Ouch. “If we plan restoration targets to match future climatic conditions and consider state transitions of currently natural ecosystems due to climate change, the potential for natural climate solutions related to ecosystem restoration is close to zero.”
Please always post source link(s).
But isn‘t the reverse logic then, that if you don’t do the restauration, you‘ll end up with a big minus in C storage capacity instead of a zero? Maybe the conclusion is that we have to restore for our lives even though this effort just gives us a zero.
"(3) carbon sequestration rates (instead of total stocks, which often require > 70 years" ... Sounds a lot like @kevinclimate.bsky.social comments about carbon budget accounting, net zero. Emit today, and assume trees etc will suck carbon back out later. youtu.be/ofwmru1hcYQ?...
More likely negative. In a heating world land managers will struggle to hold onto soil and surface carbon. Ending fossil carbon emissions is the only way. Biodiversity policy isn’t climate policy.
Yup The answer was, is, and will always be: stop fucking burning fossil fuels.
Stop ruining carbon sinks, too. Stop farming animals, also.
Article link (open access): www.nature.com/articles/s41...
8 billion humans,30 billion farm animals,&1 billion pets, using 2.5 Earths of resources per year, burning fossil fuels with consumer economics that believes in unlimited growth&resources on a closed system like Mother Earth left humanity unsustainable with the cupboards bare, & one foot in the grave
Ouch
That one is a bit of a gut punch.
I was using NRCan's latest climate adjusted species distribution maps, and some of the suggested distribution ranges are... shocking. Here's Picea abies (white spruce). It's going into soil where P. abies can't grow.
Correction: it's Picea glauca, not P. abies.
We'll just... uhh.... move the soil... all... Canada's worth Just an engineering implementation detail, not to worry.