Unpacking Carbon Sequestration in UVM's Comprehensive Sustainability Plan
By Emma Polhemus
Cotopaxi. Klean Kanteen. REI Co-op. All of these familiar brands, which you probably spot across campus regularly, are “Certified Climate Neutral” by the independent organization Change Climate. Climate and carbon neutrality have become some of the latest environmental buzzwords that indicate a business’s commitment to sustainability. There are even companies that allow you to purchase personal carbon offsets to reduce your own carbon footprint. I understand the basics of what this means: we are releasing a dangerous amount of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere, and climate neutrality avoids contributing to that problem by producing net zero emissions—in other words, if the provisioning of a product or service adds any greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, it’s offset by something that takes carbon dioxide back out.
As close to home as we can get, carbon neutrality plays a starring role in the Comprehensive Sustainability Plan (CSP) published by the University of Vermont in the spring of 2023. UVM has pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030, and the most significant portion of this goal over the next seven years will come in the form of purchasing forest carbon offsets in the state of Vermont.
Carbon offsetting is billed as a much-needed action against the climate crisis, but I can’t help but second guess these promises. It’s nice to think that when you purchase a carbon offset, all those greenhouse gasses just disappear, but they do have to go somewhere. The question is, where? Are carbon offsets actually beneficial, or are they the climate equivalent of shoving a basket of dirty laundry in the closet and pretending it’s not there? As with any environmental solution, I’m sure there are tradeoffs. I want to find out what carbon sequestration means in the context of our global environmental future.
To learn more about carbon sequestration in Vermont, I spoke with Jim Shallow, Director of Strategic Conservation Initiatives at the Vermont Chapter of the Nature Conservancy (TNC). TNC has several carbon sequestration projects in the state of Vermont, including the Burnt Mountain Natural Area and the Forest Carbon Aggregation project in the Cold Hollow region, created in partnership with the Vermont Land Trust. These projects are designed to tackle TNC’s global goals of preventing biodiversity loss and responding to climate change.
In order to limit global temperature increases to 1.5℃, “there is a need at a global level to not only reduce the amount of carbon we’re putting into the atmosphere,” Shallow explained:
but to [also] start removing carbon from the atmosphere that we’ve already put up there. Our research here at the Nature Conservancy is showing that nature can play a key role in helping sequester that carbon, store it over time, and help us lower the amount of overall carbon in [the atmosphere.]
Throughout our conversation, Shallow referred to these processes as “natural climate solution[s],” a term he prefers “because it’s looking around us and seeing how nature can help us solve this problem.”
Other commonly used terms are carbon sequestration or carbon offset. Unlike natural climate solutions, both of these can refer to either biological or geological processes. The United States Geological Survey defines geological sequestration as the process of injecting and storing carbon dioxide underground, usually as a pressurized liquid. Biological sequestration refers to carbon dioxide stored in living systems, such as plants and soils. A 2017 study from Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, led by Dr. Jennifer Howard, clarifies that since all photosynthetic organisms take in some amount of carbon dioxide, biological carbon offsets have to increase carbon sequestration beyond what would naturally occur.
If we picture carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a bathtub with the faucet running and the drain open, climate science tells us that right now, we’re filling the bathtub too fast, and it’s going to overflow. The carbon dioxide taken in by life as usual is the water going out the drain, but to prevent that overflow, we need to take more water out by making another drain. That new drain, back in climate change terms, might be planting more trees or changing land management practices. A carbon sequestration project that increases how fast the atmospheric bathtub drains can be called “additional”, and this concept helps us avoid overestimating how much carbon is being removed.
As Shallow explained during our conversation, we’ve reached a point where carbon sequestration will be needed along with emissions reductions—in other words, even if we slow down the faucet, our bathtub needs more drains. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations’ climate science organization, published its most recent Assessment Report in March of 2023. The IPCC recommends limiting warming to less than 1.5℃ by the end of the century in order to avoid high risk of irreversible environmental change. In order to meet this target, the IPCC states that “while reaching net zero CO2 or net zero [greenhouse gas] emissions requires deep and rapid reductions in gross emissions, the deployment of [carbon dioxide removal] to counterbalance hard-to-abate residual emissions…is unavoidable.”
Since not every company or individual producing these hard-to-abate emissions is directly involved in carbon sequestration, TNC and many other leaders of natural climate solution projects sell carbon credits to external organizations, which may soon include the University of Vermont.
When I asked how, exactly, carbon sequestration turns into something that can be bought and sold given its somewhat intangible nature, Shallow laughed. It was clear he had been asked this before. He explained that there are two types of carbon markets: regulatory and voluntary. Regulatory markets are used in states such as California which have established carbon emission caps. In states like Vermont that do not have these regulations, voluntary carbon markets exist. In these markets, carbon credits are generated through registries such as the American Carbon Registry (ACR) which have protocols for assessing projects, confirming additionality, and seeking third-party verification. Companies who want to purchase carbon credits can choose sequestration projects they like and work with the registry and producers of those credits to determine the cost.
These carbon credits can help other organizations achieve net carbon neutrality, and they help financially support TNC in meeting their other global goal—protecting biodiversity.
“A little more than half of the state is what we call resilient and connected lands… where we believe if we focus on those lands it will allow biodiversity to adapt and adjust to climate change,” said Shallow. Forest carbon credit projects “like the Cold Hollow project, which is in one of these connectivity areas, is securing that land for the next 40 years minimum,” supporting species adaptation to climate change throughout that time. He added that the project has several other co-benefits including supporting Vermont’s workforce and protecting working lands.
While TNC’s forest carbon projects in Vermont were designed with conservation and ecosystem health in mind, this is not the case for all biological sequestration projects. A 2021 article in Nature Climate Change reports a common approach to forest sequestration is large mono-crop tree plantations, often growing non-native species. The authors of the article, led by Dr. Samuel Fankhauser, explain that this reduces local biodiversity while simultaneously increasing the area’s vulnerability to disturbances like storms, drought, or pests. The same plantations are raising concerns about social justice when local subsistence farmers are displaced. For climate neutrality to be a just solution, the benefits and costs of sequestration need to be fairly distributed, but this isn’t always how it’s currently carried out.
Dr. Nathalie Seddon, Alison Smith, and their co-authors take a closer look at social justice and equity considerations of natural climate solutions in a 2021 article published in Global Change Biology. From the start of a carbon sequestration project, social science has shown that it is critical to involve members of the host community and utilize indigenous and local knowledge in project development. In addition to providing a sense of autonomy and justice in the process, this can prevent harm to important place-based ecosystem services and cultural connections to land. Poorly designed projects can displace local populations from their lands and livelihoods.
There are also concerns about the accountability of carbon offset purchases. Dr. Fankhauser and his co-authors argue that current systems to purchase carbon offsets lack both regulatory power and scientific backing to ensure that these offsets are making meaningful reductions in net emissions. Jim Shallow agrees that the current carbon markets are “not a perfect system,” but he believes that without federal legislation placing a price on carbon emissions, they are a functional alternative.
“It’s an innovative space,” he added, and he’s hopeful that developments such as potential international standardization of carbon credit registries will improve accountability.
Looking at the bigger picture of climate change mitigation, though, Shallow clarifies that he views offsets as a “last resort effort” to be used only after carbon emissions have been reduced as much as possible. Dr. Fankhauser and co-authors mention that one key pitfall of carbon offsets is using them to defend “business as usual” rather than emissions reductions, a risky strategy given that carbon sequestration measurements include high levels of uncertainty. The Nature Conservancy, however, is shaping their carbon credit program with this in mind.
“We won’t sell credits into certain economic sectors such as oil and gas exploration and refining,” Shallow said of TNC’s approach to this issue. Additionally, they “go through a review of [companies’] net neutral plans to make sure that this is not the only thing they’re relying on to be neutral,” he said.
Looking at UVM’s Comprehensive Sustainability Plan as an example, it was reported that as of 2023, the university has already significantly reduced emissions from the most accessible categories. The plan divides carbon emissions into three scopes: Scope 1 emissions are those produced directly on campus, such as burning fuel or university transportation; Scope 2 emissions are associated with purchased electricity; and Scope 3 emissions group together remaining indirect emissions, such as travel for study abroad programs or employee commutes. According to the CSP, UVM has eliminated all Scope 2 emissions by purchasing “highly renewable grid mixes” and renewable energy certificates, as well as installing solar arrays.
The carbon offsets the university plans to purchase will address the remaining Scope 1 and 3 emissions, which may be harder to reduce quickly. Shallow uses the example of study abroad travel: until flying on electric planes becomes feasible, net zero emissions are only attainable through offsets. Focusing on Scope 1 emissions, the CSP also states that UVM plans to invest in renewable energy heating systems in new buildings and renovations, although there is not a clear goal set for how much this will reduce emissions or when.
Like many tools we have for facing the climate crisis, I am cautiously optimistic about carbon sequestration. It can be a valuable addition to climate action plans, but it needs to be applied cautiously, with regards for equity, and not as a replacement for rapid and significant reductions in carbon emissions. The guidelines woven into The Nature Conservancy’s carbon credit sales seem like a promising start to me, but, as Shallow told me, these standards are not universally regulated. The good news for students here is that UVM intends to purchase the CSP carbon credits from the Vermont Land Trust and TNC collaboration, meaning that these credits have been produced with environment and people in mind and verified by the American Carbon Registry.
Regarding the CSP’s net zero plan as a whole, I wonder if there’s more that could be done to reduce carbon dioxide emissions related to heating and university transportation before resorting to carbon credits. Purchasing carbon credits is the central actionable step to achieve net zero by 2030, but the university still has a long way to go towards decarbonizing. Most importantly, I hope that UVM doesn’t stop making progress once this net zero through carbon offsets is reached. As Jim Shallow told me, carbon offsets are valuable for carbon emissions we can’t currently eliminate, but they are not a permanent fix. Still, while carbon offsets like those UVM will invest in aren’t a perfect solution, they aren’t just wishing away the problem either. Maybe the best approach, as Shallow put it, is “to go in with [your] eyes wide open”—as long as we keep in mind that there’s only so much space in the closet for our metaphorical carbon laundry, it’s better than leaving it on the floor.
The CSP also makes it very clear that UVM values its reputation as a leader in sustainability, and that reputation is created and upheld by student, faculty, and staff voices. As students, faculty, and staff—and community members of all kinds—we can celebrate the commitment to net carbon neutrality while simultaneously advocating for more complete emissions reductions by UVM. Purchasing carbon offsets is a step in the right direction, so let’s keep going. After all, solving the climate crisis is going to take all the tools we have. H
Art by Emma Polhemus and Frances Leadman
