Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Expert review of the science underlying nature-based climate solutions

  • 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. J. Eagle
  • , R. Fujita
  • , E. Holst
  • , J. M. Lavallee
  • , R. N. Lubowski
  • , C. Melikov
  • , L. A. Moore
  • E. E. Oldfield, J. Paltseva, A. M. Raffeld, N. A. Randazzo, C. Schneider, N. Uludere Aragon, S. P. Hamburg
  • Environmental Defense Fund
  • University of Colorado at Denver
  • University of Florida
  • Resources for the Future
  • University of Alaska Fairbanks
  • Columbia University
  • The Nature Conservancy
  • University of Exeter
  • Université PSL
  • National Ecological Observatory Network
  • University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • AtmoFacts
  • Carnegie Mellon University
  • Indiana University Bloomington
  • University of California, Davis
  • Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
  • Lombard Odier Investment Managers
  • Ecological Carbon Offset Partners LLC
  • ART
  • NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
  • University of Maryland, College Park
  • University of Montana

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)402-406
Number of pages5
JournalNature Climate Change
Volume14
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2024
Externally publishedYes

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 2 - Zero Hunger
    SDG 2 Zero Hunger
  2. SDG 13 - Climate Action
    SDG 13 Climate Action

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Expert review of the science underlying nature-based climate solutions'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this