How costly are carbon offsets? A meta-analysis of carbon forest sinks

205 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Use (and Abuse) of Meta-Analysis in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: An Assessment (2009, unknown): “Several of the 19 studies use more advanced regression models, including FE and RE panel-data models that account for unobserved heterogeneity and non-independence (e.g., Florax et al. 2005; Johnson et al. 1997; Rosenberger and Loomis 2000b; van Kooten et al. 2004).”
Policy design for forest carbon sequestration: A review of the literature (2016, background): “…of carbon sequestration shows that the marginal costs of carbon sink enhancement can be considerably lower than those of carbon emissions reduction (see reviews by Sedjo et al., 1995; Stavins, 1999; Richards and Stokes, 2004; van Kooten et al., 2004, 2009; Manley et al., 2005; Phan et al., 2014).”
The additionality problem with offsets: Optimal contracts for carbon sequestration in forests (2013, background): “…have found that forest sequestration can be used to offset a substantial share of carbon emissions at costs that are similar to or lower than those associated with energy-based mitigation approaches (Richards and Stokes, 2004; van Kooten et al., 2004; Stavins and Richards, 2005; Lubowski, 2002).”