Josep “Pep” Canadell, executive director of the Global Carbon Project, says he believes countries large and small need to think twice before pledging to collectively plant billions of trees as a primary emissions-reduction strategy to meet climate action goals. “We have somehow sold reforestation as a kind of easier path [to fighting climate change], and it’s not easy at all,” Canadell told Mongabay. “In my view, it’s not even easier than carbon capture and storage, a technology we’re still developing. That’s because when you bring humans into landscapes and try managing landscapes where people live, all of a sudden, this stuff becomes very complex.” Canadell is the co-author of a new study in Science that found, among other things, that the amount of land deemed suitable for newly planted and restored forests — an area roughly the size of India — quickly shrinks by as much as two-thirds when taking into account adverse impacts on biodiversity, food security and water resources. The study used new modeling tools to create global maps of soil carbon change that show carbon gains and losses, especially in topsoil. Researchers mapped the global carbon sequestration rates after forestation based on existing tree-planting pledges, then compared that with the realistic limits of those pledges. They also sorted through permanent land use changes after deforestation — for agriculture and ranching, for example — and recognized that ever returning those lands to forests was highly unlikely. In real terms, the study found that the potential to store an…This article was originally published on Mongabay

From Conservation news via this RSS feed