• ‡,'‡ü•|&®º•$•l‡Œ'‡ü• &®º¦‡,'‡ü•Ü&®º¦pA ‡ü&•&®º• %•Ì$•<'•܇Œ'‡ü• &®º¦HC‡Œ'‡,•Ì&®º¦‡ì'‡ü*•<&¸G¸®º•$•l±®ºº•,%•Ì ‡Œ•Ü&®º•<•<±•̇Œ'‡,&•Ì&¸G¸®º•ì$•¬±®ºº•L ‡,• &®º•l$•|‡Œ'‡ü•Œ&®º¦ ‡ì•œ&®º¦Âõ<‡ì'‡ü6•¬&®º•¼%¦€?$•$¦€?'•Ì%•܇Œ'‡,*•Ü&®º•L¦€?±•챦€@%•Ì ‡ü•ü&®º¦ ‡ì.•l&®º••,-•¬±¸• ±¸¦‡Œ'‡ü•|&®º•'•‡Œ'‡ü*•&¸G¸®º•l$•|±®ºº•l%• ‡Œ•,&®º•\#•Ì ‡Œ*•Ì&¸G¸®º• $•<±®ºº• %• ‡Œ•ü&®º• $•<‡Œ'‡ü&• &®º•\¦±•L%•\‡Œ'‡ü•\&®º¦š™> ‡ì•<&®º•Ì'•‡Œ'‡ü•&®º¦@@ ‡üR•¼&®º••Œ&¦±®º•l%•ì±®º••l.¦±•œ%•L±¦‡,'‡ü•,&®º¦HC‡Œ'‡,•ü&®º¦‡,'‡ü•L&®º¦€? ‡,:•L&®º••ü&¦±¸•¼%•|±¸•¼%•¬‡Œ'‡ü•Œ&®º•Œ$•L‡Œ'‡ü•¼&®º¦HC‡Œ'‡,•Ì&®º¦pA ‡ü6•Œ&®º•\®º•¼%•l$•\'•̱¸¦‡Œ'‡ü*•\&¸G¸®º•Œ$•L±®ºº•,%•l ‡Œ•ì&®º¦Âõ<‡ì'‡ü&•l&¸G¸®º•ü$•¼±®ºº•L ‡,•|&®º•<•\±•l‡Œ'‡,•L¹&¸¦HC ‡ü•<¹&¸¦ ‡ü•l¹&¸®¹•\ ‡ü•\¹&¸¦€= ‡ü&‰¸šš±š±š±š*š&š#š%š%š%šœ'œš&Gš%š±šœ'œš&G$š%𱦀? ‡ìtêH¡7L¿< < ô &Internally defined simulation time.‚Net present value of the value of carbon being sequestered (i.e. the flow rate). Note the final value is in the present value.:Discount rate used in calculation of net present value.¢Net present value of stored carbon... i.e. the discounted value of excess carbon stored under the policy scenario. Note: the final value is a net present value.vThe mean value of additional CO2 currently stored in forest products due to implementation of the policy scenarioZIncreasing additional CO2 in forest and forest products caused by the policy sceanrio.BAdditional CO2 in forest products caused by the policy scenariofThe value of additional CO2 that has accumulated in forest products because of the policy scenario.BThe change in CO2 in forest products due to the policy scenario^Net increasing value of CO2 in forest products due to implementation of the policy scenario.RDecreasing value of excess CO2 in forest products caused by the policy scenario.ÂThe mean value of additional carbon currently stored because of the policy scenario. Note: the x... the last component has bee included to allow for cases when there is negative policy effect.BSummary of changes in the value of baseline and policy carbon.RAlternate value per ton of carbon that can be used in lieu of a constant value.Base price of CO2^The additional amount of CO2 stored in the policy scenario compared to the baseline scenarioVA lookup function used to to turn in a hypothetical carbon price over time scenarioúA switch to allow the use of either one inconstant base price for carbon or to an alternative price scenario. If this is 0 then the base value is used, otherwise the alternative is used. The alternative could be a function of another variable.¶Additional CO2 stored in forest products on the policy scenario also taking into account carbon previously stored under the baseline scenario and still remaining in forest products’Carbon remaining in forest products ever created under the baseline scenario even though that scenario was terminated in the policy start year.FValue of carbon that is currently stored under the policy scenario.fValue of carbon that would be stored remaining forest under the baseline scenario. (for comparison)FIncreasing value of extra carbon stored due to the policy scenarioBCurrent value of extra carbon stored due to the policy scenarioJThe decreasing value of extra carbon stored due to the policy scenario6The current value of a ton of sequestered carbon.zThe amount of extra carbon stored because of the implementation of the policy scenario. (The same as avoided emissions)žNet rate of change of extra carbon stored due to the implementation of the policy scenario compared to what would have happened with the baseline scenariobThe difference between the baseline and the policy amounts of carbon stored at any given time.*Uses the inverse of the policy deforestation rate unless the policy deforestation rate is zero in which case the implied aged harvest would be four times the time needed to reach saturation (although in this case it would be irrelevant because there would be no harvest -- if the rate was zero)>Switch to turn on the alternate average carbon harvested amount. If equal to zero then use the default, average, carbon content per ha to determine carbon being lost. If 1 then use the adjusted amount. Use adjusted amount for policies involving harvest at a particular age rather than general clearing of forest.The expected carbon content of the harvested area assuming that the harvest trees are the presumed maximum age expected under the harvesting strategy. This alternate is expected to be more appropriate than the average carbon per hectare when harvesting strategies are being tested.^The total amount of CO2 stored under the policy scenario including both forests and products6The beginning year for the alternate forest policy.šAmount of CO2 stored in products which are being created under the policy scenario. Prior to policy start year there is no carbon being stored this way.¶The fraction of CO2 released from forests that is captured in forest products. This might be, at best, something like .25 for durable products and maybe .30 for paper products.ŠMean lifetime of products produced under the policy scenario. Examples: paper products T=1.5 years, houses T=115 years, furniture T=40VThe amount of carbon currently stored in forest products under the policy scenarioJThe net storage of CO2 in products produced under the policy scenarioŠThe amount of carbon being released back into the atmosphere from decomposition of forest products produced under the policy scenarioÒForest being removed in the policy forest scenario. Note: in some scenarios afforestation can be used to balance deforestation and thus simulate a managed forest with a constant, or variable, harvest rate.^Decreases of stored carbon are normally based on the mean amount of carbon per ha, but in the case of deliberate harvesting strategies this is change to allow for removal of the most carbon rich portions... the oldest forest stock. This formulation also allows the calculation of carbon releases prior to the implementation of the policy scenario.ÆRate at which new forest land is added in the policy scenario. Additions can be used to counter act losses when considering harvested forest scenarios rather then just deforestation scenarios.^The net rate at which carbon is being added or lost to the forest under the policy scenario.zAddition of forest land under the policy scenario. Note this particular component is not modeled as a fractional rate.~Time needed to reach full saturation. Note that full saturation will be reached in approx 4 times the mean time shown here.>Addition of carbon to the forest under the policy scenario2Amount of carbon in a carbon saturated forestFThe fractional deforestation rate assumed under the policy scenariobThe amount of CO2 currently stored in forest lands inclusive of carbon in trees and soil etc.>Average amount of CO2 per hectare under the policy scenario"Area of land covered by forestVNet gain or loss in baseline product CO2 after implementation of policy scenario.BSwitch to turn on use of constant land area deforested per yearJConstant land area deforested per year.... used if switch is turned on.žThe expected carbon content of the harvested area assuming that the harvested trees are at the presumed maximum age expected under the harvesting strategy.’The assumed age of trees being harvested during the baseline scenario. This age is only needed when a specific harvesting scenario is assumed.öIf equal to zero then use the default, average, carbon content to determine carbon being lost. If 1 then use the adjusted amount. Use adjusted amount for policies involving harvest at a particular age rather than general clearing of forest.ZCO2 being stored in baseline scenario products prior to the start of the policy scenarioVLoss of CO2 from baseline scenario products after the start of the policy scenariobAmount CO2 stored in baseline scenario products that remain after the start of a policy scenarioFThe amount of CO2 in forests plus products in the baseline scenarioVThe amount of CO2 currently in forest products produced under the baseline scenarioJThe net CO2 storage rate for forest products under the baseline scenarioRThe amount of CO2 being stored in forest products under the baseline scenario¶The fraction of CO2 released from forests that is captured in forest products. This might be, at best, something like .15 for durable products and maybe .20 for paper products.zThe amount of CO2 being released from forest products produced under the baseline scenario during their decomposition†Mean lifetime forest products under the baseline scenario. Examples: paper products T=1.5 years, houses T=115 years, furniture T=40¸Amount of forest to being removed each year. Note that this can be balanced to buy forest being added and there will be no net loss of forest although the forest will be younger.RThe amount of carbon per hectare in the forest at the start of the simulationjThe amount of forest land of being added per year. Note that this is not a fraction, but is the area added per year. It can refers to both to new areas of forest added or areas of replacement. Note also that this can be used when simulating forest harvest with replacement (natural or not) by merely assuming that each area of forest harvested is replaced.2Area of forest at the start of the simulation..Release of carbon due to removal of forest.Net CO2 storage/loss in the baseline forest.†The amount of carbon in the forest when the forest is fully mature and fully carbon saturated. Presumably this is a mature forest.zTime needed to reach full saturation. Note that saturation will be reached in approx 4 times the mean time shown here.vCarbon being sequestered by the baseline forest. Note: No CO2 will be added if the forest is already at saturation.6The amount of CO2 currently stored in forest lands.>The expected deforestation rate for the baseline scenario."Area of land covered by forest.:The mean amount of carbon per hectare at any given time" Simulation Control Parameters&The final time for the simulation.&The initial time for the simulation..The frequency with which output is stored.&The time step for the simulation.¬; €ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö A€ö€ö€ö€ö€öÂõ<€öÂõ<š™>€?HC€ö€ö€ö@@€ö€öHCpA€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€öÍÌL=€öHC€>€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€ö€öHCpA€ö€ö€öðA€ö€ö€=€ö€ö€ö6¡7L¿::ô Á\8VÀ A;p½AEGBÔšB1Ù@Bp]BXhtBf€BÃó¢Brj´BubÃB/]ÍB®GõBusC¢E CLWC¤ÐCù"CÅ`(Cš6C>C A A A Ax ¤A'BABò0BHB¼6Bæ‚B1Y]B'BABuSoBäÔjB`%7B‡g0BûºWB"ýPBϦ2BVBªñBˆôëAÞ¿A A///---\\\ :GRAPH Stack_C_for+prod :TITLE Change in Stored Carbon: Forest + Products :Y-DIV 5 :WIDTH 24 :HEIGHT 16 :STACK-FILL 0 :NO-LEGEND 1 :SCALE :VAR change in stored forest CO2 due to policy scenario :Y-MAX 250 :LINE-WIDTH 5 :VAR difference in CO2 stored in all forest products :LINE-WIDTH 5 :GRAPH For_Area :TITLE Forest Area Under Baseline and Policy Scenarios :SCALE :VAR BL Forest Area :LINE-WIDTH 3 :VAR Policy Forest Area :LINE-WIDTH 3 :GRAPH XXXXX :TITLE XXXXX :SCALE :VAR BL alt carbon content of harvested area :GRAPH C_stored :TITLE Carbon Stored in Forest Lands :SCALE :VAR BL Amount of CO2 Stored in Forest Lands :LINE-WIDTH 3 :VAR Policy Amount of CO2 Stored in Forest Lands :LINE-WIDTH 3 :GRAPH C_in_Prod :TITLE Carbon Stored in Forest Products: Baseline and Policy :SCALE :VAR BL CO2 in Forest Products :VAR CO2 in Policy Forest Products :VAR BL Product CO2 Remaining after Policy Start :GRAPH C_in_Prod_2_Policy :TITLE Carbon Stored in Forest Products: Policy :STACK-FILL 0 :SCALE :VAR BL Product CO2 Remaining after Policy Start|in remaining baseline products :VAR CO2 in Policy Forest Products|in new products :GRAPH Pol_C_Prod_Diff :TITLE Avoided Carbon Emissions due to Products :SCALE :VAR Accumulated Policy Caused CO2 in Products :GRAPH Values_1 :TITLE Accumulating Value of Policy Caused Carbon :DOTS :SCALE :VAR Accumulated Value of Policy Caused Forest CO2 :SCALE :VAR accumulating value of carbon due to policy differences :GRAPH Val_Flow_Pol_all :TITLE Value Flow of Policy Caused Carbon :STACK-FILL 0 :SCALE :VAR accumulating value of carbon due to policy differences :VAR accumulating value of carbon in products due to policy differences :GRAPH release_of_CO2 :TITLE release_of_CO2 :SCALE :VAR PL release of carbon stored in forest :VAR BL release of carbon stored in forest :VAR BL amount of CO2 being sequestered by the forest :VAR PL amount of CO2 being sequestered by the forest :VAR BL net change in forest CO2 :VAR policy net change in forest CO2 :GRAPH Total_Avoided_Emissions_ :TITLE Total Avoided Emissions (Forest and Products) :SCALE :VAR change in stored forest CO2 due to policy scenario :LINE-WIDTH 5 :VAR difference in CO2 stored in all forest products :LINE-WIDTH 5 :GRAPH C_stored+diff+flow :TITLE Baseline vs Policy Scenario CO2 in Forest Lands :Y-DIV 5 :SCALE :VAR BL Amount of CO2 Stored in Forest Lands :LINE-WIDTH 3 :VAR Policy Amount of CO2 Stored in Forest Lands :LINE-WIDTH 3 :VAR change in stored forest CO2 due to policy scenario :LINE-WIDTH 2 :VAR accumulating CO2 due to policy differences :LINE-WIDTH 3 :GRAPH XXXXX2 :TITLE XXXXX2 :SCALE :VAR BL alt carbon content of harvested area :GRAPH FIG_C_stored+diff :TITLE Baseline vs Policy Scenario: Carbon in Forest Lands :Y-DIV 5 :WIDTH 24 :HEIGHT 16 :NO-LEGEND 1 :SCALE :VAR BL Amount of CO2 Stored in Forest Lands :Y-MIN 0 :Y-MAX 250 :LINE-WIDTH 5 :VAR Policy Amount of CO2 Stored in Forest Lands :LINE-WIDTH 5 :VAR Accumulated Policy Caused Forest CO2 :LINE-WIDTH 5 :GRAPH FIG_C_stored+diff_compare :TITLE Baseline vs Policy Scenario C in Forest Lands :Y-DIV 6 :NO-LEGEND 1 :SCALE :VAR BL Amount of CO2 Stored in Forest Lands :Y-MIN -100 :DATASET P Plantation Management :LINE-WIDTH 3 :VAR Policy Amount of CO2 Stored in Forest Lands :DATASET P Plantation Management :LINE-WIDTH 3 :VAR Accumulated Policy Caused Forest CO2 :DATASET P Plantation Management :LINE-WIDTH 3 :VAR Policy Amount of CO2 Stored in Forest Lands :DATASET P Plantation modified :LINE-STYLE DOT :VAR Accumulated Policy Caused Forest CO2 :DATASET P Plantation modified :LINE-STYLE DOT :GRAPH C_stored_for+pro :TITLE Carbon Stored in Forest Lands and Products :SCALE :VAR BL Amount of CO2 Stored in Forest Lands :LINE-WIDTH 3 :VAR Policy Amount of CO2 Stored in Forest Lands :LINE-WIDTH 3 :VAR BL CO2 in forest plus products :VAR policy CO2 in forest plus products :GRAPH Simple :TITLE Forest Area, Stored Carbon and Flows of Carbon :NO-LEGEND 1 :SCALE :VAR BL Forest Area :Y-MIN 10000 :Y-MAX 110000 :LINE-WIDTH 3 :SCALE :VAR BL Amount of CO2 Stored in Forest Lands :Y-MIN 1e+007 :Y-MAX 3e+007 :LINE-WIDTH 3 :SCALE :VAR BL release of carbon stored in forest :Y-MAX 2e+006 :LINE-WIDTH 3 :VAR BL amount of CO2 being sequestered by the forest :GRAPH FIG_C_stored+diff_comp_base :TITLE Two Baselines vs One Policy Scenario: C in Forest Lands :Y-DIV 5 :NO-LEGEND 1 :SCALE :VAR BL Amount of CO2 Stored in Forest Lands :Y-MIN 0 :Y-MAX 250 :LINE-WIDTH 3 :VAR Policy Amount of CO2 Stored in Forest Lands :LINE-WIDTH 3 :VAR Accumulated Policy Caused Forest CO2 :LINE-WIDTH 2 :VAR BL Amount of CO2 Stored in Forest Lands :DATASET *2 :LINE-WIDTH 1 :VAR Accumulated Policy Caused Forest CO2 :DATASET *2 :LINE-WIDTH 1 :GRAPH Dspl_Stack_C_for+prod :TITLE Change in Stored Carbon: Forest + Products :Y-DIV 4 :STACK-FILL 0 :NO-LEGEND 1 :SCALE :VAR difference in CO2 stored in all forest products :LINE-WIDTH 3 :VAR change in stored forest CO2 due to policy scenario :LINE-WIDTH 2 :GRAPH Values_1b :TITLE Value of Avoided Emissions of CO2 Due to Policy Scenario :WIDTH 24 :HEIGHT 16 :NO-LEGEND 1 :DOTS :SCALE :VAR Accumulated Value of Policy Caused Forest CO2 :LINE-WIDTH 5 :SCALE :VAR accumulating value of carbon due to policy differences :Y-MAX 80 :LINE-WIDTH 5 :L<%^E!@ 9:xxx 22:$,Dollar,Dollars,$s 22:Day,Days 22:Hour,Hours 22:Month,Months 22:Person,People,Persons 22:Unit,Units 22:Week,Weeks 22:Year,Years 23:0 15:0,0,0,0,0,0 19:97,0 27:2, 34:0, 4:Time 5:accumulating value of carbon due to policy differences 24:0 25:50 26:200