According to a new studyRestoring coastal vegetation may not be the nature-based climate solution it is claimed to be
Researchers from the University of East Anglia (UEA), the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation challenge the view that restoring areas such as mangroves, salt marsh and seagrass is a panacea.
There are seven reasons why carbon accounting for coastal ecosystems is not easy to do.
The variability in carbon burial rates, vulnerability to future climate change, and methane and nitrous oxide are some of the things that are included. The authors warn that extra measures can reduce risks, but would mean higher costs.
Blue carbon habitats should be protected and restored as they have benefits for climate adaptation, coastal protection and food provision.
There are too many uncertainties in the process of removing carbon from the environment. It seems more likely that the climate benefits from blue carbon restoration will be short-lived.
The scope for restoration is limited if you want to remove more carbon. Many of these sites have been built for various purposes.
We believe that every effort should be made to stop the global loss of coastal vegetation. Blue carbon habitats are more than carbon stores, they also provide storm protection, support species and improve water quality.
Over the course of hundreds of years, the organic carbon accumulated and stored beneath mangrove forests, tidal saltmarshes and seagrasses can be found.
Many recent studies and reviews have identified the potential for the coastal blue carbon ecosystems to provide a natural climate solution by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and restoring habitats.
The review focuses on the restoration of coastal vegetation to assess the feasibility of removing carbon from the air.
Businesses and states are using carbon credits to offset their emissions if they know how much CO 2 they will remove from the atmosphere.
The policy problem is more subtle according to the authors. CO 2 removal using coastal blue carbon restoration has questionable cost-effectiveness, either for carbon offsetting or for inclusion in countries' nationally determined contributions, which set out their efforts to reduce emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change.
If we use these ecosystems for carbon offsets in a major way, expecting that they would remove up to 100 gigatons of carbon dioxide over the period, but find they only remove 10 or maybe just one gigaton of CO 2, then climate tipping points
It would be a bonus, assuming other means are used to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Not as a substitute for near-total emission reductions, restoration should also be included. Comprehensive long-term monitoring is needed to verify that the intended climate benefits are being achieved.
Prof. Gattuso said that many important issues relating to the measurement of carbon fluxes and storage have yet to be resolved.
Climate adaptation, coastal protection, food provision and biodiversity preservation all benefit from the restoration of coastal blue carbon. The multiple benefits that such habitats provide at the local level can be used to justify such actions.
More information: Carbon removal using coastal blue carbon ecosystems is uncertain and unreliable, with questionable climatic cost-effectiveness, Frontiers in Climate (2022). www.frontiersin.org/articles/1 … lim.2022.853666/full
All Rights Reserved © 2024
