Reuters

America's urban trees absorb 25.6 million tonnes of CO2 annually. That carbon storage is worth $50.5 billion a year, but can cities profit?

Urban trees in the U.S. absorb 25.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually and help lower energy costs by shading the asphalt and concrete jungle. The US Forest Service estimates all that carbon storage is worth $50.5 billion and growing by $2 billion a year, according to a new study from the agency.

That’s a lot of green. Just one problem—how do you profit from all that photosynthesis?

Figuring out how to monetize the urban forest could be key to keeping it—and the planet—healthy. As urbanization continues—cities are expected to account for 8.1 percent of US land area in 2050, up from 3.1 percent in 2000—the population of street trees is falling by 4 million trees a year, the report says. That’s the equivalent of losing 20,000 acres (8,094 hectares) of trees annually.

Why? Office towers and apartment buildings encroach on green space. Meanwhile, planting and maintaining urban trees is expensive. That’s especially true for cities facing shrinking municipal budgets and struggling to keep enough cops and garbage collectors on the streets.

On a global level, the United Nation’s REDD initiative (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation in Developing countries) aims to preserve tree cover by paying countries not to cut down their forests. The US lacks a national carbon market to help such efforts along. But the state of California’s new cap-and-trade system does allow companies to meet their greenhouse gas emission targets partially by buying credits from approved urban tree projects. As a result, budget-constrained cities like southern California’s Long Beach are considering enrolling their urban street trees in the cap-and-trade program to make money.

Unfortunately, the program is limited to cities, universities and utilities, and California’s cap-and-trade regulations get in the way. Cities must establish monitoring and reporting systems to verify their street trees are indeed storing the carbon claimed in the credits. Also, to qualify for the program, cities must ensure that the carbon absorbed by their trees remain stored for 100 years. Trees, of course, die of old age, or get knocked down by storms and errant drivers, and cities must keep the carbon books balanced.

Forests are easier to manage, which explains why oil giant Shell has said it intends to purchase 500,000 carbon offsets from a Michigan project to meet its California cap-and-trade obligations. So where are the most tree-loving cities in the US? Texas. The state’s street trees are storing 49.8 million tons of carbon, according to the Forest Service survey. Surprisingly, tree-hugging California comes in seventh place, capturing 34,600 tons of carbon.

Top image: Jessica Gow/Reuters. This post originally appeared on Quartz, an Atlantic partner site.

About the Author

Most Popular

  1. a map of future climate risks in the U.S.
    Maps

    America After Climate Change, Mapped

    With “The 2100 Project: An Atlas for A Green New Deal,” the McHarg Center tries to visualize how the warming world will reshape the United States.

  2. photo: A man boards a bus in Kansas City, Missouri.
    Transportation

    Why Kansas City’s Free Transit Experiment Matters

    The Missouri city is the first major one in the U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation. Will a boost in subsidized mobility pay off with economic benefits?

  3. Design

    New York City Will Require Bird-Friendly Glass on Buildings

    Hundreds of thousands of migratory birds smash into the city’s buildings every year. The city council just passed a bill to cut back on the carnage.

  4. Perspective

    Why Car-Free Streets Will Soon Be the Norm

    In cities like New York, Paris, Rotterdam, and soon San Francisco, car-free streets are emerging amid a growing movement.

  5. An aerial photo of downtown Miami.
    Life

    The Fastest-Growing U.S. Cities Aren’t What You Think

    Looking at the population and job growth of large cities proper, rather than their metro areas, uncovers some surprises.

×