[ad_1]
Giladin said this is not something to do: cut down forests and plant new trees so that companies can offset their carbon emissions. She said: “We did give examples in the document that reduced the original rainforest so that you can plant plantations there to offset someone’s emissions from a plane.” “It just doesn’t make sense. Or the community uses them for maintenance. The livelihood of the land has been displaced, and forests have been planted again to gain rapid carbon absorption. This situation is not justified.
Peter Ellis, global director of climate science at The Nature Conservancy, agreed that it would not work for a single tree to offset someone’s flight mileage, and he did not participate in this new paper. However, restoring the ecosystem to its natural state may be better prepared for it to adapt to the climate change we are doing. Ellis said: “More biodiversity ecosystems inject greater resilience to future climate impacts.” “And they provide important common interests that people care about, which will help them continue to invest in maintenance Those natural climate solutions.”
This is essential for reaping benefits from residents who rely on these ecosystems for food and clean water-explaining the direct and local benefits of afforestation, not just the long-term benefits to the global society. Daniela Miteva, an environmental economist at Ohio State University, said: “Unless you really talk about the benefits of water quality, many trees will provide it, reducing malaria or something that locals care about. It’s actually difficult to build a community. .Buy.”
Miteva researches nature-based solutions in northern Uganda and Indonesia. (She is not involved in this new work.) Both countries are struggling to deal with deforestation, but the situation in each place is unique, for example, dependent on historical property rights. For example, the government may provide cash to households in order not to cut certain forests. This is called “payment for ecosystem services.”
Miteva said: “Unless you can really talk about other benefits related to carbon, it is very difficult to accept this idea locally-at least this is my experience.” “There is also the idea that white people go to the south and tell people what to do Do-the whole idea of carbon colonialism.”
Another difficulty is that advocates try to deploy nature-based solutions on a planet with a growing population. The more people living on the earth, the more land we need to feed. Biogeochemist Rich Conant said: “There is such a tension between protecting the natural biodiversity system while maintaining human survival and supporting humans. This is a challenge.” He worked in Colorado State. The university researched solutions based on nature, but did not participate in this new work. “Fortunately, I think that most of our land used for agriculture is used inefficiently. Therefore, I think there is a lot of room for increasing food production on the land.” This may include improving irrigation conditions and reforms. Plant crops to increase yields while using the same amount of land and other strategies.
But it is important to add that people cannot just repair the ecosystem and sit down and let nature do all the work. This is also the case with new technologies such as “direct air capture”. Suck carbon out of the air And lock it underground. This is the moral hazard of climate change: when we should do everything we can to completely reduce greenhouse gases as quickly as possible, we will decentralize the methods of capturing greenhouse gases.
Ellis said: “The impression that people give is’Don’t worry about people, nature will save us.'” “That’s what keeps me awake at night. First of all, we Yes Naturally, we need to cooperate with it. However, if we want to get rid of the human predicament, if we want to pull ourselves and our companions onto the spaceship like human beings, we must step on the pedal and step on the accelerator, and then fire on all the cylinders. “
[ad_2]
Source link
