Creating Strategic Reserves to Protect Forest Carbon and Reduce Biodiversity Losses in the United States

Beverly E. Law, William R. Moomaw, Tara W. Hudiburg, William H. Schlesinger, John D. Sterman and George M. Woodwell
Additional contact information
Beverly E. Law: Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA
William R. Moomaw: The Fletcher School and Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, USA
Tara W. Hudiburg: Department of Forest, Rangeland, and Fire Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA
William H. Schlesinger: Cary Institute of Ecosystems Studies, Millbrook, NY 12545, USA
John D. Sterman: MIT Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
George M. Woodwell: Woodwell Climate Research Center, Falmouth, MA 02540, USA

Land, 2022, vol. 11, issue 5, 1-15

Abstract: This paper provides a review and comparison of strategies to increase forest carbon, and reduce species losses for climate change mitigation and adaptation in the United States. It compares forest management strategies and actions that are taking place or being proposed to reduce wildfire risk and to increase carbon storage with recent research findings. International agreements state that safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystems is fundamental to climate resilience with respect to climate change impacts on them, and their roles in adaptation and mitigation. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on impacts, mitigation, and adaptation found, and member countries agreed, that maintaining the resilience of biodiversity and ecosystem services at a global scale is “fundamental” for climate mitigation and adaptation, and requires “effective and equitable conservation of approximately 30 to 50% of Earth’s land, freshwater and ocean areas, including current near-natural ecosystems.” Our key message is that many of the current and proposed forest management actions in the United States are not consistent with climate goals, and that preserving 30 to 50% of lands for their carbon, biodiversity and water is feasible, effective, and necessary for achieving them.

Keywords: carbon dioxide; biodiversity; preservation targets; climate mitigation; climate adaptation; deforestation proforestation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q15 Q2 Q24 Q28 Q5 R14 R52 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/5/721/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/5/721/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:5:p:721-:d:812949

Access Statistics for this article

Land is currently edited by Ms. Carol Ma

More articles in Land from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().