Expert review of the science underlying nature-based climate solutions
Expert review of the science underlying nature-based climate solutions
Date
2024-03-21
Authors
Buma, Brian
Gordon, Doria R.
Kleisner, Kristin M.
Bartuska, Ann
Bidlack, Allison
DeFries, Ruth
Ellis, Peter W.
Friedlingstein, Pierre
Metzger, Stefan
Morgan, Granger
Novick, Kimberly
Sanchirico, James N.
Collins, James R.
Eagle, Alison J.
Fujita, Rod
Holst, Eric
Lavallee, Jocelyn M.
Lubowski, Ruben N.
Melikov, Cyril
Moore, Lisa A.
Oldfield, Emily E.
Paltseva, Julia
Raffeld, Anna M.
Randazzo, Nina A.
Schneider, Chloe
Aragon, Nazli Uludere
Hamburg, Steven P.
Gordon, Doria R.
Kleisner, Kristin M.
Bartuska, Ann
Bidlack, Allison
DeFries, Ruth
Ellis, Peter W.
Friedlingstein, Pierre
Metzger, Stefan
Morgan, Granger
Novick, Kimberly
Sanchirico, James N.
Collins, James R.
Eagle, Alison J.
Fujita, Rod
Holst, Eric
Lavallee, Jocelyn M.
Lubowski, Ruben N.
Melikov, Cyril
Moore, Lisa A.
Oldfield, Emily E.
Paltseva, Julia
Raffeld, Anna M.
Randazzo, Nina A.
Schneider, Chloe
Aragon, Nazli Uludere
Hamburg, Steven P.
Linked Authors
Person
Person
Person
Person
Person
Alternative Title
Citable URI
As Published
Date Created
Location
DOI
10.1038/s41558-024-01960-0
Related Materials
Replaces
Replaced By
Keywords
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.
Description
© The Author(s), 2024. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Buma, B., Gordon, D., Kleisner, K., Bartuska, A., Bidlack, A., DeFries, R., Ellis, P., Friedlingstein, P., Metzger, S., Morgan, G., Novick, K., Sanchirico, J., Collins, J., Eagle, A., Fujita, R., Holst, E., Lavallee, J., Lubowski, R., Melikov, C., Moore, L.A., Oldfield, E. E., Paltseva, J., Raffeld, A. M., Randazzo, N. A., Schneider, C., Uludere Aragon, N., & Hamburg, S. (2024). Expert review of the science underlying nature-based climate solutions. Nature Climate Change, 14, 402–406, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01960-0.
Embargo Date
Citation
Buma, B., Gordon, D., Kleisner, K., Bartuska, A., Bidlack, A., DeFries, R., Ellis, P., Friedlingstein, P., Metzger, S., Morgan, G., Novick, K., Sanchirico, J., Collins, J., Eagle, A., Fujita, R., Holst, E., Lavallee, J., Lubowski, R., Melikov, C., Moore, L.A., Oldfield, E. E., Paltseva, J., Raffeld, A. M., Randazzo, N. A., Schneider, C., Uludere Aragon, N., & Hamburg, S. (2024). Expert review of the science underlying nature-based climate solutions. Nature Climate Change, 14, 402–406.