Data & Impact
The evidence behind the work.
Riseline is built on published science, independent measurement, and full transparency. Here's what the data shows — and where it comes from.
Open pile burning doesn't just release CO₂ — it produces methane, nitrogen oxides, and PM2.5 at rates far exceeding controlled flame-cap pyrolysis. The same biomass that could store carbon for centuries instead releases it in an afternoon.
Pile burning vs. flame-cap kilns — per metric ton of dry biomass.
Source: USFS RMRS-GTR-439, Table 9.
CO₂e calculated using GWP100 factors.
Methane carries 27× the warming potential of CO₂ over 100 years. Open pile burning produces it at meaningful rates — meaning the true climate cost is substantially higher than CO₂ figures alone suggest.
NOx compounds the problem through a different pathway: it doesn't warm the climate directly, but degrades air quality in the communities closest to burn operations — the same rural and tribal communities that already bear disproportionate smoke exposure during wildfire season.
Emissions co-benefits are documented and reported alongside carbon removal metrics, but never combined into the net removal figure used for credit issuance.
| Metric | Value | Registry threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Avg. organic carbon (Corg %) | 82.7% | >70% premium grade |
| Standard deviation | 2.6% | — |
| Average H:Corg ratio | 0.31 | <0.7 max (stability) |
| Lab method | Dry Combustion, ASTM D-4373 | |
| Source | CO₂e (tonnes) |
|---|---|
| Crew travel / site access | 0.009 |
| Water tender transport | 0.062 |
| Trailer / equipment transport | 0.026 |
| Chainsaw operation | 0.047 |
| Excavator — material handling | 0.104 |
| Drip torch ignition | 0.010 |
| Total operational emissions | 0.259 |
Assumes 30-mile round-trip transport. Source: Riseline LCA (2025), US EPA GHG Inventory Factors, GREET (2024).
Even the most conservative production scenario delivers more than ten times the carbon removed for every unit of carbon emitted in operations.
Revenue that funds more stewardship.
Carbon credit revenue is not a one-time benefit. When revenue flows back to producers, it funds equipment, labor, and continued participation — so the transition from pile burning doesn't have to come out of pocket.
This creates a self-reinforcing loop: more production generates more revenue, which funds more production, which advances the goal of making pile burning the exception rather than the norm.
Key references.
- 01Wilson et al. (2024). Mobile biochar production by flame carbonization: Reducing wildfire risk and improving forest resilience. USFS RMRS-GTR-439.
- 02Elias et al. (2024). Market analysis of coupled biochar and carbon credit production from wildfire fuel reduction projects in the western USA. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining.
- 03Reisen et al. (2020). Smoke emissions from prescribed burning of forest residues in the Pacific Northwest. J. Air & Waste Mgmt. Assoc.
- 04Lehmann et al. (2025). Biochar in the carbon cycle. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment.
- 05Riseline Foundation (2025). Life Cycle Assessment and Techno-Economic Analysis of distributed biochar production systems in the Mountain West. Available on request.