Premium
We need both natural and energy solutions to stabilize our climate
Author(s) -
Griscom Bronson W.,
Lomax Guy,
Kroeger Timm,
Fargione Joseph E.,
Adams Justin,
Almond Lucy,
Bossio Deborah,
CookPatton Susan C.,
Ellis Peter W.,
Kennedy Christina M.,
Kiesecker Joseph
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
global change biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 4.146
H-Index - 255
eISSN - 1365-2486
pISSN - 1354-1013
DOI - 10.1111/gcb.14612
Subject(s) - climate change , ecosystem , environmental science , natural (archaeology) , environmental resource management , natural resource economics , energy (signal processing) , term (time) , carbon sink , global warming , environmental protection , business , ecology , geography , economics , physics , archaeology , quantum mechanics , statistics , mathematics , biology
We respond to concerns raised by Baldocchi and Penuelas who question the potential for ecosystems to provide carbon sinks and storage, and conclude that we should focus on decarbonizing our energy systems. While we agree with many of their concerns, we arrive at a different conclusion: we need strong action to advance both clean energy solutions and natural climate solutions (NCS) if we are to stabilize warming well below 2°C. Cost‐effective NCS can deliver 11.3 PgCO 2 e yr ‐1 or ~30% of near‐term climate mitigation needs through protection, improved management, and restoration of ecosystems, as we increase overall ambition.