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 and S. P. Hamburg
Additional contact information
B. Buma: Environmental Defense Fund
D. R. Gordon: Environmental Defense Fund
K. M. Kleisner: Environmental Defense Fund
A. Bartuska: Environmental Defense Fund
A. Bidlack: University of Alaska
R. DeFries: Columbia University
P. Ellis: The Nature Conservancy
P. Friedlingstein: University of Exeter
S. Metzger: National Ecological Observatory Network, Battelle
G. Morgan: Carnegie Mellon University
K. Novick: Indiana University
J. N. Sanchirico: University of California
J. R. Collins: Environmental Defense Fund
A. J. Eagle: Environmental Defense Fund
R. Fujita: Environmental Defense Fund
E. Holst: Environmental Defense Fund
J. M. Lavallee: Environmental Defense Fund
R. N. Lubowski: Environmental Defense Fund
C. Melikov: Environmental Defense Fund
L. A. Moore: Environmental Defense Fund
E. E. Oldfield: Environmental Defense Fund
J. Paltseva: Environmental Defense Fund
A. M. Raffeld: Environmental Defense Fund
N. A. Randazzo: Environmental Defense Fund
C. Schneider: Environmental Defense Fund
N. Uludere Aragon: Environmental Defense Fund
S. P. Hamburg: Environmental Defense Fund

Nature Climate Change, 2024, vol. 14, issue 4, 402-406

Abstract: 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.

Date: 2024
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-024-01960-0 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

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:nat:natcli:v:14:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1038_s41558-024-01960-0

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/nclimate/

DOI: 10.1038/s41558-024-01960-0

Access Statistics for this article

Nature Climate Change is currently edited by Bronwyn Wake

More articles in Nature Climate Change from Nature
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().