In response to climate change, land is key: Agriculture, forestry and other land uses account for about a quarter of global greenhouse-gas emissions, but adopting sustainable land management strategies could provide more than one-third of the near-term emission reductions needed to keep global warming well below the target of 2°C above pre-industrial levels set by the Paris climate agreement.
Conservation organizations like mine have long been working to balance the interaction between people and nature, but only recently have we fully grasped just how important land-use management is to addressing climate change.
With the development of remote sensing, artificial intelligence and biogeochemical modeling, we can better forecast outcomes, and develop strategies to manage and minimize adverse consequences.
Some of the most promising ways to mitigate climate change are what we call “natural climate solutions”: the conservation, restoration and improved management of land to increase carbon storage or avoid greenhouse-gas emissions in landscapes worldwide.
The full potential of these solutions is detailed in a new study produced by my organization, the US Nature Conservancy, and 15 other leading institutions.
Among the most important natural climate solutions is protecting “frontier forests” — pristine woodlands that serve as natural carbon sinks. Intact tropical and northern forests, as well as savannas and coastal ecosystems, store huge amounts of carbon accumulated over centuries. When these areas are disturbed, carbon is released.
Preservation of frontier habitats also helps regulate water flows, reduces the risk of flooding and maintains biodiversity.
Reforestation is another important natural solution. Globally, an estimated 2 billion hectares of land has been deforested or degraded. Because trees are the best carbon capture-and-storage technology the world has, reversing these numbers would bring a significant reduction in global carbon levels.
We estimate that the world could capture 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide annually — equivalent to taking more than 600 million cars off the roads — simply by planting more trees.
A third category of natural solution is agricultural reform. From field to fork, the food sector is a major contributor to climate change through direct and indirect emissions, and by its often-negative effects on soil health and deforestation.
Recognizing these risks, 23 multinational corporations — including Nestle, McDonald’s, Tesco and Unilever — recently signed a commitment to halt deforestation in Brazil’s Cerrado savanna.
The region, which covers a quarter of the country, has come under growing pressure from production of beef, soy and other commodities, together with the associated infrastructure.
As the Cerrado pledge demonstrates, when governments and businesses come together to address land-use challenges, the impact is potent. Natural climate solutions have the potential to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 11.3 billion tonnes a year — equal to a complete halt in burning fossil fuels, our study showed.
One recent study calculated that if Brazil reached zero deforestation by 2030, it would add 0.6 percent of GDP, or about US$15 billion, to its economy.
Communities also reap secondary benefits — such as rural regeneration, improved food and water security, and coastal resilience — when natural climate solutions are implemented.
Yet, despite the data supporting better land-use decisionmaking, something is not adding up. Last year, the world witnessed a dramatic 51 percent increase in forest loss, equivalent to an area about the size of New Zealand. We need to buck this trend now and help the world realize that land-use planning is not simply a conservation story.
Some countries are moving in the right direction. The Indian government, for example, has set aside US$6 billion for states to invest in forest restoration. In Indonesia, the government has created a dedicated agency to protect and restore peatlands, bogs and swamp-like ecosystems that have immense carbon dioxide storage capabilities.
However, these are the exceptions. Of the 160 countries that committed to implementing the Paris climate agreement, only 36 have specified land-use management in their emissions-reduction strategies.
Overcoming inertia will not be easy. Forests, farms and coasts vary in size, type and accessibility. Moreover, the lives of hundreds of millions of people are tied to these ecosystems and projects that restore forest cover or improve soil health require focused planning, a massive undertaking for many governments.
One way to get things moving, especially in the agricultural sector, would be to remove or redirect subsidies that encourage excessive consumption of fertilizers, water or energy in food production.
As Indian government officials told their peers during a WTO meeting earlier this year, meaningful agricultural reforms can begin only when rich countries reduce the “disproportionately large” subsidies they give their own farmers.
Supporting innovation and entrepreneurship can also help power change. New processes and technologies in landscape planning, soil analysis, irrigation and even alternative proteins, such as plant-based meats, are making agriculture and land use more sustainable.
Similarly, changes in the construction industry, which is turning to more efficiently produced products like cross-laminated timber, can help reduce carbon pollution.
Finally, financing options for natural climate solutions must be dramatically increased. While payments to conserve forests are starting to flow under the UN’s REDD+ program and the Green Climate Fund has committed US$500 million for forest protection payments, total public investment in sustainable land use remains inadequate.
According to the Climate Policy Initiative, public financing for agriculture, forestry and land-use mitigation attracted only US$3 billion in 2014, compared to US$49 billion for renewable energy generation and US$26 billion for energy efficiency.
At the UN Climate Change Conference that concluded in Bonn, Germany, this month, global leaders reaffirmed that the world cannot respond adequately to rising temperatures if governments continue ignoring how forests, farms and coasts are managed.
Now that there is a firm consensus, governments must act on it.
Justin Adams is global managing director for lands at US NGO the Nature Conservancy.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS