But, if 'forest restoration' really meant allowing natural forests to return, then the aspiration of 350 million hectares of new forests by 2030 (bigger area than the size of India) would largely meet 1.5C goals for negative emissions from forests. Using plantations will not. 2/6
-
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
A new definition of forest restoration is needed that excludes monocultures of tree crops, otherwise the public risk being misled, and worse the advertised carbon benefits are largely absent. 3/6
Prikaži ovu nit -
Plantations are poor at storing carbon as they start in carbon debt as land is initially cleared for planting, then later the trees are harvested + land cleared again. The plantation waste and wood products decompose (paper, chipboard) returning carbon to the atmosphere. 4/6
Prikaži ovu nit -
By contrast natural forests, if protected from fire and other major disturbances keep sequestering carbon for decades, in the tropics reaching levels seen in old-growth forest in about 70 years. 5/6
Prikaži ovu nit -
We also suggest ways to increase carbon stocks within existing restoration schemes. Written/analysed with Charlotte Wheeler,
@EdMitchard, and@kochalex_. A top team! 6/6Prikaži ovu nit -
Such restoration also has other benefits from water management (less flooding, provision of water in the drier periods of the ), and providing more space for biodiversity, and so lessening the coming waves of extinction as the climate rapidly changes. 6/7
Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
It is sad plight of good philosophy with new definition to fulfill own vested interests and agenda.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.