Natural climate solutions can help stabilize warming

Source: National Academy of Sciences

Significance

Most nations recently agreed to hold global average temperature rise to well below 2 °C. We examine how much climate mitigation nature can contribute to this goal with a comprehensive analysis of “natural climate solutions” (NCS): 20 conservation, restoration, and/or improved land management actions that increase carbon storage and/or avoid greenhouse gas emissions across global forests, wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural lands. We show that NCS can provide over one-third of the cost-effective climate mitigation needed between now and 2030 to stabilize warming to below 2 °C. Alongside aggressive fossil fuel emissions reductions, NCS offer a powerful set of options for nations to deliver on the Paris Climate Agreement while improving soil productivity, cleaning our air and water, and maintaining biodiversity.

I've maintained this in dozens of threads, and I've had people call me a climate denier for saying as much. I authored a thread that outlined this a few years ago based on the top climate scientists open hearings on climate change before the senate.

Working on re-greening, especially forest conservation, reducing sprawl, etc., will go A LOT farther than cutting co2. Work on them together sure, but we can work on the NCS portion of it NOW, it's a better use of funds and FAR less controversial.

Edit: Format

a reply to: raymundoko

Nearly every country agreed to the overall accord laying out a framework for countries to adopt clean energy and phase out fossil fuels. Each country also submitted a climate-action plan laying out how it would achieve these goals.

I think you have a great idea and if they can't come up with effective climate-action plans, then we have to look at all thinking-outside-the-box options, or vote in the right people that can see the big picture and a clean and healthy future for generations to come.



Red indicated Paris Climate Agreement not signed/accepted.

The earth"s climate has been chainging since the beginning of its existence.
Earth flourished when co2 levels were much higher than today.
There may be man made contributions but not as much as many want you to believe, we have been here for a blink of an eye to be able to make any kind of real assessment.
Not even mentioning that all of the planet's are going through some kind of change at the same time , are we causing that too?
Maybe our system is moving through some kind of cosmic hot spot that we don't know about , that could be as good as any of the other theories out there.
Last note , the climate is not even close to all those computer modles that said we should have been doomed by now.

a reply to: raymundoko

I am in agreement with all those initiatives. The world's climate is particularly threatened by deforestation in the rain forests of Brazil. Frankly, I'd like to see the Amazon rain forests transferred to the UN as the government body administering the Amazon area; Brazil is just way too corrupt to make any meaningful changes.

Another VERY simple help would be to promote and enforce "Sustainable Tourism"! We have a huge problem with tourism being far too cheap and causing far more polution than it did just 10 years ago. Thousands more flights across the US as well as to the Far East and Europe. The situation got so bad in Europe this summer that in some countries, the "residents" went on strikes and demonstrations demanding their governments limit the number of Tourist visas granted each year. We actually have that problem in my area and the local government is looking for ways to reduce the traffic, vehicle and foot traffic alike.

Agenda 2020 addresses this issue:
sustainabledevelopment.un.org...

33. We recognise that social and economic development depends on the sustainable management of our planet’s natural resources. We are therefore determined to conserve and sustainably use oceans and seas, freshwater resources, as well as forests, mountains and drylands and to protect biodiversity, ecosystems and wildlife. We are also determined to promote sustainable tourism, tackle water scarcity and water pollution, to strengthen cooperation on desertification, dust storms, land degradation and drought and to promote resilience and disaster risk reduction. In this regard, we look forward to COP13 of the Convention on Biological Diversity to be held in Mexico in 2016.

Thanks

a reply to: raymundoko

www.smithsonianmag.com...

This was something circulating a bit back on facebook. It's a way to bring back some of the Co2 eating plants where deforestation has removed them before. In only 20 years, they were able to go from barren wasteland to lush tropical plants and animals. And it was done on the cheap.

Working on re-greening, especially forest conservation, reducing sprawl, etc., will go A LOT farther than cutting co2.

That isn't exactly what that article says.

Natural climate solutions can provide 37% of cost-effective CO2 mitigation needed through 2030 for a >66% chance of holding warming to below 2 °C.

www.pnas.org...


That means that NCS can provide 37% of the progress needed toward the goal providing better chances of keeping warming below 2º. The rest has to come from reduction of CO2 emissions. Both need to be done, but this study shows that NCS may be up to 30% more effective than previously thought, all else being equal.

Regreening the planet through conservation, restoration, and improved land management is a necessary step for our transition to a carbon neutral global economy and a stable climate.

a reply to: Phage

Allow me to rephrase as I thought the context was plain.

My statement:

Work on them together sure, but we can work on the NCS portion of it NOW, it's a better use of funds and FAR less controversial.

Intended to show that I meant the idea of doing tangible cleanup and conservation will go a lot farther with people from a support perspective. Sticking to the guns of "We are passing laws to make you get rid of your gas car" (see Cali) are NOT popular and actually counter productive to progress. The biggest support for such a law come from city centers and they are unwanted out of those areas. The biggest hangup is the range of electric vehicles at this time, but Cali is hedging their bets that the range will improve. Now imagine if the money cali was pouring into that went into water conservation...which one do you think the people would be more on board with?

a reply to: raymundoko

I don't see what encouraging the use of electric vehicles has to do with water conservation or what water conservation has to do with slowing warming.

Without the reduction of CO2 emissions, NCS is moot as far as warming goes.

a reply to: Phage

Then you are disconnected from the common person, you know, the people who have to be on board for this to work? The angle at which those in power are coming at the common man needs to be changed. The current green initiatives are not supported by the USA, but ones geared towards NCS probably would be. People would rather their tax dollars be spent on natural climate solutions than having their gas cars taken away, or a wind farm expanded. (I am not suggesting either are bad things, but surely you accept that the majority of American's could give two squats about either).

I only used water conservation as an example because it's something near to a SoCalis heart. While not directly related to NCS', natural solutions would increase the water quality as outlined in the paper. I am suggesting you need tangible results with something people can get behind.

Edit: Where did I suggest we shouldn't be reducing emissions?

Work on them together

^ My exact quote.

a reply to: raymundoko

The current green initiatives are not supported by the USA, but ones geared towards NCS probably would be.

Do you think someone in New York would consider greening of South America to be a tangible result? I would posit that the average American is no more likely to be in favor of changing their lifestyle toward NCS than they are toward reduction of CO2 emissions.

A large portion (42%) of our maximum reforestation mitigation potential depends on reduced need for pasture accomplished via increased efficiency of beef production and/or dietary shifts to reduce beef consumption. On the other hand, only a ∼4% reduction in global grazing lands is needed to achieve reforestation mitigation levels, and reduced beef consumption can have large health benefits.

www.pnas.org...

Doing enough about the problem is going to require a large shift in thinking. By a majority of people.

However, it also indicates that public opinion on climate change is very sensitive to changes in the Republican and Democratic party platforms and politicians’ talking points. This suggests that engaging Republican leaders in the issue will be important not just to the passage of climate legislation, but to shifting public opinion as well.

climatecommunication.yale.edu...

a reply to: InTheLight Paris climate Agreement called for the US to transfer 3 trillion dollars to China and India. Nothing but a redistribution of wealth scheme- you send us cash and we will fix the climate for you.(also have bridges for sale) Humans thrive when the suns output increases -,

originally posted by: PsychicCroMag

Paris climate Agreement called for the US to transfer 3 trillion dollars to China and India.

False.

a reply to: raymundoko

"Most nations recently agreed to hold global average temperature rise to well below 2 °C."

Isn't that like saying "Most nations recently agreed that the speed of light in a vacuum will remain steady at 299,792,458 meters/sec"?

Is this a binding agreement?

a reply to: MteWamp

Isn't that like saying "Most nations recently agreed that the speed of light in a vacuum will remain steady at 299,792,458 meters/sec"?

Is this a binding agreement?

No.

No.