Dear Vinod,

What I found is 'There is no such thing as a generic price' as described in first link.

Though in September 2013 Costa Rica signed a Letter of Intent to sell not more than 12 million REDD credits to the World Bank for a maximum of US$63 million. (second link).

However compared to prices of 2008, a research report on 'Forests and carbon:

valuation, discounting and risk management' had predicted the carbon price in 2016 to be 28.7 pound per tonne (third link, 11th page).

Best wishes,

Prakash

http://www.redd-monitor.org/2013/01/22/how-much-does-a-carbon-credit-cost/

http://www.redd-monitor.org/2014/07/01/putting-a-price-on-forest-carbon-how-much-will-the-world-banks-carbon-fund-pay-for-redd-carbon-credits/

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FCRP012.pdf/$FILE/FCRP012.pdf

The price of carbon credits in the forestry sector in most cases will follow that established under the more general voluntary market or carbon cap-and-trade systems.  There is of course substantial variation as these schemes have varying jurisdictional boundaries and both the policy environment and market forces are in a state of flux.

A couple links follow:

http://calcarbondash.org/

http://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/2015%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20Price%20Report.pdf

http://carbonquestaustralia.com/sites/carbonquestaustralia.com/files/1099/file/FACT%20Sheet%20Price%20Forecast.pdf

Dear Vinod,

There is absolutely no reason that the forestry sector should be compensated for the ability of vegetation to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by photosynthesis ---- because there is little or no relationship between CURRENT carbon containing greenhouse gas emissions and the variability of the global climate

Actually during the last few decades - 30 percent of all human emissions of carbon dioxide EVER added to the atmosphere has been accompanied by a flat global temperature (no net global warming).

The weight of analytical evidence is mounting-- against the decades-old climate scare promulgated by the massively taxpayer financed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) backed by Global Climate Models that do not match climate observations.

Meanwhile we do not see a recognition of the wrongheadedness of the very expensive (and ineffective) government initiatives designed to lower CURRENT carbon containing greenhouse gas emissions as they are influenced by scientists whose selective connection with the literature has allowed them to continue touting the failed hypothesis that CURRENT carbon containing greenhouse gas emissions are the primary regulators of the global climate.  ............see expert analysis at:

The Battle Against Global Warming: An Absurd, Costly and Pointless Crusade

French scientists of the Paris-based Mathematical Calculation Society, SA have published a 195-page white paper with the above title. Some quotes from the paper: “There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way disturbed. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras.” “Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events – they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past.” “We are fighting for a cause (reducing CO2 emissions) that serves absolutely no purpose, in which we alone believe, and which we can do nothing about. You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human history to find such a mad obsession.”.............read the report at:

http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The following very short article will introduce you to the importance of the sun as the primary driver of the global climate.. see:

http://www.sott.net/article/300316-Solar-activity-is-declining-what-to-expect

--------------

During my reading of climate science - the best relationship I have found to temperature variations is associated with variations in the length of the solar cycles -- with longer cycles being followed by colder temperatures.

The the Rosetta Stone paper regarding the relationship of sunspot cycle length to temperature /// over 100 years of observations in Ireland is as follows: 

Max and Min Temp and Sunspot Cycle - Armagh Observatory

climate.arm.ac.uk/publications/484.pdf � PDF file

... AND THE LENGTH OF THE SUNSPOT CYCLE C.J. BUTLER ... the Earth's climate is influenced by solar... and the sunspot cycle length

+++++++++++++

---- there are many other papers concerning the relationship ofsunspot cycle length to temperature such as:

Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate

E. Friis-Christcnscn; K. Lassen

Science, New Series, vol. 254, No. 5032. (Nov. 1, 1991), pp. 698-700.

 --------------------------

Climate change is a scientific issue that has been corrupted by the massive government funding that supports the IPCC and the decades old 'groupthink' associated with the hypothesis that climate change is primarily influenced by human emissions of carbon containing greenhouse gas emissions.

Most people on Earth appear to have taken as gospel the opinion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the projection  by the Global Climate Models (GCMs) associated with the IPCC ---- that we risk catastrophic global warming due to CURRENT and FUTURE carbon emissions resulting from the burning of fossil fuels.

I suggest that most of the people on planet (including scientists such as yourself, Vinod, politicians and policy makers) have been misinformed by a massively taxpayer financed. so-called scientific body (the IPCC) whose mandate has from the outset been to only study 'human caused climate change'. This so-called scientific body (IPCC) has refused to entertain evidence that climate change is a phenomenon driven by natural forces such as solar variation.

The following URL is a comprehensive climate data update that Dr. Humlum issues monthly. I trust you will you will find in the collection of graphs, an indication that  increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are always preceded by an increase in temperature..... see:

http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_April_2015.pdf

----- so that the assumption of the IPCC and its associated Global Climate Models (GMCs) -- that CURRENT carbon containing greenhouse gas emissions are the control knob for the global climate -- appears to be in serious error.

......  the GMCs can not even match the actual climate OBSERVATIONS of the last two decades .

In case you wish to examine climate science that flies in the face of IPCC prognostications and the PROJECTIONS of the models associated with the IPCC ...... you can access a fairly thorough short course at:    (CLIMATE SCIENCE SECTION).

Friends of Science Society

P.O. Box 23167, Mission P.O.

Calgary, AB

Canada T2S 3B1

Finally ---------- the ability of CURRENT 'carbon' additions into the atmosphere to drive CURRENT global temperature decreases exponentially as atmospheric concentration goes up because it's ability to drive the global temperature becomes more and more saturated................. see:

-------the paper 'The Effect of a Doubling of the Concentration of CO2 in the Atmosphere as Depicted by Quantum Physics' at:

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/pdfz/abstracts/pdf/2014/90172cspg/abstracts/ndx_kalman.pdf.html

............to  assess the basic physics, which are also well explained in the following link....see:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=681#Introduction 

- in the Introduction to the FoS 'Science Essay' --- where the saturation of both the ability of CO2 and methane preclude any major effect on climate by further increases in the atmospheric concentration of these two greenhouse gases.

 Vinod, I do hope this material helps you understand the influence of CURRENT human carbon containing greenhouse gas emissions on the CURRENT global climate ---- this information has been shielded from your attention by the single minded massively taxpayer funded and government supported conviction of the IPCC that climate change is driven by human activities .

After having read and digested this [possibly new to you] information, you may be influenced to call  for a dissolution of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the setting up of an international organization whose goal would be to develop strategies to cope with NATURAL (both warming and cooling) climate changes.

Peter Salonius

Retired Natural Resources Canada Research Scientist

The ABCD - Arctic Boreal Climate Development was a project during 2009-2013 in northern Sweden.

Check it out via: http://www.overtornea.se/Global/Dokument/N%c3%a4ringsliv/ABCD/Folder_handelssystem%20f%c3%b6r%20skog_neutral_eng.pdf

Through that project, the iron mining company LKAB paid Sveaskog (Sweden's state-owned forest company) 300 000 SEK, while the local government plus some other organizations paid 317 000 SEK to 14 private forest owners. For this money, the forest company + forest owners were to perform silvicultural activities that were to bind an extra 58 300 tonnes of CO" over the following 20 years (ref, In Swedish: http://www.overtornea.se/Global/Dokument/N%c3%a4ringsliv/ABCD/SLUTRAPPORT_ABCD_slutlig.pdf. )

Today, the project is called Forestry Carbon Credits

http://www.forestrycarboncredits.se/forestry-carbon-credits/

Please find the link attached.

http://www.redd-monitor.org/2014/07/01/putting-a-price-on-forest-carbon-how-much-will-the-world-banks-carbon-fund-pay-for-redd-carbon-credits/