Passer à la navigation principale Passer à la recherche Passer au contenu principal

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

Résultats de recherche: Contribution à un journalArticleRevue par des pairs

Résumé

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.

langue originaleAnglais
Pages (de - à)402-406
Nombre de pages5
journalNature Climate Change
Volume14
Numéro de publication4
Les DOIs
étatPublié - 1 avr. 2024
Modification externeOui

SDG des Nations Unies

Ce résultat contribue à ou aux Objectifs de développement durable suivants

  1. SDG 2 - Zéro faim
    SDG 2 Zéro faim
  2. SDG 13 - Action climatique
    SDG 13 Action climatique

Empreinte digitale

Examiner les sujets de recherche de « Expert review of the science underlying nature-based climate solutions ». Ensemble, ils forment une empreinte digitale unique.

Contient cette citation