Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 Socio-Ecological Practice Research (2019) 1:125–138 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-019-00017-3 RESEARCH ARTICLE California’s success in the socio‑ecological practice of a forest carbon ofset credit option to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions Chaeri Kim 1  · Thomas Daniels 1 Received: 7 January 2019 / Accepted: 28 May 2019 / Published online: 11 June 2019 © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 Abstract The mitigation of climate change through the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions has become a central goal of interna- tional policy. An estimated 27 cap-and-trade programs to reduce carbon emissions exist worldwide. But only a small number of them use a forest carbon ofset credit option. In 2012, California created a forest carbon ofset credit option as part of its greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program. The ofset credits have come primarily from US forests that meet requirements for additional, verifable increases in carbon storage through improved forest management. California, with the help of its cap-and-trade program and modest carbon ofset option, has met its initial goal for lower carbon emissions. This case study reveals a gap in socio-ecological practice research on a forest carbon ofset credit option by identifying seven measures of success. These seven measures show how a forest carbon ofset credit option can enhance a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Countries and regions that are using or contemplating the use of a forest carbon ofset credit option can employ these seven measures to design, evaluate, or upgrade their forest carbon ofset programs. Keywords California · Cap-and-trade · Carbon · Forest carbon ofset credits · Greenhouse gas emission · Ofsets · Mitigation · Socio-ecological practice research 1 California’s cap‑and‑trade program and forest carbon ofset credits Scientists have formulated the theory of climate change to explain that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are producing warmer global temperatures, and to predict catastrophic results to life on earth if the concentration of greenhouse gases reaches a level of 500 parts per million of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), the main greenhouse gas (Jones 2017). By 2017, CO 2 concentrations topped 410 parts per million for the frst time in millions of years (Kahn 2017, p. 1). The Paris Agreement of 2015 underscored the urgency of mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to limit the increase in global temperatures to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels (The White House 2015; UNFCCC 2015, p. 4). The Intergovernmental Panel on Cli- mate Change has sounded the alarm that “Global warming is likely to reach 1.5 °C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate” (IPCC 2018, p. 10). So far, two general approaches have been advocated to incentivize GHG mitigation: a cap-and-trade program and a carbon tax. Although a carbon tax has won the support of most economists, such a tax has proved politically unpopu- lar, especially in the USA (Gleckman 2018). A cap-and- trade program to reduce GHG emissions was frst adopted by the European Union in 2005 (European Commission 2019). As of 2019, 27 GHG cap-and-trade emissions trading pro- grams have been put in place (ICAP 2019, p. 4). 1.1 The cap‑and‑trade program in California Under a cap-and-trade program, an emitter is given or must purchase an amount of annual emissions allowances known as the cap. The emitter can reduce its emissions below the cap and sell the remaining allowances, or if the emitter has exceeded the emissions cap, the emitter must purchase allowances from other emitters who have created allowances by reducing emissions below their caps or else face a fne. To be efective, the annual emissions caps must decline over time to compel emitters to reduce overall emissions. * Thomas Daniels thomasld@design.upenn.edu 1 Department of City and Regional Planning, School of Design, University of Pennsylvania, 127 Meyerson Hall, 210 South 34th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6311, USA