Impacts of forest plantation programs on sectoral CO₂ emissions regionally in New Zealand

Abstract

Investing in projects that support environmental benefits, such as tree harvesting, has the potential to reduce air pollution levels in the atmosphere in the future. However, this kind of investment may increase the current level of emissions. Therefore, it is necessary to estimate how much the policy affects the current level of CO₂ emissions. This makes sure the policy doesn’t increase the level of CO₂ emissions. This study aims to analyze the effect of the One Billion Trees program on CO₂ emissions in New Zealand by employing the 2020 input–output table analysis. This investigation examines the direct and indirect effects of policy on both the demand and supply sides across six regions of New Zealand. The results of this study for the first year of plantation suggest that the policy increases the level of CO₂ emissions in all regions, especially in the Waikato region. The direct and indirect impact of the policy leads to 64 kt of CO₂ emissions on the demand side and 270 kt of CO₂ emissions on the supply side. These lead to 0.19 and 0.74% of total CO₂ emissions being attributed to investment shocks. Continuing the policy is recommended, as it has a low effect on CO₂ emissions. However, it is crucial to prioritize the use of low-carbon machinery that uses fossil fuels during the plantation process.

Keywords

Regional input–output analysis / Forest investment program / Sectoral CO₂ emissions / Environmental policies / Supply-side policy / Demand-side policy

References

[1]	Assis TO, de Aguiar APD, von Randow C, de Paula Gomes DM, Kury JN, Ometto JPHB, Nobre CA (2020) CO2 emissions from forest degradation in Brazilian Amazon. Environ Res Lett 15:104035. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9cfc
[2]	Begum RA, Raihan A, Said MNM (2020) Dynamic impacts of economic growth and forested area on carbon dioxide emissions in Malaysia. Sustainability 12:9375. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229375
[3]	Beidari M, Lin SG, Lewis C (2017) Multiplier effects of energy consumption and CO2 emissions by input-output analysis in South Africa. Aerosol Air Qual Res 17:1666–1678. https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2017.04.0150
[4]	Cellura M, Longo S, Mistretta M (2011) The energy and environmental impacts of Italian households consumptions: an input–output approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15:3897–3908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.025
[5]	Cherubini F, Str?mman AH, Hertwich E (2011) Effects of boreal forest management practices on the climate impact of CO2 emissions from bioenergy. Ecol Model 223(1):59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.06.021
[6]	Duarte R, Mainar A, Sánchez-Chóliz J (2010) The impact of household consumption patterns on emissions in Spain. Energy Econ 32:176–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2009.08.007
[7]	Forest Enterprises (2016) What is the emissions trading scheme (ETS)? Forest Enterprises, Masterton, New Zealand. Available at (April 2024): What is the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)? | Forestenterprises.co.nz
[8]	Federici S, Tubiello FN, Salvatore M, Jacobs H, Schmidhuber J (2015) New estimates of CO2 forest emissions and removals: 1990–2015. For Ecol Manage 352:89–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.04.022
[9]	Fidel AR, Mendoza M, Antonio M (2013) The demand driven and the supply-sided input-output models. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/61132/
[10]	Garrett-Peltier H (2017) Green versus brown: Comparing the employment impacts of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and fossil fuels using an input-output model. Econ Model 61:439–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2016.11.012
[11]	Gundersen P, Thybring EE, Nord-Larsen T, Vesterdal L, Nadelhoffer KJ, Johannsen VK (2021) Old-growth forest carbon sinks overestimated. Nature 591:E21–E23. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03266-z
[12]	Hadden D, Grelle A (2017) Net CO2 emissions from a primary boreo-nemoral forest over a 10year period. For Ecol Manage 398:164–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.05.008
[13]	Hendrickson CT, Lave LB, Matthews HS (2006) Environmental life cycle assessment of goods and services: An input-output approach, 1st edn. Routledge, London, New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781936331383
[14]	Iordan CM, Hu X, Arvesen A, Kauppi P, Cherubini F (2018) Contribution of forest wood products to negative emissions: historical comparative analysis from 1960 to 2015 in Norway, Sweden and Finland. Carbon Balanc Manage. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-018-0101-9
[15]	Jia Y, Fang Y, Jing Z, Lin F (2022) Price connectedness and input–output linkages: evidence from China. Econ Model 116:105997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2022.105997
[16]	Ke S, Zhang Z, Wang Y (2023) China’s forest carbon sinks and mitigation potential from carbon sequestration trading perspective. Ecol Ind 148:110054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110054
[17]	Keller M, Kaplan WA, Wofsy SC (1986). Emissions of N2O, CH4 and CO2 from tropical forest soils. 91(D11): 11791?11802. https://doi.org/10.1029/JD091iD11p11791
[18]	Kok R, Benders R, Moll H (2006) Measuring the environmental load of household consumption using some methods based on input–output energy analysis: a comparison of methods and a discussion of results. Energy Policy 34(17):2744–2761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.04.006
[19]	Kruid S, Macedo MN, Gorelik SR, Walker W, Moutinho P, Brando PM, Castanho A, Alencar A, Baccini A, Coe MT (2021) Beyond deforestation: carbon emissions from land grabbing and forest degradation in the Brazilian Amazon. Front for Glob Change 4:645282. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.645282
[20]	Li JS, Chen GQ, Hayat T, Alsaedi A (2015) Mercury emissions by Beijing’s fossil energy consumption: based on environmentally extended input–output analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 41:1167–1175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.073
[21]	Lin B, Ge J (2020) To harvest or not to harvest? Forest management as a trade-off between bioenergy production and carbon sink. J Clean Prod 268:122219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122219
[22]	Ministry of Primary Industry (MPI) (2023) About New Zealand’s Forests. Ministry of Primary Industry, Wellington. Available at (April 2024): About New Zealand's forests|NZ Government (mpi.govt.nz)
[23]	Ministry for the Environment (MfE) (2022) New Zealand’s gross and net emissions. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington. Available at (April 2024): New Zealand's Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2021 snapshot|Ministry for the Environment
[24]	Nwachukwu CM, Wang C, Wetterlund E (2021) Exploring the role of forest biomass in abating fossil CO2 emissions in the iron and steel industry—the case of Sweden. Appl Energy 288:116558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116558
[25]	Parajuli R, Joshi O, Maraseni T (2019) Incorporating forests, agriculture, and energy consumption in the framework of the environmental Kuznets curve: a dynamic panel data approach. Sustainability 11:2688. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092688
[26]	Raihan A, Begum RA, Nizam M, Said M, Pereira JJ (2022) Dynamic impacts of energy use, agricultural land expansion, and deforestation on CO2 emissions in Malaysia. Environ Ecol Stat 29:477–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10651-022-00532-9
[27]	Rehman A, Ma H, Ahmad M, Irfan M, Traore O, Chandio AA (2021) Towards environmental sustainability: devolving the influence of carbon dioxide emission to population growth, climate change, Forestry, livestock and crops production in Pakistan. Ecol Ind 125:107460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107460
[28]	Ren Z, Zheng H, He X, Zhang D, Shen G, Zhai C (2019) Changes in spatio-temporal patterns of urban forest and its above-ground carbon storage: implication for urban CO2 emissions mitigation under China’s rapid urban expansion and greening. Environ Int 129:438–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.05.010
[29]	Rinaldi L, Rocco MV, Colombo E (2023) Assessing critical materials demand in global energy transition scenarios based on the Dynamic Extraction and Recycling Input-Output framework (DYNERIO). Resour Conserv Recycl 191:106900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.106900
[30]	Ruddiman WF, Ellis EC (2009) Effect of per-capita land use changes on Holocene forest clearance and CO2 emissions. Quatern Sci Rev 28(27–28):3011–3015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.05.022
[31]	Schlamadinger B, Marland G (2002) Net effect of forest harvest on CO2 emissions to the atmosphere: a sensitivity analysis on the influence of time. Tellus B 51(2):314–325. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0889.1999.00014.x
[32]	Solaymani S (2023) Biodiesel and its potential to mitigate transport-related CO2 emissions. Carbon Res 2:38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44246-023-00067-z
[33]	Solaymani S, Villamor G, Dunningham A, Hall P (2023) The relationship between energy and non-energy factors and CO2 emissions in New Zealand. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30:104270–104283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29784-z
[34]	Stats NZ (2023) New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions. Stats NZ, Wellington, New Zealand. Available at (April 2024): New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions | Stats NZ
[35]	Tarancon MA, Río PD (2012) Assessing energy-related CO2 emissions with sensitivity analysis and input-output techniques. Energy 37(1):161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.07.026
[36]	Tian X, Bai F, Jia J, Liu Y, Shi F (2019) Realizing low-carbon development in a developing and industrializing region: impacts of industrial structure change on CO2 emissions in southwest China. J Environ Manage 233:728–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.078
[37]	Tubiello FN, Conchedda G, Wanner N, Federici S, Rossi S, Grassi G (2021a) Carbon emissions and removals from forests: new estimates, 1990–2020. Earth Syst Sci Data 13(4):1681–1691. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-1681-2021
[38]	Tubiello FN, Conchedda G, Wanner N, Federici S, Rossi S, Grassi G (2021b) Carbon emissions and removals from forests: new estimates, 1990–2020. ESSD 13(4):1681–1691. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-1681-2021
[39]	Waheed R, Chang D, Sarwar S, Chen W (2018) Forest, agriculture, renewable energy, and CO2 emission. J Clean Prod 172:4231–4238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.287
[40]	Wang J, Dong X, Dong K (2022) How digital industries affect China’s carbon emissions? Analysis of the direct and indirect structural effects. Technol Soc 68:101911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101911
[41]	Wei J, Huang K, Yang S, Li Y, Hu T, Zhang Y (2017) Driving forces analysis of energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in Beijing: an input-output structural decomposition analysis. J Clean Prod 163:58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.086
[42]	Xu G, Schwarz P, Shi X, Duma N (2023) Scenario paths of developing forest carbon sinks for China to achieve carbon neutrality. Land 12(7):1325. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12071325
[43]	Yuan B, Ren S, Chen X (2015) The effects of urbanization, consumption ratio and consumption structure on residential indirect CO2 emissions in China: a regional comparative analysis. Appl Energy 140:94–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.11.047
[44]	Zhang Y (2010) Supply-side structural effect on carbon emissions in China. Energ Econ 32(1):186–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2009.09.016
[45]	Zhao N, Wang K, Yuan Y (2023) Toward the carbon neutrality: Forest carbon sinks and its spatial spillover effect in China. Ecol Econ 209:107837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107837
[46]	Zhong S, Wang H (2021) The effect of total factor productivity of forestry industry on CO2 emissions: a spatial econometric analysis of China. Sci Rep 11:14200. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93770-z

Funding

New Zealand Forest Research Institute Limited