Figure 1: Reforestation Project in Panama (CO2OL, 2020)
Forests, swamps, sea beds, coral reefs. All natural systems that have been sequestering and storing carbon for years. These sinks are the reason why atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has only increased by half the rate at which it’s being released anthropogenically. This could be a solution to climate change that has always been right in front of our eyes, called natural climate solutions (NCS).
It has been studied that NCS could help meet the Paris Agreement emission goals of keeping temperatures below 2 °C, by around 30%. However, NCS ‘’only attracts 2% - 3% of funds globally’’. So why is this solution that is literally all around us being ignored? Lack of awareness?
‘’It has been studied that NCS could help meet the Paris Agreement emission goals of keeping temperatures below 2 °C, by around 30%. However, NCS ‘’only attracts 2% - 3% of funds globally’’
NCS are a great way to reduce emissions as they are cost-effective, sustainable and can increase economic growth by creating a greener economy. It could ‘’cost less than $10 USD per ton of CO2eq stored’’, which is said to be competitive in the carbon market as the mitigation potential of bioengineering tactics are over $1,000 USD.
Other than cost-effectiveness, restoring natural ecosystems such as cacao forests in Brazil can create opportunities to increase soil fertility and provide jobs for families in the region. NCS can also enhance the environment through biodiversity increase, and help with safety measures such as flood management.
Figure 2 below outlines the additional mitigation potential of 20 natural pathways such as coastal reforestation. Showing that with conservation, management and restoration efforts, NCS can provide excess potential for emission reduction.
Figure 2: Additional 23.8 petagram of CO2 mitigation potential of 20 natural pathways (Griscom et al, 2017)
Although there are many benefits to NCS, two main contrasting opinions do exist. Firstly, the feasibility of implementing cost-effective NCS varies between countries as seen below in figure 3. This becomes a problem as most opportunities for NCS implementation are in tropical countries with low funding for NCS. Secondly, climate change is putting carbon sinks at risk, as an increase in droughts and fires is harming the carbon sink potential and could reduce the carbon storage effectiveness for the future. This makes me question whether the data presented has included carbon sink weakening?
Figure 3: Percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) required for the implementation of NCS in potential countries, presenting differences between countries percentages, such as 47% of Liberia’s GDP to 10% of Uganda’s (Griscom et al, 2020).
Although further scientific evidence is still needed, studies have concluded that NCS would decrease emissions significantly and help reach targets set. Still, could NCS steer us away from focusing on reducing our emissions in the first place? We have seen leaders of countries use planting millions of trees as their only initiative in the fight against climate change, when NCS should only be ‘’one peice of the puzzle’’.
Nevertheless, NCS is a weapon for climate change right on our doorstep, and as Greta Thunberg said, ‘’we need to protect, restore and fund’’, and NCS could be part of the solution to a carbon-neutral planet.
Thanks for reading!
Kommentare