We need forest-based COP27

In September, a study published in the journal science Told Earth may have already passed five dangerous tipping points Due to humanity 1.1°C of global warming to date.

There is a worldwide emphasis on developing and shifting technologies to support action on climate change. Technology has become a survival strategy for our species, but the degree of techno-determinism present in strategies to reverse climate change is alarming. Technology alone is not ready to tackle the challenge, which requires social reform and a zero-emission strategy.

History favors technological innovation. Norman Borlaug, for example, initiated the Green Revolution, which fed billions of people and increased yields. But we may need a few million climate boreholes to tackle the problems staring at us.

technical optimism

COP26 in Glasgow also promoted technical optimism. There was an observation that each of the technical solutions discussed in COP26 relies on only three resources: electricity (hydroelectric, renewable or non-emission electricity generated by nuclear fission), carbon capture and storage (CCS) or biomass. The aggregate demand for those resources needed for the plans discussed in COP26 may not be met until 2050.

We currently have electricity per capita of 4kWh/day. But COP26 plans require 32 (range 16-48). We currently have 6 kg CCS per person per year, but COP26 plans require 3,600 (range 1,400-5,700). We eat 100 kg of plant-based food per person every year, but an additional 200 kg of crop is needed to produce enough bio-kerosene to fly at today’s levels. There is no chance that these will be supplied close to the levels required for the plans discussed in COP26.

In 2003, Ken Caldera at the Carnegie Institution found that the world would need a nuclear plant clean-energy capacity every day between 2000 and 2050 to avoid catastrophic climate change. In 2018, MIT Technology Review reported that at a given rate, it would take about 400 years for the world to replace the energy system.

Tech-focused mitigation conversations leave topics like forest economies and conservation and forests as the best carbon removal tools on the ideological edge of the climate conversation. Climate action requires the same amount of investment in conservation as we see in shiny new technology transfers.

editorial | Staying on Commitments: On India’s Climate Change Goals

While COP26 contained a climate commitment to end deforestation, the nature of the pledge was unclear. Countries can easily try to achieve their ‘net zero deforestation goals’ through monoculture farming. But it won’t be of much help: Scientist, in a commentary Naturehas stated that naturally protected forests are 40% more effective than planted forests.

Our climate crisis is intertwined with other complex issues. This means that we must push for multifaceted, interconnected climate solutions. The forests shine here too. Nothing exemplifies this more than the intersection of the climate change crisis and the biodiversity crisis. Forests, which are home to 80% of terrestrial wildlife, are at this crossroads.

Forests absorb 7.6 billion metric tons of CO2 in a year. A new study finds that their biophysical aspects tend to cool the Earth by an additional 0.5%. Conserving forests, along with other nature-based solutions, can provide up to 37% reductions in emissions needed to tackle climate change. Dasgupta Review-Independent Review on the Economics of Biodiversity reports that green infrastructure (salt marshes and mangroves) is 2-5 times cheaper than gray infrastructure (breakwaters).

Another study estimated that annual gross carbon emissions from tropical tree cover loss were as high as 4.8 billion tons between 2015 and 2017. It also causes more emissions in its lifetime than 85 million cars each year. In 2019, about 34% of total net anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions came from the energy supply sector, 24% from industry, 22% from agriculture, forestry and other land uses, 15% from transportation and 6% from buildings.

protection of natural sinks

The IPCC Land Report estimates that land acts as a major CO2 sink. There is increasing evidence that a large proportion of the required removals can be achieved by conserving natural sinks, improving biodiversity conservation, and restoring ecosystems. Conserving the Earth’s cyclical processes by protecting terrestrial ecosystems and natural sinks and transforming agricultural practices led by indigenous peoples and local communities is a more equitable and cost-effective way of tackling the climate crisis than is being done right now.

We need to understand that the climate crisis is just a symptom; Our real problem is that human consumption and activity has exceeded our planet’s regenerative capacity. Technology can, at best, help, not propel us on the path to a sustainable, regenerative and just world.