Expert review of the science underlying nature-based climate solutions
Expert review of the science underlying nature-based climate solutions
复制标题
DOI：
10.1038/s41558-024-01960-0
复制
发表时间：
2024-03
影响因子：
30.7
通讯作者：
B. Buma;D. R. Gordon;K. M. Kleisner;A. Bartuska;A. Bidlack;R. DeFries;P. Ellis;P. Friedlingstein;S. Metzger;G. Morgan;K. Novick;J. N. Sanchirico;J. R. Collins;A. Eagle;R. Fujita;E. Holst;J. Lavallee;R. N. Lubowski;C. Melikov;L. A. Moore;E. E. Oldfield-E.;J. Paltseva;A. M. Raffeld;N. A. Randazzo;C. Schneider;N. Uludere Aragon;S. Hamburg
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Buma;D. R. Gordon;K. M. Kleisner;A. Bartuska;A. Bidlack;R. DeFries;P. Ellis;P. Friedlingstein;S. Metzger;G. Morgan;K. Novick;J. N. Sanchirico;J. R. Collins;A. Eagle;R. Fujita;E. Holst;J. Lavallee;R. N. Lubowski;C. Melikov;L. A. Moore;E. E. Oldfield-E.;J. Paltseva;A. M. Raffeld;N. A. Randazzo;C. Schneider;N. Uludere Aragon;S. Hamburg
要实现《巴黎协定》等国际协定中提出的气候目标，需要可行的基于自然的气候解决方案（NbCS）。许多NbCS途径具有强大的科学基础，可以带来有意义的气候效益，但科学确定性较低的途径破坏了有效的减缓。在这里，我们将广泛的文献综述与专家对43种途径的启发结合起来，发现目前最常用的途径，如热带森林保护，具有坚实的减缓科学基础。然而，专家们建议，一些途径，其中许多具有碳信用资格和市场活动，在其减缓气候变化的功效方面仍然不确定。不确定性的来源包括不完整的温室气体测量和核算。我们建议将重点放在解决这些不确定性上，然后再在量化排放或封存减缓计划中广泛扩大实施这些途径。在适当的情况下，应支持这些途径的共同利益，例如生物多样性和粮食安全。
Viable nature-based climate solutions (NbCS) are needed to achieve climate goals expressed in international agreements like the Paris Accord. Many NbCS pathways have strong scientific foundations and can deliver meaningful climate benefits but effective mitigation is undermined by pathways with less scientific certainty. Here we couple an extensive literature review with an expert elicitation on 43 pathways and find that at present the most used pathways, such as tropical forest conservation, have a solid scientific basis for mitigation. However, the experts suggested that some pathways, many with carbon credit eligibility and market activity, remain uncertain in terms of their climate mitigation efficacy. Sources of uncertainty include incomplete GHG measurement and accounting. We recommend focusing on resolving those uncertainties before broadly scaling implementation of those pathways in quantitative emission or sequestration mitigation plans. If appropriate, those pathways should be supported for their cobenefits, such as biodiversity and food security.