Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sequestration Capacity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
EEA: natural and working lands could supply up to 7 million metric tons of offsets by 2050; gap to 10 million remains
Summary
EEA officials told the Senate committee that Massachusetts would likely need to offset about 10 million metric tons of residual emissions by 2050 and that up to 7 million metric tons of that could come from natural and working lands, while the administration continues to study additional removal strategies and regional approaches.
Undersecretary Stephanie Cooper and Undersecretary Catherine Antos told the committee that the Commonwealth’s 2050 greenhouse‑gas accounting anticipates at least 10 million metric tons of residual emissions that will need offsets, and that Massachusetts currently projects up to 7 million metric tons of those offsets could come from natural and working lands.
The nut graf: EEA said forests will supply the majority of that sequestration capacity but acknowledged a gap — roughly 3 million metric tons — between the 7 million metric tons EEA estimates may come from natural lands and the 10 million metric tons of offsets the state plans to secure by 2050. EEA said it is studying additional carbon dioxide removal options and is exploring regional approaches with other states to fill the remainder.
Antos told the committee EEA recently released a forest carbon study that refined estimates of above‑ground vegetation sequestration and again emphasized the importance of protecting existing forestland and pursuing restoration where appropriate. Cooper said the administration remains committed to offsetting the residual emissions in the 2050 Clean Energy and Climate Plan and that “up to 7,000,000 metric tons could come from natural and working lands,” while other removal strategies are under study.
Several legislators raised the accounting history: committee members noted earlier, larger estimates used in past planning (including numbers cited in prior Clean Energy plans) have been revised downward as methods and data have been refined. Senators asked whether the statutory definition of “natural and working lands” should be broadened to include regional lands outside Massachusetts; EEA officials said they are pursuing regional coordination but do not yet propose a statutory change.
Ending: EEA asked the committee for time to refine estimates and pursue regional options. Legislators and advocates pressed for stronger conservation and restoration funding to increase the state’s natural sequestration capacity.
